Again using the strange situation as a model, the angry/resistant partner may reflexively move forward and then back as an expression of ambivalence and anger. To the partner this action may feel like pulling and then pushing away. This reflects is to be understood and accepted and even expected especially during times when the other partner moves forward or gestures in a positive manner. This reflex is due to an implicit memory from childhood of the primary attachment figure having been unreliably present and not present. The anger and resistance is experienced upon mothers return following abandonment. It is as if the child is saying, "wait a second! Where were you when I needed you? I'm not going to fall for that again!" And so the movement is toward due to an immediate feeling of relief at the mothers return and the subsequent moving away or resistance due to the realization of the mother's unreliability. This action in adulthood must be countered following the reflex to move away or push away. As with all these interventions it must be said that there is a corollary action the partner must provide in order to help their partner repair the original injury.
In a strange situation, the avoiding child is seen as moving toward objects and away from the primary attachment figure. This child no longer looks to their caregiver for reunion comfort. These children are not distressed when the parent leaves the room and they are not relieved or excited with the parents return. In contrast to the angry resistant child, the avoidant is happier alone with his or her toys. In adult partnership the avoidant strategy has obvious ramifications for contact maintenance and proximity seeking. In other words, the avoidant partner is unable to maintain close physical proximity for long durations of time. These partners rely on autoregulation for comfort and stimulation and do not look for their partner when that partner is missing. In fact, it could be said that the avoidant partner does not miss his or her partner when that partner is away. There are several theories that might explain this lack of "missing" the author. One idea is that the avoidant partner operates under similar assumptions as does the Mahlerian practicing child who is able to play on distressed at distances from other due to a fantasy of mother's omni-presence. In this case mother is not missed because Mother never leaves. This theory also helps explain why the avoidant partner feels so trapped in easily intruded upon and easily intruded upon. The fantasy of omnipresence contains anxiety over distance and separation while at the same time threatening the child's autonomy.
The avoidant partners reflects is to move back or turn away. Because of the issues around intrusion, they cannot solve their problem with their partners approach. Rather the solution for the avoidant partner is to initiate as many moves toward the partner as possible and as frequently as possible. This move is counterintuitive for the avoidant partner to be sure however it is the only way out of their dilemma. By this time in therapy the partner is well aware of their attachment strategy and its restrictions. If the avoidant partner is married to an angry/resistant partner, small changes must be made on both ends in order to allow the avoidant the space to initiate. The move forward for the avoidant counters the mistaken belief that he or she does not depend on anyone and does not need anyone.
This exercise is based on the strange situation. The couple is instructed to greet each other at home in a very specific way. Whoever is coming home from the outside must announce that they are home. The partner who is home already must drop everything he or she is doing and go to the arriving partner. Partners are to embrace and hold the embrace until they feel the other completely relax. So partner A does not let go of partner B until he or she feels partner B relax and vice versa. Once both partners feel one another relax they can separate and go about their business at home. Nobody can interfere with this reunion -- not children, not phone calls, not anything.
The purpose of this exercise is to help the couple formally transition between outside and inside, between not home and home. It establishes a connection and it also reinforces the notion that the couple itself is home.
This intervention can be applied when the couple is in conflict. The tendency for couples in conflict is to drop eye contact. Normally people will gaze avert in order to down regulate arousal. However gaze aversion also becomes a problem during conflict management if it continues for long periods. Eye contact provides an enormous datastream of social-emotional information that gets lost if eye contact is dropped. In other words, when a partner is no longer looking at his or her partner's face, that person may become less able to respond in a more contingent fashion. The gaze averted partner is looking at something but exactly what is that something? The real object or an internal object representation of some kind? During interactive regulation and conflict management it is important that both partners be present and attentive to real-time social and emotional cues. Though it may feel counterintuitive to make eye contact during distressful interaction, the therapist must instruct partners to maintain eye contact for the reasons stated above.
There may be another bonus in having partners maintain eye contact during conflict. It can become very difficult to react automatically because the maintenance of eye contact demands some amount of attention and concentration. This demand can serve to slow down the pace of dialogue and force partners to think more carefully.