There are two main kinds of conflict—the bread-and-butter type and the intimacy-centered type. In chapter 8, we witnessed what happens when people with diametrically opposed intimacy needs get together and, despite their best intentions, struggle to find common ground. We saw how these conflicting needs can spill over into every area of life and often result in one party making all the concessions. Bread-and-butter conflicts are typically devoid of intimacy struggles.

But what looks good on paper—taking another’s needs and preferences into account, even when they oppose our own—isn’t always easy to carry out. Interestingly, people with a secure attachment style instinctively know how to do this. They’re able to lower the heat during an argument and take the edge off an escalating conflict. If you’ve ever found yourself caught off guard during a disagreement by the other person’s genuine interest in your concerns and willingness to consider them, you were probably disagreeing with someone secure. But is a natural inclination helpful for those of us who haven’t been bestowed with these skills?

Actually, when we take a closer look, we can see that there’s a method behind the secures’ instinctive behavior. It’s less about their magical powers than about their helpful practices. Not only have we identified five specific actions that people with a secure attachment style use to diffuse and resolve conflict, but we believe that they can be learned. Adult attachment theory has proven time and again that when it comes to attachment style, we’re malleable. And it’s never too late to learn new relationship skills.

Frank loves the outdoors and the summer home in the Berkshires that he inherited from his parents. Sandy hates it. She dreads the hassle of packing and unpacking and the traffic they always get stuck in on the long drives. To her, the whole experience is more trouble than it’s worth. It took a few bitter fights before they realized that each partner insisting on his or her wishes and ignoring the other’s ended up making both of them unhappy. They found a system that worked despite their inherent differences in the way they wish to spend their downtime. Today, when Sandy senses that city life is becoming too much for Frank, she takes one for the team and they venture to the woods. Similarly, when Frank sees that Sandy is feeling overwhelmed by traveling, they stay in the city—sometimes for long stretches of time. On those occasions he makes sure to schedule outdoor activities in order to keep his sanity. It’s not a perfect system, and sometimes one of them gets upset and complains, but they’re able to work it out, each accommodating the other as best they can.

Frank and Sandy both understand the fundamental premise of a good relationship—that the other person’s well-being is as important as your own. Ignoring your partner’s needs will have a direct impact on your own emotions, satisfaction level, and even physical health. We often view conflict as a zero-sum game: either you get your way or I get mine. But attachment theory shows us that our happiness is actually dependent on our mate’s and vice versa. The two are inextricable. Despite their divergent wishes, Frank and Sandy engage in a kind of back and forth synchronicity that gives them both the satisfaction of knowing that the other person is attuned to their needs. From an attachment perspective, this is a hugely rewarding experience.

“On one of our first dates,” Kelly recalls, “George and I stopped by his apartment, but he didn’t invite me up. He said it was being renovated and he felt uncomfortable having me see it that way. Being a suspicious person, his excuse didn’t make sense to me. I leapt to conclusions, conjuring up images of an extra toothbrush in his bathroom and another woman’s underwear on his bed. He noticed my mood change and asked me what was going on. I told him that it was obvious he had something to hide, and our date ended on a sour note.

“The next evening, however, George invited me over. He buzzed me in, and as I was going up the stairs, he opened his door and with a sweep of his arm gestured me in, saying ‘Welcome, welcome, welcome!’ The place was indeed a mess, but we both laughed about it and all the bad feelings were gone.”

George was able to turn the situation around because he has a secure attachment style. Although his responses might seem natural, if we look a bit more closely, we can see that they wouldn’t come so naturally to everybody. George remained very focused on the issue at hand. While Kelly, who has an anxious attachment style, veered off the topic, making personal accusations, George was able to see through her protest behavior and home in on what was really bothering her. His behavior fits well with research findings. Garry Creasey, the head of the attachment lab at Illinois State University, who has a particular interest in conflict management from an attachment perspective, together with Matthew Hesson-McInnis, also from the department of psychology at Illinois State University, found that secures are better able to understand their partner’s perspective and maintain focus on the problem. By responding to Kelly’s fears, and addressing them quickly and effectively, George prevented further conflict. His ability to build a secure connection benefits them both: Kelly learns that she has a partner who feels responsible for her well-being, and George discovers that he is accepted as he is, clutter and all. When there’s a willingness to resolve a specific problem, people feel that they’re being heard and it brings both parties closer together.

But secure people aren’t always able to resolve arguments in such an elegant manner. They too can lose their temper and overlook their partner’s needs.

