About the Abusive Personality

The behavior of an abuser—whether using psychological or physical violence in close relationships, the “Don Juan” who flees when intimacy becomes too intense, or the suicidal person unable to bear the thought of a breakup (even an imagined one)—are all, according to domestic violence expert and psychology professor Donald G. Dutton, manifestations of the same underlying phenomenon. These behaviors share a similar pattern of responding to closeness, rooted in a painful contradiction: a burning, often unconscious need for intimacy, a simultaneous terror of it, and an equally intense fear of losing it.

This ambivalence is often accompanied by 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 borderline personality organization (or “cyclical personality”) and finds its origins in childhood attachment patterns.

People with these traits are more likely to repeat variations of the so-called “cycle of violence” in relationships: 1) tension building, 2) explosion, and 3) release and respite—an “island of love and calm.” In his book The Abusive Personality, Dutton provides a comprehensive overview of the issue, discussing the history of research on intimate partner violence, analyzing dominant theories (from early psychiatric to sociological and sociobiological, which see the rage-jealousy-control triad as an evolutionary legacy), and exploring the nature of anger in relationships.

Dutton also points out that, although most research (and his book) focuses on male violence, female-perpetrated violence is just as common and pathological, with similar underlying causes. He critiques older explanatory models and draws on new research—including neurobiological studies showing that early relationships with significant figures directly shape brain structures responsible for emotional regulation and self-image stability in adults. This supports psychoanalytic theories of early development, such as object relations (Melanie Klein, Margaret Mahler) and attachment theory (John Bowlby).

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 a chapter from Dutton’s work, “Anger Born of Fear,” which, drawing on Bowlby’s attachment theory, details how different attachment styles formed in childhood continue to influence adults. It also shows, through various studies, how anger—escalating to rage and triggering the cycle of violence in relationships—is connected to the fear of losing a loved one, and why adult intimate relationships often replay negative emotional scenarios rooted in early attachment experiences.

Anger Born of Fear: The Rage of Attachment

Object Relations Theory and Its Limitations

Object relations theory, as developed by Melanie Klein, was based on inferences about infants’ inner lives and did not account for parental actions that might cause the feelings attributed to the child. According to Klein, the initial relationship between infant (“self”) and mother (object) generates primary rage in response to any frustration from the all-powerful mother. To cope, infants develop “primitive defenses”: rage is split off because expressing it could threaten the infant’s survival, as the mother is the source of everything. This rage is dissociated and projected onto a “bad object,” separated from the “good object” (the mother). In healthy development, these images integrate, influencing future relationships. In negative scenarios, the split remains, leading to a fragmented self.

Klein’s theory, like much early psychoanalysis, viewed the mother as a faceless function, not a person with her own qualities. This lack of focus on the mother’s personality became evident when analysts tried to apply the theory to real cases. Margaret Mahler sought to identify “vulnerability points” in early mother-child interactions but concluded the process was too complex to draw clear connections with available tools.

One of Klein’s students, John Bowlby, addressed this gap by developing a theory that gave mothers a central role. Thanks to innovative research methods by Mary Ainsworth and colleagues, Bowlby’s attachment theory became scientific and measurable, integrating psychoanalysis with emerging sociobiology.

John Bowlby’s Attachment Theory

In a 1939 article, Bowlby described how certain childhood experiences lead to psychological disorders, later called the “classic triad.” Freud had earlier suggested that childhood trauma (such as premature sexual contact) was the source of adult psychological problems, but he later abandoned this idea due to professional backlash. Victorian psychiatry could not accept that sexual abuse in families was as common as “female hysteria.” Freud shifted to an intrapsychic approach, interpreting such reports as fantasies.

Bowlby, avoiding this controversy, suggested that focusing on adult patients led to neglecting real childhood traumas. At the time, pediatricians assessed “home environment” superficially, missing what Bowlby saw as crucial: periods of separation from the mother and the mother’s emotional attitude toward the child. Some mothers displayed unconscious hostility, masked by overprotectiveness, such as excessive worry or fear of letting the child out of sight. Hostility could also appear as deprivation, impatience, lack of self-control, or insufficient empathy.

In his trilogy Attachment and Loss, Bowlby argued that attachment is vital for emotional development and survival, with roots in evolution. The need for secure attachment, he said, is as fundamental as feeding or mating. When a baby seeks out the mother for comfort, this is a survival function. Bowlby also explored individual differences, or “attachment styles,” which arise from variations in maternal behavior. He identified three main styles: secure, anxious, and avoidant. Avoidant individuals are wary of relationships or avoid them altogether, while those with secure attachment feel comfortable with intimacy. Anxious individuals are ambivalent, experiencing mixed feelings about closeness, often displaying “push-pull” reactions reminiscent of mood swings in cyclical personalities. This raises the question: does a cyclical personality develop due to a mother’s regular unavailability?

Attachment is based on three principles: first, any distress activates the infant’s “attachment behavioral system,” prompting the child to seek the mother for soothing contact. Second, only physical contact with the attachment figure can deactivate this system when it is highly activated. Third, if the system remains activated without comfort, the infant exhibits aggressive behavior. The core conclusion: unmet attachment needs lead to anger. “Primary anger” stems from frustrated attempts to form attachment. When a stressed infant seeks comfort and is denied, rage follows, then depression, then indifference. In other words, the primary cause of anger is the attempt to restore contact and receive comfort.

