In emotionally intimate relationships, it is not uncommon for one partner to withdraw when faced with conflict, closeness, or strong emotion. This pattern, often referred to as “shutting down,” is often misunderstood. What appears to be emotional detachment, coldness, or condescension may, in fact, be a deeply ingrained nervous system response rooted in early relational trauma. For individuals with avoidant attachment patterns, dissociation and emotional numbness are not signs of disrespect or disinterest, but protective measures developed in response to emotional overwhelm and vulnerability.
This blog explores the neurobiological and relational foundations of shutdown responses, particularly as they relate to avoidant attachment and dissociation. It also considers how these patterns can be understood and gradually transformed through trauma-informed practices, nervous system regulation, boundaries, and co-regulation within safe relational contexts.
Avoidant Attachment as a Relational Strategy
Attachment theory, developed by John Bowlby, suggests that early experiences with caregivers shape our internal model of relationships (Bowlby, 1988). When a child’s emotional needs are inconsistently met, particularly in environments where expressing distress is met with neglect or anger, the child learns to suppress those needs. Over time, this suppression can evolve into an avoidant attachment style, where emotional independence becomes not only a preference but a perceived safety measure.
Adults with avoidant attachment can often see intimacy as a threat. Close proximity to others, especially when emotional vulnerability is involved, can cause discomfort, agitation, or withdrawal. These reactions are not conscious, but are the nervous system’s attempt to maintain regulation by reducing danger. We may detach ourselves from emotional conversations, experience numbness, or become physically or psychologically distant during intense or stressful moments with our partners. This withdrawal is often confusing and deeply rooted in the past.
Dissociation and the Shutdown Response
To understand why some people shut down during moments of closeness or conflict, it is essential to consider the role of the autonomic nervous system. According to Stephen Porges’ Polyvagal Theory, the human nervous system responds to threat by fight or flight, or eventually freeze/shutdown, if fighting back or fleeing feels impossible (Porges, 2011). This final state is characterised by immobilisation, numbing, and dissociation.
Dissociation is a protective mechanism. It allows individuals to distance themselves from overwhelming stimuli, especially when those stimuli are emotional in nature. For someone with a history of attachment trauma, relational closeness itself can be really uncomfortable and overwhelming, echoing traumatic experiences from the past. In these moments, the
nervous system sees emotional intensity as a threat and begins to shut down in order to self-protect. This may manifest as an inability to access feelings and an unsettling sense of disconnection from the body or present moment.
Bessel van der Kolk (2014) notes that traumatic experiences are stored in the body, often outside of conscious awareness. When present experiences align with unresolved attachment wounds, the nervous system may respond not to the current relationship but to the internalised memory of earlier ones. As a result, we may find ourselves shutting down in ways that feel out of proportion to the present situation, yet entirely congruent with our internal sense of danger.
The Impact on Relationships
In intimate relationships, the shutdown response can be confusing and painful for both partners. The partner who dissociates may feel ashamed or bewildered by their inability to stay emotionally engaged, while the other partner may feel rejected or abandoned. Over time, this dynamic can erode trust and intimacy, particularly if it becomes part of a recurring cycle where one partner pursues connection and the other withdraws.
This destructive pattern is hard to resolve as the dissociative response is not a deliberate choice. It is, fundamentally, a nervous system state. As such, any meaningful change must begin by working with the body’s physiological response to stress and connection.
Healing Through Regulation and Relational Safety
Recovering from relational trauma and the dissociative shutdowns it can trigger starts with noticing the nervous system, where it tightens, where it shuts down, and when it begins to relax. As Deb Dana (2018) describes, mapping our autonomic patterns helps us see these moments more clearly. By recognising early signs of dysregulation, we can start to develop gentle ways to return to a more connected, regulated state.
Practices like grounding, breathwork, or gentle somatic exercises bring attention back to the body. The aim isn’t to avoid shutdown, but to become aware of it, slowly building tolerance for connection and vulnerability without becoming overwhelmed.
Boundaries are part of this work. For those of us with avoidant tendencies, boundaries are often either too rigid (to prevent closeness) or undefined (leading to emotional shutdown), allowing emotional shutdown to take over. Learning to set clear, compassionate boundaries creates safety and autonomy, making it easier to stay present even in emotionally charged situations.
Healing does not happen alone. Co-regulation, the shared regulation between nervous systems, is incredibly important in addition to self-regulation. Safe, responsive relationships show the nervous system that connection can be safe. Therapy can provide this same stabilising presence, allowing the body and mind to learn a new rhythm of trust and attunement.
Conclusion
The tendency to shut down during intimacy is not a character flaw, nor is it an indicator of emotional inadequacy. It is a physiological survival response, shaped by early experiences and sustained by a nervous system that has learned to associate closeness with danger. By bringing compassionate awareness to this pattern, and by working with the body’s rhythms rather than against them, it is possible to create new pathways for connection.
With time, boundaries, and the support of safe relationships, the avoidant nervous system can learn that it no longer needs to protect itself by disappearing. In its place, a more resilient, regulated, and relationally engaged self can begin to emerge.
References
Bowlby, J. (1988). A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. Basic Books.
https://www.increaseproject.eu/images/DOWNLOADS/IO2/HU/CURR_M4-A13_Bowlby_(EN -only)_20170920_HU_final.pdf
Dana, D. (2018). The Polyvagal Theory in Therapy: Engaging the Rhythm of Regulation. W. W. Norton & Company.
https://catalog.nlm.nih.gov/discovery/fulldisplay/alma9917307643406676/01NLM_INST:01NL M_INST
Porges, S. W. (2011). The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, and Self-Regulation. W. W. Norton & Company. Porges, S. W. (2011). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3490536/
van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma. Viking.
https://ia601604.us.archive.org/35/items/the-body-keeps-the-score-pdf/The-Body-Keeps-the Score-PDF.pdf