Though both Terry and Alex, who are in their mid-fifties, have a secure attachment style, they’ve engaged in an ongoing fighting ritual for more than thirty years. Terry will send Alex to the supermarket with a very detailed shopping list—crushed tomatoes, whole wheat bread, and a package of Barilla pasta. A couple of hours later Alex will come back with similar, but not the exact, products. He’ll have purchased a different brand of pasta and tomato paste instead of crushed tomatoes. Terry gets upset, declares the items unusable, and dramatically proclaims that she’ll have to go to the store herself. Alex responds by losing his temper, grabs the groceries, and storms out of the house. He returns with the correct items, but the day has been ruined by their confrontation.

Even though Terry and Alex care deeply about each other, they’ve never really taken a good look at their fighting ritual. If they had, they would have realized the value in finding a different solution. Alex is a space cadet; he just doesn’t seem to be able to pay attention to details, so why put both of them through a challenge he can’t meet? For Terry these small details are crucial—she couldn’t overlook them even if she tried. This doesn’t mean Terry should have to take the entire burden on herself, however. A creative solution is in order. Terry can call Alex at the supermarket to make sure he’s putting the correct items in the basket, she can place the order online and have him pick it up, or she can go herself while he helps with chores at home. They have to find a path of less resistance and go with it.

One thing is notable, though. Despite their fussing, they do manage to steer clear of a number of destructive pitfalls. Most important, they don’t let the conflict spill over into other areas or get out of control. They avoid making disparaging comments or hurtful generalizations about each other. They keep the argument restricted to the topic at hand and don’t blow things out of proportion. Even though Terry angrily threatens to go to the store herself—and on occasion does—she doesn’t expand it to “I’ve had it with you” or “You know what? You can cook your own dinner, I’m leaving!”

In all three conflicts above, whether resolved peacefully or explosively, the secure partner (or partners) remains “present” both physically and emotionally. George is instinctively able to contain Kelly’s personal attack and, taking responsibility for her hurt feelings, turns the situation around while remaining engaged. Had he been avoidant or even anxious, he might have responded to Kelly’s silent treatment by withdrawing and creating even more distance and hostility.

Frank and Sandy could also each have decided to dig in their heels. Sandy could have said, “You know what? Do whatever you want, but I’m spending my weekends in the city!” and refused to discuss things further. Frank could have done the same. Locked in a stalemate, they’d have spent many unhappy weekends missing each other. Only because they’re both willing to stay and deal with the issue do they find a resolution that they can both live with and in the process learn to be more in tune to each other’s needs.

Because Tom’s job is so hectic, Rebecca barely gets to see him during the week, and she often feels very alone. On Saturdays, she usually visits her sister, who lives close by. Tom doesn’t typically join her for these visits; he likes to stay home and veg out on the couch. Generally, this is fine with her, but this Saturday, after a particularly long week at work, when Tom was even more absent than usual, she becomes very insistent that he come along. Tom, exhausted from his work week, is adamant about not wanting to go. Rebecca won’t take no for an answer and pushes the issue. He reacts by clamming up even more. Finally she tells him he’s being selfish, he ends up in front of the TV not talking, and she ends up going alone.

Rebecca acts in a way that is very typical of people with an anxious attachment style. Because her husband’s being at work more than usual during the week has activated her attachment system, she feels a need to reconnect. What she needs most is to feel that Tom is available to her—that he cares and wants to be with her. However, instead of saying this directly and explaining what is bothering her, she uses protest behavior—accusing him of being selfish and insisting that he come to her sister’s. Tom is bewildered that Rebecca is suddenly behaving so irrationally—after all, they have an understanding that he doesn’t have to go to her sister’s.

How different Tom’s reaction might be if Rebecca simply said, “I know you hate going to my sister’s, but it would mean the world to me if you could come this one time. I’ve hardly seen you all week and I don’t want to miss out on any more time together.”

Effectively expressing your emotional needs is even better than the other person magically reading your mind. It means that you’re an active agent who can be heard, and it opens the door for a much richer emotional dialogue. Even if Tom still chose not to join Rebecca, if he understood how she felt, he could find another way to reassure her: “If you really want me to go, I will. But I also want to relax. How about we go out tonight—just the two of us? Would that make you feel better? You don’t really want me at your sister’s anyway, do you? I will get in the way of the two of you catching up.”

For the anxious, conflict can trigger very basic concerns about their partner’s responsiveness to their needs and about rejection or abandonment. When a dispute arises, they experience many negative thoughts and react by using protest behavior, aimed at getting their partner’s attention. They may make strong accusations, cry, or give their partner the silent treatment. Fearful that their partner is likely to be inattentive to their needs, they feel they need to really leave their mark in order to be heard. Their response, though often dramatic, is usually ineffective.

People with an avoidant attachment style are also threatened by the possibility that their mate won’t really be there for them when needed. However, to deal with these beliefs, they adopt the opposite approach—they suppress their need for intimacy by shutting down emotionally and adopting a defensive air of independence. The more personal the conflict becomes, the stronger their urge grows to distance themselves from the situation. To do this they use deactivating strategies—such as finding fault with their partner—in order to feel less close to him or her.

