“Anger Born of Fear”: How a Tendency Toward Violence Develops. Part 1

The behavior of an abuser who uses psychological or physical violence in close relationships, the “Don Juan” who flees when intimacy becomes too intense, and the suicidal person unable to bear the thought of a possible (sometimes imagined) breakup—all of these, according to domestic violence expert and psychology professor Donald G. Dutton of the University of British Columbia, are phenomena of the same order. These behaviors share a similar response pattern to intimacy, rooted in a painful contradiction: a burning, often unconscious need for closeness, a simultaneous terror of it, and an equally intense fear of losing it.

This ambivalence is often accompanied by personality traits such as chronic anger, jealousy, high demands, an unstable self-image, impulsivity, poor self-soothing abilities, a tendency to catastrophize, and persistent rumination. Dutton believes these traits form the core of the abusive personality profile, which closely overlaps with the profile of borderline (or “cyclical”) personality organization, and whose origins he traces to attachment patterns formed in childhood.

People with these traits are more likely than others to repeat variations of the so-called “cycle of violence” in relationships: 1) tension-building phase; 2) explosion; 3) release and respite—an “island of love and calm.”

In his book The Abusive Personality (Gorodets Publishing), Dutton provides an impressive overview of the problem: he discusses the history of studying intimate partner violence, analyzes the dominant theories explaining domestic violence (from early psychiatric to sociological, which focus on social hierarchy, and sociobiological, which see the “rage-jealousy-control” triad as an evolutionary legacy), explores the nature of anger in relationships, and shows that, although most research (and his book) focuses on male violence, violence by women is just as common and pathological, with similar causes.

Limitations of Old Models and New Research

Dutton points out the shortcomings of older explanatory models and draws on new research, including neurobiological studies showing that early relationships with significant figures directly affect the development of brain structures responsible for emotional regulation and a stable self-image in adults. This supports psychoanalytic theories of early development—object relations theory (Melanie Klein, Margaret Mahler) and John Bowlby’s attachment theory. These findings confirm the link between a tendency toward violence, certain personality traits, and childhood trauma, allowing Dutton to propose his own hypothesis about the roots and causes of violence in close relationships. He argues that abusiveness is not just a learned behavior pattern but has much deeper origins.

Below is the chapter “Anger Born of Fear,” in which Dutton, drawing on Bowlby’s theory, describes in detail how different attachment patterns form in childhood and continue to influence people in adulthood. He also uses research to show how anger—sometimes escalating to rage and triggering the cycle of violence in relationships—is connected to the fear of losing a loved one, and why close adult relationships often replay negative emotional scenarios rooted in early attachment experiences.

ANGER BORN OF FEAR

The Rage of Attachment

The problem with object relations theory, as Dutton notes, is that Klein’s ideas were based on assumptions about infants’ inner lives and did not consider the actions of parents, which could be the source of the thoughts and feelings attributed to the infant. According to object relations theory, the initial relationship between the infant (“self”) and the mother (the “object”) generates primary rage in response to any frustration from the all-powerful mother. At this stage, “primitive defenses” are formed to cope with strong emotions: rage is “split off” because expressing such rage puts the infant at risk, as the mother is the source of everything. Rage is dissociated and projected onto the “bad object,” separated from the “good object” (the mother). With normal development and a harmonious relationship with the mother, the images of the “bad” and “good” mother are integrated, influencing future representations of others. In negative scenarios, the image remains split, and the infant’s ego is also split. As a result, the infant cannot successfully achieve “object constancy”—the creation of a stable, positive self-image and an internal comforting figure sufficient to endure normal periods of separation from the mother or her substitute (Dutton).

Like most psychoanalysts of her era, Klein saw the infant as living in a vacuum with a faceless “mother” who was just a function or a set of reactions, lacking personal qualities. This lack of personality became clear when David Winter applied Klein’s theory to his own analysis: he had to guess what kind of maternal actions might lead a boy to become an ambivalent man, since Klein’s work offered no clear answer. According to Klein, whatever the cause of splitting or primitive defenses, it was an inevitable and uniform process of growing up. Parental actions were not described, so Winter had to speculate about them.

