Image: grinvalds - Getty Images
Woman with happy mask
Among the various crazy-making interpersonal conundrums people encounter, one proves particularly potent. We shrinks call it an approach-avoidance conflict. That's what Sara found herself facing in her love life, and as is often the case in these scenarios, it was driving her bonkers.
“Our relationship is giving me emotional whiplash,” she told me.
The concept of an approach-avoidance conflict had its scientific beginnings in behavioral experiments with — you guessed it—rats. Researchers would place these critters in a cage with a levered bar that, if pressed, released a tasty morsel of food. Rats are smart, so they quickly figured out the rules of the game. After they got used to this simplistic routine, the evil scientists changed things up. Subsequently, when a rat pressed the food bar, it might get something yummy or it might receive an electric shock. What’s worse, these two potential consequences occurred on a random basis, so the rodent could never predict what it was going to get when pressing the bar.
Need and Uncertainty
These creatures faced existential uncertainty. They needed to eat, but they also needed to protect themselves from harm. Which would it be? So, the poor things remained suspended between what they had to have (sustenance) and what they hoped to avoid (pain). The usual response? Most often, they ended up quivering balls of fur in a corner of the cage, paralyzed by uncertainty, anxiety and helplessness.
In the human realm, an approach-avoidance conflict is a bit like having your mind on a medieval torture rack that slowly rips apart the working parts of, in this instance, your sanity. It suspends the psyche between two equally powerful experiences that are pulling in opposite directions.
Stay on top of the news of the day
Subscribe to our free, daily e-newsletter to get Milwaukee's latest local news, restaurants, music, arts and entertainment and events delivered right to your inbox every weekday, plus a bonus Week in Review email on Saturdays.
While people in such conundrums manifest different responses than rats, Sara was exhibiting her own version of a quivering ball of fur. When engaging with her boyfriend, sometimes she received a very positive, affectionate interaction but, on other occasions and without warning, she suffered his version of an electric shock—anger, indifference and insensitivity. This situation was exacerbated by her inability to predict which would be forthcoming. So, increasingly, she became hyper-vigilant, knowing her boyfriend could turn nasty without warning.
Who Will it Be?
“It’s like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and you never know which one is going to show up,” she explained.
Mentally healthy people (and Sara was one) don’t judge their loved ones solely based on that person's best or worst moments. Sara acknowledged the full range of her beau’s attributes and failings, providing a composite view that, while fair, actually worked against her.
“When he hurts my feelings, I still remember the side of him that is caring, and that keeps me coming back. Trouble is, I never know what I'll get when I do,” she explained.
In a relationship, even a partner who encourages avoidance alone is preferable to one that creates both scenarios (approach and avoid) operating randomly. Approach-avoidance creates uncertainty and emotional danger. If one's connection is mostly “approach” in nature, then there is emotional safety (being accepted for who you are), which is what true intimacy requires. Obviously, if “avoidance” is the primary mode of interaction, that undermines closeness, but at least it constitutes a consistent, even if unwelcome stance. If Sara experienced just one or the other but not both, she would be spared the angst over what would happen each time she interacted with her boyfriend. That would make the “Should I stay or go?” dilemma far easier to resolve.
The definitive fix for those who find themselves in an approach-avoidance relationship is to get out, and, in some instances, one's mental health depends on doing just that. But when the cost-benefit analysis suggests the good stuff and the “shocks” are more or less equally distributed, that's far easier said than done. For her part, Sara determined that the emotional whiplash wasn’t worth it. Avoidance won the day. Referencing the research into approach-avoidance conflicts, she concluded, “This critter is leaving the cage.”
Philip Chard is a psychotherapist and author with a focus on lasting behavior change, emotional healing and adaptation to health challenges. For more, visit philipchard.com.