The cycles of internal tension in adults eerily mirror attachment processes in children. Tension builds, self-soothing fails, the need for comfort is unrecognized and unexpressed, and desired contact with a partner does not occur. Tension escalates, leading to withdrawal—paired with a secret wish to be found and rescued. When rescue does not happen, rage erupts. The adult cycle of violence replicates the early process described by Bowlby.

Bowlby defined attachment as a bond with “another preferred person, perceived as stronger and/or wiser.” The more these qualities are attributed to the other, the more absolute their power over the infant, and the threat of separation triggers intense emotions—terror, grief, and rage. For men, these primitive emotions are initially linked to women, as women hold the power of life and death over male infants, creating powerful emotional response patterns.

Bowlby observed children (15–30 months old) in nurseries separated from parents, noting three phases: protest, despair, and detachment. In the protest phase, children are highly distressed by the mother’s absence and try to reunite with her, crying, shaking the crib, and looking for her. In the despair phase, hope fades, activity drops, and the child becomes withdrawn and passive. In the detachment phase, the child appears indifferent to the mother’s return, not greeting or clinging to her.

Actions in the protest phase can be seen as expressions of anger—active efforts to restore the mother’s presence. The primary function of anger is to reestablish 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 measure, but when control fails and the partner leaves, suppressed dependency explodes into rage and despair. The cause remains the same: an attempt to regain control through physical action.

In infants, depression and detachment arise only after prolonged, unsuccessful efforts to reunite. In adult men, realizing a wife or lover is leaving immediately triggers deep depression and suicidal thoughts or actions. Threats of suicide are common among abusive men whose partners leave, and actual suicide is more frequent among men abandoned by their wives. In more psychopathic men, such threats may be manipulative, while in borderline personalities, suicidal thoughts are serious.

Separation and Anger

Anger is a typical reaction to separation from the mother. Bowlby cites studies showing that separated children are more likely to attack a parent doll in play. Anger toward the parent is often irregular and alternates with expressions of love—what Bowlby calls “ambivalence.” Separated or attachment-disordered children may respond ambivalently to their mother for up to 20 weeks after reunion, simultaneously resisting and seeking contact.

In such cases, anger serves two functions: helping the child overcome obstacles to reunion and signaling 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 loss and still hopes for their return, emotionally behaving like a separated child.) Dysfunctional anger occurs when anger is so strong or persistent that it weakens, rather than strengthens, the bond, leading to alienation. Anger also becomes dysfunctional when aggressive thoughts or actions cross the line into vindictiveness.

Separation, especially if prolonged or repeated, has a dual effect: it raises anger and diminishes love. Thus, angry, dissatisfied behavior can not only alienate the attachment figure but also change feelings toward them. Instead of deep-rooted love with occasional outbursts, the child develops deep rejection, sometimes replaced by anxious, insecure love.

Bowlby anticipated the discovery that separation anxiety underlies anger in adult romantic relationships. He noted that teens with behavioral problems often obey parents who threaten to abandon them, but become enraged at such threats, yet suppress their anger to avoid actual abandonment. This is why anger toward the parent is often suppressed and redirected.

Bowlby wrote: “It is quite likely that some people who literally kill a parent do so because the parent has relentlessly threatened to abandon them for years.”

Since anger (protest) is the first reaction to separation and is “anger born of fear,” this fear is the fear of loss. Anger aims to restore the lost object or prevent its disappearance, serving as both a signal and a form of control. Unfortunately, anger itself creates a subjective sense of separation, which can intensify the feeling of distance and generate 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, increasing fear and anger in a vicious cycle. 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 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 foreshadows the rage adults feel when losing a loved one. One of the hardest feelings to process in grief is anger at the deceased and the guilt that follows. Bowlby wrote:

“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 behaves dangerously, angry protest is likely. When your partner withdraws, the vivid reminder of how much you care can work wonders. When a child is neglected in favor of a younger sibling, their demands for closeness can restore balance. Thus, anger, expressed at the right time and place and in the right measure, 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: with a sexual partner, with parents, and with children. When these relationships are threatened, a person feels anxiety and possibly anger.”

Maladaptive cruelty is a distorted, 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 deactivate it. If the mother rejects or threatens the infant but later allows contact, chronic conflict does not arise. But if the mother is generally averse to physical contact—due to trauma, unexpressed anger, or the infant’s temperament—she will continue to keep the child at a distance. This creates a deep, nonverbal conflict for the infant. Any maternal movement to push the child away initially increases the child’s desire for closeness, but the child cannot initiate contact, even though only contact can stop the attachment system’s distress. Realizing the mother is unavailable further activates the system, leading to conflicted behavior. When the attachment system is activated but not resolved, the infant shows aggression. At the same time, withdrawal tendencies conflict with the desire for closeness, and the inability to achieve closeness causes anger that often cannot be safely expressed. Eventually, 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 attachment system process.

Bowlby anticipated the finding that attachment patterns persist into adulthood. He wrote:

“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 over the years of personality formation (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 others) are central to 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 change. Moreover, they create self-fulfilling prophecies: the expectations within the internal representation generate behavior that repeatedly confirms those expectations.