Mahler addressed this issue through “variability within subphases,” seeking to identify “vulnerability points” influenced by early mother-child interactions. She concluded that the process was “apparently quite complex… and it is impossible to establish clear dependencies between different factors by observing the development of average children with our current tools.” One of Klein’s students was especially concerned about the lack of attention to motherhood, and soon John Bowlby proposed a theory that gave mothers a central role. Moreover, this theory later proved to be scientific and measurable, thanks to innovative research methods by Mary Ainsworth and colleagues, who integrated psychoanalysis with emerging sociobiological theory.

John Bowlby’s Attachment Theory

In a 1939 article in the British Psychoanalytic Society’s journal, Bowlby described his views on certain childhood experiences that lead to psychological disorders, later called the “classic triad.” Freud had already said in 1895 that childhood traumas (such as premature sexual contact with an adult) were the source of psychological problems in adult women. However, Freud later abandoned these ideas due to negative reactions from colleagues, which threatened his career. Victorian psychiatry could not accept that sexual abuse in families was as common as “female hysteria.” Freud shifted to an intrapsychic approach, claiming these sexual contacts were fantasies—“wish fulfillment.” Psychoanalysis then focused on these “wishes,” not real sexual contact.

Bowlby avoided this intellectual minefield and calmly suggested that interviewing adult patients led to neglecting real traumatic childhood episodes. At the time, pediatricians took a superficial approach to the “home environment”: Is the family “intact”? Do parents go to church? Is the house clean and orderly? By asking such questions, they missed what Bowlby saw as the most important aspects of early childhood: periods of prolonged separation from the mother and the mother’s emotional attitude toward the child. This attitude was evident in how she fed, weaned, and toilet-trained the child, among other aspects of motherhood. Some mothers showed unconscious hostility toward the child, expressed in subtle signs of displeasure, often accompanied by overprotectiveness to compensate. This overprotection could manifest as “fear of letting the child out of sight, excessive worry about any ailments, fear that something terrible will happen.” Hostility appeared as “excessive deprivation, impatience with bad behavior, inability to control oneself, and a lack of empathy and understanding usually available to a loving mother.”

In his landmark trilogy Attachment and Loss, Bowlby developed the idea that attachment plays a crucial role in emotional development, serving a vital biological function essential for infant survival. He believed the human need for secure attachment was the result of long evolutionary development, during which feeding and mating competed for primacy. In other words, attachment has sociobiological significance and is necessary for survival. When a baby crawls to its mother to “attach,” it is fulfilling this function, just as when the mother provides nurturing physical contact.

Bowlby went beyond the sociobiological approach to consider individual variability. These differences became known as “attachment styles”—specific combinations of thoughts and feelings about closeness. He argued that these differences arise from variations in maternal attachment behavior. Responses to satisfaction or frustration in early attachment attempts lay the foundation for lifelong “attachment styles,” which Bowlby categorized as secure, anxious, and avoidant. People with an avoidant attachment style are wary of relationships or avoid them altogether, while those with secure early attachment feel comfortable with intimacy as adults. People with an anxious attachment style are somewhere in between, feeling ambivalent about closeness with those they are emotionally connected to. Their “push-pull” reactions resemble the mood swings of cyclical personalities. Perhaps, then, cyclical personalities form due to a mother’s regular unavailability?

Attachment is based on three key principles: First, any anxiety signals activate the infant’s “attachment behavioral system.” Under stress, the infant crawls or walks to the mother, cries out, or calls for her, seeking soothing physical contact. Second, when this system is highly activated, only physical contact with the attachment figure can deactivate it—nothing else will help. Finally, if the attachment system is activated for a long time without comfort, the infant displays aggressive behavior. The basic conclusion of attachment theory is that unmet attachment needs lead to anger. “Primary anger” originates from frustrated, unsuccessful attempts to form attachment. When a stressed infant seeks comfort but does not receive it, rage follows, then depression, and finally indifference. In other words, the primary cause of anger is the attempt to restore contact and receive comfort.

Cycles of internal tension in adults eerily echo attachment processes in young children. Tension builds inside, and the person cannot self-soothe. The need for comfort is not recognized or expressed, so the desired contact with a partner does not occur. Tension continues to rise, and the main motive becomes escape—along with a secret wish for the other to find and save you; when rescue does not happen, rage erupts. The adult cycle of violence fully reproduces the early process described by Bowlby.