Another study by Gary Creasey, together with two graduate students at the time, Kathy Kershaw and Ada Boston, found that both anxious people and avoidant people use fewer positive conflict-resolution tactics, express more aggression, and tend more toward withdrawal and escalation of conflict than secure people. Perhaps the similarities in their attitude toward conflict—that is, their basic belief in their partner’s unavailability and their difficulty expressing their needs effectively—explain this finding.

Jackie has tried to address the matter, but Paul feels the time is still not right—maintaining stability in his children’s life is of the utmost importance to him. Every other weekend, when Paul has the kids, he is off-limits to Jackie, who feels that if she raises the subject again, she might tip the relationship over the edge. Even on appropriate occasions—when Paul told her how much he loved her and talked about buying a house together—Jackie remained quiet about the kids and didn’t reciprocate his declarations of love. She feels that if Paul really wanted them to be close, he would let her into his life completely, kids and all.

When Jackie’s parents visit for dinner, Paul keeps talking about his kids and how wonderful they are. After dessert, Jackie’s father invites Paul for a short walk. He tells him that his kids sound wonderful and he’s hoping that Jackie will get to meet them soon, because he and his wife really like Paul and want to see the relationship grow. Paul assures him that he’s very serious about the relationship. Neither of them tells Jackie about their talk.

The following week, Jackie has no idea why Paul is so quiet and answers her questions with only “Yes,” “No,” or “I don’t know.” Finally, she asks him what’s wrong. He responds by lashing out, complaining that her father criticized him for talking about his kids, and reminds her of the many times he has expressed his feelings, only to have her not reciprocate. She replies that it’s hard to open up when he’s shutting her out of such a big part of his life. Rather than engaging in the discussion, he gets up, packs his belongings, and leaves, saying that he needs “some space.” He returns several weeks later, but they still avoid discussing the matter and revert to the status quo.

Typical of people who have an insecure attachment style, both Jackie and Paul break almost every secure rule for handling conflict. Neither effectively communicates their needs and both avoid directly addressing the issue at hand—introducing Jackie to Paul’s kids—but each for a different reason. Paul has a very firm opinion on the matter—he doesn’t want his kids to meet someone unless it’s very serious—and Jackie never reciprocated his love declarations. It doesn’t occur to him to ask Jackie if it bothers her that they are separated every other weekend. Though he says he loves her, this doesn’t translate into thinking that her feelings should be considered when it comes to his children (a characteristically avoidant attitude). He also assumes that if she doesn’t often raise the topic of wanting to meet his children, she can’t care that much.

Jackie, on the other hand, doesn’t talk anymore about meeting his kids because she’s anxious and worries that by making demands she may put the relationship in jeopardy. She fears that Paul may decide she’s “just not worth the effort.”

Paul also avoids secure principles when he chooses not to tell Jackie about his conversation with her father. Worse still, when they finally do talk about the issue, instead of engaging in the topic, Paul withdraws completely. Paul bottles up his anger for so long that by the time Jackie asks him what’s wrong, he’s at the end of his rope and is only able to attack her. Jackie, who is also insecure, isn’t able to save the situation; instead of trying to soothe him and calm things down, she resorts to counterattacks. Being anxious, she interprets Paul’s words as a personal rejection and responds defensively. Unfortunately, neither can see beyond their own hurt to comprehend the larger picture or what is going on with the other person.

As a rule of thumb, sensitive topics—like meeting a partner’s children—should always be on the table. Assume that they’re important, even if they aren’t raised. You might not necessarily reach an immediate resolution, but at least you’ll be open to hearing each other, and neither of you will be burying hurt feelings that will burst out uncontrollably sometime in the future. And of course, there is a better chance the issue will be resolved if it is discussed rather than ignored.

Insecure tactics Marcus used:

Secure tactics Marcus could use:

Answer: Insecure. Marcus uses a whole slew of insecure tactics. He generalizes the conflict by attacking her (“What do you want me to do, lose $3,000?”) and making her sound needy and overly reliant (“So I have to do everything with you now?”). He doesn’t maintain focus on the problem, which is Daria’s concern about the possibility that he won’t remain faithful. He prefers to veer off the topic and make it about money and Daria’s neediness.

Secure tactics Marcus could use: The best piece of advice for Marcus would be to maintain focus on the problem at hand. Daria’s concern is real, and as long as he doesn’t address it, this issue will never really be resolved.

