Avoidant Attachment and the Approach–Avoidance Conflict

Understanding Push-Pull Dynamics in Avoidant Relationships

There is a great deal of information online about how avoidantly attached individuals respond to conflict, often through withdrawal, stonewalling, silence, or physical distance. This blog does not focus on how avoidants manage interpersonal conflict. Instead, it examines the internal conflict they experience as a result of their attachment style.

There are four types of internal conflicts people experience when faced with opposing needs or goals:

•       Approach–approach conflict: choosing between two desirable outcomes.

•       Approach–avoidance conflict: choosing a single outcome that carries both positive and negative aspects.

•       Avoidance–avoidance conflict: choosing between two undesirable outcomes.

•       Double approach–avoidance conflict: choosing between two options that each contain both positive and negative aspects.

The most predominant conflict avoidants face is approach–avoidance conflict: being drawn toward an outcome while simultaneously feeling threatened by it. This internal tension forms the core paradox of avoidant attachment. This blog focuses on that form of conflict.

The Push–Pull Dynamic: The Approach–Avoidance Gradient

Avoidants are often labeled as detached or emotionally unavailable. What is less discussed is the internal conflict that drives that distance.

As mentioned earlier, approach–avoidance conflict refers to the tension that arises when a single goal or person represents both reward and threat. For avoidants, intimacy is precisely that. Connection feels good and validating. Yet it simultaneously activates fears of engulfment, such as dependency or loss of autonomy, as well as fears of intimacy, such as emotional exposure. This is what creates the push–pull dynamic.

There is a particular pattern inherent in this conflict, and it is not limited to avoidants. When a person or goal is both desired and feared, the closer one moves toward it, the more the rewards and/or negative aspects like anxiety become amplified.

This pattern is known as the approach–avoidance gradient, a principle first described by psychologist Kurt Lewin. When a goal has both positive and negative aspects, the motivation to approach or avoid it intensifies as proximity increases.

Two gradients operate simultaneously:

•       The approach gradient: the pull toward the reward increases as you get closer.

•       The avoidance gradient: the push away from the threat increases as you get closer.

The critical distinction is that the avoidance gradient tends to be steeper than the approach gradient.

How It Plays Out in Real Life

For example: When an avoidant has a date with someone they intensely desire, there is both excitement (reward) and fear of engulfment and intimacy (threat). As the scheduled time approaches, feelings of overwhelm begin to rise and the fears become amplified. The closer the date gets, the stronger the anxiety. In some cases, they may cancel at the last minute or even begin driving there and turn back halfway.

Notice how the fears intensified as the date approached until the avoidance response became strong enough to lead to cancellation. In that moment, the avoidance gradient overtook the approach gradient. The push became stronger than the pull.

From afar, the connection feels desirable and safe. As it becomes real and intimacy grows, anxiety rises more quickly than desire, leading to withdrawal. The closer the intimacy, the stronger the urge to regain space. The individual moves toward connection, then away from it, often confusing both themselves and their partner. This reflects the shifting dominance of the two gradients.

The same dynamic applies not only to single events such as a date, but to larger relational decisions. When a relationship progresses and moves closer to definition or commitment, the emotional stakes increase. What once felt manageable at a distance can begin to feel threatening as the possibility becomes real.

Considering whether to move forward in a relationship may initially feel hopeful and exciting. Yet as the decision point approaches, fears of dependency, loss of autonomy, or emotional exposure can intensify. The closer one gets to committing, the stronger the avoidance response may become.

Internally, avoidance-driven thoughts often sound like this:

• What if this becomes too much?

• What if I lose my independence?

• What if I cannot meet their expectations?

• What if I disappoint them or hurt them later?

• What if I start needing them more than I am comfortable with?

• What if they eventually leave?

• What if I invest and it ends anyway?

At the same time, approach-driven thoughts may coexist:

• What if this could bring me stability?

• What if this could actually work?

• What if this is something meaningful?

• What if walking away is the bigger loss?

As these competing thoughts intensify, ambivalence increases, hesitation sets in, and withdrawal may follow. Research has shown that approach–avoidance conflicts can be highly stressful and may take time to resolve.

These conflicts may be more intense for avoidants because the avoidance gradient is stronger, driven by attachment-related fears of engulfment or abandonment and heightened emotional activation. As proximity increases, so does internal conflict.

Once the avoidant steps back and gains space and time, the approach gradient begins to intensify again. They may feel safe enough to reach out to their partner. The same connection that felt overwhelming can once again feel desirable. This is what sustains the push–pull dynamic that can feel so confusing.

This oscillation between approach and avoidance sustains the push–pull dynamic that characterizes avoidant attachment.

The Illusion of Incompatibility

As described earlier, when closeness increases and the relationship moves toward greater definition, the approach gradient strengthens. At the same time, the avoidance gradient intensifies. The fear that arises can be mistaken for proof that something is wrong with the connection. Doubts grow and small differences may seem more significant. The mind looks for a reason to explain the tension, and concluding that the relationship is “not right” can bring temporary relief.

In this way, the internal conflict shifts outward. The unease created by intimacy is attributed to the partner rather than to attachment activation. What feels like certainty may actually be the avoidance gradient taking over. What may simply be activation can begin to feel like incompatibility.

Approach–avoidance conflict can distort the perception of compatibility, increasing the likelihood of withdrawal.

Tug of War

The avoidant push–pull dynamic is not simply about distance. It is about internal conflict. When connection activates both longing and fear, movement forward becomes psychologically complex. What appears from the outside as inconsistency may, internally, be an attempt to regulate overwhelming activation.

Approach–avoidance conflict helps explain why closeness can feel destabilizing, why certainty can arise from anxiety, and why withdrawal can follow moments of emotional intensity. What may look like disinterest may, in reality, be the avoidance gradient overpowering the approach gradient.

Understanding this conflict clarifies the mechanism behind what is avoidant push-pull dynamic and the internal struggle that drives it.