Bowlby defined attachment as a bond with “another person who is distinguished and preferred, perceived as stronger and/or wiser.” The more these qualities are attributed to the other, the more absolute power they have over the infant, and the threat of separation from the secure attachment figure triggers intense emotional reactions—terror, grief, and rage. For men, these basic primitive emotions are initially linked to women. Since a woman holds the power of life and death over a male infant, powerful emotional response patterns are established during this period.

Bowlby described his observations of children (aged 15 to 30 months) in nurseries when first separated from their parents. These reactions fell into three distinct phases: protest, despair, and detachment. In the protest phase, children experience intense distress over the loss of their mother and try to reunite with her using all their limited resources: loud crying, shaking the crib, restlessness, constantly looking and listening for the mother. Their behavior shows they expect her to return at any moment. In the despair phase, hope fades, physical activity decreases or stops, the child may cry monotonously or intermittently, appears withdrawn and passive, and seems to be in deep grief. In the detachment phase, when the mother returns, it is clear something is wrong: the child does not greet her, seems not to recognize her, does not cling, appears distant and apathetic, and instead of crying, turns away from her.

Actions in the first separation phase (protest) can be seen as expressions of anger. All actions are active, directed outward to achieve a result (in this case, the mother’s return). Loud crying and shaking the crib are primary forms of signaling and demanding her return. The first and main function of anger is to restore soothing contact with the attachment figure. In adulthood, these actions take other forms: crying becomes shouting, shaking the crib becomes throwing or breaking things. Controlling emotional distance from a partner becomes a preventive method, preceding the need to express rage after their return—except when control fails and the partner leaves. In such moments, suppressed dependency explodes in rage and despair, but the cause remains the same: an attempt to regain control through physical action. For infants, depressive emotions (grieving) and detachment arise only after prolonged unsuccessful attempts to reunite with the mother. For adult men, realizing that a wife or lover is about to leave or has left immediately triggers deep depression and thoughts (or threats/actions) of suicide. Threats of suicide are common among abusive men whose lovers leave them, and actual suicide is more frequent among men whose wives have left. For more psychopathic men, such threats may be purely manipulative, while for those with borderline personalities, suicidal thoughts are serious.

Separation and Anger

Anger is a typical reaction to separation from the mother. Bowlby cites studies noting significant differences in aggressive play between separated and non-separated children. Separated children “tend to attack the parent-doll.” Anger at the parent is often irregular and alternates with expressions of love. In such cases, Bowlby uses the term “ambivalence.” Separated children or those with attachment disorders respond ambivalently to the mother for up to 20 weeks after reunion. Such children “arch angrily and pull away from her, but at the same time seek contact.” Ambivalence, in other words, is expressed in contradictory physical reactions.

In these situations, anger serves two functions: it helps the child overcome obstacles to reunion and signals to the loved one not to leave again. (Bowlby believed dysfunctional anger after a loved one’s death arises because the mourner has not accepted the death and still believes the deceased will return. Thus, the grieving person emotionally behaves like a separated child.) Bowlby writes:

We often see anger at the behavioral level. For example, when a mother scolds and punishes her child for running across the street, her anger is primarily rooted in fear. We see this whenever one partner accuses the other of infidelity… Dysfunctional anger arises whenever a person, child or adult, feels such strong and/or persistent anger toward a partner that the bond between them weakens rather than strengthens, and the partner becomes alienated. Anger at a partner also becomes dysfunctional when aggressive thoughts or actions cross the line from restraint to vindictiveness. […] Separation, especially if prolonged or repeated, has a double effect. On the one hand, anger rises; on the other, love fades. Thus, angry, dissatisfied behavior can lead not only to alienation from the attachment figure but also to changes in feelings toward them. Instead of deep-rooted love, interspersed with “bright displays of dissatisfaction,” […] the child develops deep rejection, which only occasionally shifts to anxious, insecure love.

Here, Bowlby anticipates the discovery that separation anxiety is the soil from which anger in adult romantic relationships grows. He notes that teenagers with behavioral problems often obey parents who threaten to abandon them if they do not behave. Such a child “rages when the parent threatens to leave, but at the same time, does not dare express their anger for fear the parent will actually do it. This is the main reason why, in such cases, anger at the parent is usually suppressed and redirected elsewhere.”