Insecure tactics Daria used:

Secure tactics Daria could use:

Answer: Insecure. What’s the matter with Daria? He’s going on a singles cruise to Brazil six months into their relationship? She should by all means express her dismay. But instead of openly talking about her concerns, she backs down. She fears that because she spoke her mind, the relationship may end, so she tries to undo the damage by apologizing for raising the subject in the first place. By doing so Daria is agreeing to a new unspoken pact in the relationship: that her feelings and concerns are not that important.

Secure tactics Daria could use: She should effectively communicate her needs; tell Marcus about her concerns, and how anxious the upcoming vacation makes her feel about the future of their relationship. Marcus’s reaction to her use of effective communication will be very significant. If he continues to belittle her and devalue her feelings, then she must ask herself whether she wants to be with someone like that for the long-term.

Insecure tactics John used:

Secure tactics John could use:

Answer: Secure. Secure people aren’t saints! They can get tired and feel impatient at times, and their minds drift like everyone else’s. The key is how they react once conflict arises. Notice how John doesn’t retaliate or act defensive when Ruth attacks him. He maintains focus on the problem, answers in a straightforward way (“I’m really exhausted . . .”), and shows a genuine awareness for his wife’s well-being by validating her concern (“I am very worried about this too”).

Secure tactics John could use: John did a pretty good job; he averted an unnecessary escalation and calmed his partner down. Imagine if he’d snapped, “Goddamnit! Can’t you see how tired I am? What do you want to do, get us in an accident?” Fortunately, he understood that his wife’s accusation came from a place of distress rather than criticism, and he tackled the real problem, assuring her that they’re partners where their daughter’s welfare is concerned.

Insecure tactics Steve used:

Secure tactics Steve could use:

Insecure tactics Mia used:

Secure tactics Mia could use:

Answer: Steve—Insecure. Steve tries to avert a confrontation or an intimate conversation and withdraws instead of engaging. He doesn’t try to find out what was on Mia’s mind; he simply vanishes.

Secure tactics he could use: For starters, it seems that Steve is not really interested in anything serious. Otherwise he probably wouldn’t choose to bring an entourage on every date. If, however, he does want to make the relationship work, Steve should stay focused on the problem and ask Mia what she meant by her statement. Granted, she did sound a bit cynical, but if Steve were smart (and secure), he wouldn’t take it personally. He would try to see what was on her mind and how it could be used to take the relationship to a higher (and more intimate) level.

Answer: Mia—Insecure. But what about Mia? Her reaction was also insecure. Her attempt to effectively communicate her needs sounded a bit too much like an attack. She will now be left wondering, did I upset him? Did he think I was criticizing him?

Secure tactics Mia could use: Mia could have said something like, “You know, I’d rather not be with the crowd all the time. I enjoy being alone with you; how about we make plans for us?” (effectively communicating her needs). Steve’s reaction would have revealed whether he’s able to listen to what his partner wants and accommodate her needs.

Insecure tactics Todd used:

Secure tactics Todd could use:

Insecure tactics Emma used:

Secure tactics Emma could use:

Answer: Todd—Insecure. Todd evades Emma’s underlying concern—feeling unattractive and unappreciated when he checks out other women. Instead, he reverts to withdrawal, as opposed to engagement. At first he has “no idea” what she’s talking about, and later he minimizes the importance of her argument by saying that it’s just a natural part of being male. This is ineffective communication at its worst. Nothing gets resolved. She’ll continue to feel upset by his behavior and he’ll feel justified and self-righteous about continuing it.

Secure tactics Todd could use: The secure approach would have been to show concern for Emma’s well-being by saying that he realizes how lousy his staring must make her feel. He could also try to understand what really bothers her about this behavior and reassure her that he does find her beautiful (maintaining focus on the problem at hand). He could ask her to point out when he slips into this pattern again so he can try to change his behavior: “I’m sorry. I do this out of habit, but I realize now that it’s upsetting and disrespectful toward you. After all, I get upset when other men look at you even if you’re not aware of it! I’ll try to be more respectful, but if I lapse, I want you to call me on it.”

Answer: Emma—Secure. Emma effectively communicates her needs. She tells Todd how his actions make her feel in a straightforward, nonaccusatory manner (or as nonaccusatory as can be expected under the circumstances).

Secure tactics Emma could use: She did a good job.

Insecure tactics Shannon used:

Secure tactics Shannon could use:

Answer: Secure. Shannon avoids many insecure hazards. She refrains from generalizing the conflict. She doesn’t react defensively and resort to counterattacks. She doesn’t return tit for tat. She maintains focus on the problem at hand and responds to it and to it alone. This is not to say that Dan’s anger will disappear; in fact, he most probably will remain irritated. But Shannon has managed to take the edge off his anger and avoid escalation. Her response shows that reacting securely to conflict is not rocket science; it doesn’t require amazing verbal or psychological skills. It can often come down to simple but sincere apology.