Pathological Affective Dependence and Fear of Intimacy: Opposite but Intertwined Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Violence

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is a global public-health concern in which poorly regulated interpersonal dependence can foster dysfunctional and violent dynamics. Pathological Affective Dependence (PAD) is a psychological condition where individuals persist in maintaining relationships, even when they are harmful. In contrast, Fear of Intimacy (FoI) involves avoiding closeness to maintain emotional control. These two conditions lie on opposite ends of a dependency spectrum, with PAD leading to excessive closeness and FoI promoting detachment. The interaction between PAD and FoI shapes the bond between the victim and the abuser. The victim, driven by fear of abandonment, dissolves personal boundaries to maintain the relationship, while the abuser avoids emotional engagement to retain power and control. This creates a cycle of pursuit and withdrawal, where one partner desperately clings to the relationship, and the other retreats. Over time, this dynamic escalates, deepening emotional dependency, insecurity, and frustration, fueling aggressiveness. Understanding this interplay between PAD and FoI provides insights into IPV dynamics. Two empirical studies were conducted to elucidate the vulnerability factors underpinning PAD and FoI and the dysfunctional relational coping processes through which they contribute to IPV risk. Study 1 examined adult attachment and recalled parenting as antecedents of PAD and FoI and tested whether shame and paranoia mediate the links from dysfunctional parenting to these conditions. PAD was linked to fearful attachment, while FoI related primarily to dismissing attachment (with a weaker association with preoccupied) and was inversely associated with secure attachment. Parental overcontrol and indifference emerged as the most consistent predictors of both conditions. Mediation analyses indicated that shame mediated the association between parental overcontrol and PAD, whereas paranoia mediated the association between parental indifference and FoI. Study 2 modeled PAD and FoI as predictors of internalized and externalized aggressiveness via pathological jealousy (behavioral, cognitive) and revenge. PAD was associated with both behavioral and cognitive jealousy, whereas FoI related selectively to cognitive jealousy. Behavioral jealousy showed direct links to both internalized and externalized aggressiveness; cognitive jealousy predicted revenge, which was in turn associated with both aggression outcomes. Both PAD and FoI also showed direct associations with internalized aggressiveness, with additional indirect effects on both outcomes via jealousy and revenge. FoI further displayed a marginal direct association with externalized aggressiveness. Both studies underscore the importance of understanding PAD and FoI as bidirectional mechanisms in IPV dynamics. By targeting dysregulated interpersonal dependence—rigid bond-preservation in PAD and deactivating, mistrustful avoidance in FoI—and the downstream processes it recruits (maladaptive jealousy, vengeful coping, and impaired emotion regulation), interventions can restore flexible need expression and boundaries, reducing vulnerability to both victimization and perpetration. This approach could ultimately foster healthier, more balanced relationship dynamics and mitigate the risk of IPV.