Bowlby continues:

It is quite possible that some people who literally kill a parent do so because, for many years, the parent relentlessly repeated threats to abandon the child.

Since anger (protest) is the first reaction to separation and is “anger born of fear,” this fear becomes the fear of loss. Anger is aimed at recreating the lost object or preventing its disappearance. It serves as both a signal and a form of control. Unfortunately, anger itself creates a subjective sense of separation from others. Lack of closeness can intensify the feeling of separation, which in turn generates even more anger. If fear and anger become unbearable, are expressed abusively, or used for revenge, the person becomes even more distant from the partner, the distance grows, and even stronger fear and anger arise. Thus, anger as a reaction to separation can trigger an emotional spiral leading to rage. “Anger born of fear” is a key source of rage.

Bowlby saw the expression of anger as a way to regulate attachment relationships. In his descriptions of infants’ primary reactions to separation, rage is an attempt to will the lost mother back into existence. This feeling is the precursor to the rage adults feel when losing a loved one. One of the hardest feelings to process in grief is rage at the deceased and the guilt that comes from feeling that rage. Bowlby writes:

When relationships with a loved one are threatened, we usually feel not only anxiety but also anger. […] Anxiety and anger go hand in hand as reactions to the threat of loss. […] When a child or spouse starts behaving dangerously, angry protest is likely. When your partner distances themselves, such a vivid reminder of how much you care works wonders. When a child finds they are neglected in favor of a younger sibling, their demands for closeness can restore balance. Thus, anger, expressed at the right time, place, and degree, is not only appropriate but essential. It protects us from dangerous behavior, helps drive off rivals, or win back a partner. In all these cases, the goal of anger-related behavior remains the same—to protect relationships that are especially valuable. There are three main types of relationships whose threatened continuation can provoke anger: relationships with a sexual partner (boyfriend, girlfriend, or spouse), with parents, and with children. […] When these relationships are threatened, a person feels anxiety and, possibly, anger.

Maladaptive cruelty is a distorted and exaggerated form of potentially functional behavior.

Rejection and Anger

According to Bowlby, maternal rejection intensely activates the attachment system, and only physical contact with the attachment figure can stop this activation. If the mother rejects or threatens the infant but soon allows contact again, chronic conflict does not arise. But if the mother is fundamentally uncomfortable with physical contact (due to trauma, unexpressed anger, or the infant’s personality), she will not allow it later either. This creates a serious, deep, nonverbal conflict for the infant. Any maternal movement to push the child away initially only increases the child’s desire for closeness. However, the child cannot initiate contact, even though only contact can stop the attachment system’s anxious behavior. Realizing the mother is unavailable activates the system even more, leading to conflicted behavior. When the attachment system is activated but not resolved, the infant displays aggressive behavior. At the same time, tendencies to withdraw conflict with tendencies to approach, and the inability to get close causes anger that often cannot be safely expressed. Sooner or later, the physically rejected infant will feel anger and detachment in any situation that would normally evoke love and attachment. The rage seen in “abandonment murders” is a residual effect of this process in the attachment system.

Bowlby anticipated the discovery that attachment patterns persist into adulthood. He writes:

If a person is confident that the attachment figure will be available whenever needed, they will be much less prone to intense or chronic fear than someone who lacks such confidence. This confidence is formed during a sensitive period of development. The availability or unavailability of attachment figures accumulates slowly over the years of personality development (infancy, childhood, adolescence), and the expectations formed during these years remain relatively unchanged throughout life.

These expectations (or “working models,” or “internal representations” of self and relationship partners) are a central part of personality and include “a set of conscious or unconscious rules for organizing information, experience, feelings, and ideas related to attachment.” These “internal representations” (Klein’s “introjects”): 1) contain a model of oneself as worthy or unworthy of care and love, 2) generate unconscious expectations about the consequences of attachment, and 3) provide a context for later social relationships. While these models can be restructured, it is very difficult, as they usually operate outside of awareness and resist sudden change. Moreover, they create self-fulfilling prophecies: the expectations in the internal representation generate behavior that repeatedly confirms those expectations.