The Four Horsemen Look Different When You Grew Up in an Unsafe Family

RELATIONSHIPS • April 10, 2026

The Traditional View: The Four Horsemen

Before we can reframe these behaviors through a trauma lens, we need to understand the traditional framework.

The traditional view is incredibly valuable. It gives us a language to describe the destructive patterns that erode trust and intimacy. But for trauma survivors, it’s an incomplete picture. When we only look at the behavior, we miss the underlying neurobiology. We miss the fact that for a driven woman who grew up in an unpredictable or abusive home, criticism might not be an attack, but a desperate attempt to establish safety. Contempt might not be disgust, but a protective wall built to keep vulnerability at bay. Defensiveness might not be a refusal to take responsibility, but a deeply conditioned fear of punishment. And stonewalling, as we saw with Nadia, might not be a withdrawal of affection, but a complete nervous system shutdown.

The Neurobiology of Survival

To truly understand how the Four Horsemen manifest in trauma survivors, we have to look at the nervous system. We have to understand how early experiences of danger and unpredictability shape the way our brains and bodies respond to stress and conflict in adulthood.

When a child grows up in an unsafe environment, their nervous system is constantly on high alert. They learn to scan their environment for threats, to anticipate danger, and to deploy survival strategies — fight, flight, freeze, or fawn — to protect themselves. Over time, these strategies become hardwired into the nervous system. As Bessel van der Kolk notes in The Body Keeps the Score, “Trauma results in a fundamental reorganization of the way mind and brain manage perceptions. It changes not only how we think and what we think about, but also our very capacity to think.” He further elaborates that “The body keeps the score: If the memory of trauma is encoded in the viscera, in heartbreaking and gut-wrenching emotions, in autoimmune disorders and skeletal/muscular problems…” This profound impact on the physical and emotional self means that past trauma isn’t just a memory; it’s a living, breathing blueprint for how the body and mind respond to perceived threats in the present.

This reorganization means that in adulthood, even minor conflicts or perceived slights can trigger a massive nervous system response. The body reacts as if it’s in mortal danger, even when the “threat” is just a partner asking a simple question or expressing a mild frustration. It’s not a conscious choice; it’s an automatic, deeply ingrained survival mechanism kicking in.

How This Shows Up in Driven Women

Let’s look closer at Nadia, an executive at a Fortune 500 company. In the boardroom, she’s decisive, articulate, and unflappable. But in her marriage, she frequently resorts to what looks like stonewalling. When her husband raises an issue, she shuts down. She goes silent, avoids eye contact, and physically withdraws.

Her husband interprets this as passive aggression. He thinks she doesn’t care, that she’s dismissing his concerns. But what’s actually happening is far more complex. Nadia uses stonewalling not out of contempt, but because her nervous system learned early on that shutting down was safer than engaging. Growing up in a volatile household, speaking up meant escalation. Silence meant survival.

In her marriage, what looks like passive aggression is actually a freeze response — a survival strategy, not a character flaw. Her husband interprets it as “she doesn’t care,” when the truth is her body cares so much it shuts down to protect her. As Stephen Porges, the developer of Polyvagal Theory, explains, “During conditions of life threat, the nervous system through neuroception may revert to the ancient immobilization defense system… activation of the dorsal vagal circuit, which depresses respiration and slows heart rate.” Porges interprets dissociation and shutdown as an adaptive reaction to life threat challenges. For Nadia, a simple disagreement with her husband triggers this ancient immobilization defense, leaving her unable to respond or engage. It’s a profound physiological response, not a conscious choice to be uncooperative.

This dynamic plays out across all four of the Horsemen, often with subtle but significant differences when viewed through a trauma lens:

* Criticism that’s actually hypervigilance: For a driven woman who grew up in an unpredictable home, scanning for threats in the relationship mirrors scanning for danger in the childhood home. What looks like constant nitpicking or criticism is often a desperate attempt to control the environment and prevent a perceived disaster. It’s a hyper-attunement to potential problems, born out of a childhood where missing a cue could mean danger. This isn’t about finding fault for the sake of it; it’s about a nervous system that’s been conditioned to constantly search for signs of impending threat, a survival mechanism that once kept them safe but now creates conflict in their most intimate relationships.
* Contempt that’s actually a protective wall: Contempt is often described as the most destructive of the Four Horsemen, characterized by eye-rolling, sarcasm, and a sense of moral superiority. But for a trauma survivor, this superiority is often a fragile shield. The subconscious logic is: “If I make myself superior, if I push you away with my disdain, I can’t be hurt again.” It’s a preemptive strike against anticipated rejection or betrayal, a desperate attempt to create distance and control in relationships where they once felt powerless. This isn’t about genuinely believing oneself to be superior; it’s a defense mechanism, a protective wall built to keep vulnerability at bay and prevent the re-experiencing of past hurts.
* Defensiveness that’s actually a fawn-fight hybrid: Defensiveness is typically seen as a refusal to take responsibility. But for someone who grew up in an environment where admitting fault meant severe punishment, emotional withdrawal, or even physical harm from a caregiver, defensiveness is a deeply ingrained self-protection mechanism. It’s a frantic attempt to deflect blame and avoid the devastating consequences that were associated with being “wrong” in childhood. This can manifest as a fawn-fight hybrid, where the individual might initially try to appease, but quickly shifts to an aggressive defense when feeling cornered. It’s not about avoiding accountability; it’s about avoiding perceived annihilation.
* Stonewalling that’s actually dorsal vagal shutdown: As we saw with Nadia, stonewalling is often the nervous system’s last resort when fight and flight aren’t options. It’s a profound physiological state of immobilization and dissociation. The person isn’t choosing to ignore their partner; their nervous system has literally taken them offline to protect them from overwhelming distress. This isn’t a conscious act of defiance or passive aggression; it’s an involuntary biological response to an unbearable perceived threat, a complete system shutdown to conserve energy and minimize pain.

When these trauma-driven responses are misidentified as simple communication flaws, repair attempts inevitably fail. One partner’s nervous system reads the other’s attempt to connect or resolve the issue as a threat, not safety. The classic “pursuer-withdrawer” dance, so common in distressed couples, is often a manifestation of attachment patterns forged in childhood, playing out in real-time. These patterns are not easily overcome with simple communication techniques because they are rooted in deep-seated physiological and psychological responses to perceived danger.

Attachment Theory and the Four Horsemen

To fully grasp the complexity of these dynamics, we must layer the Gottman framework with attachment theory. The way we connect with our primary caregivers in childhood forms the blueprint for how we connect with romantic partners in adulthood. These early attachment experiences shape our internal working models of relationships, influencing our expectations, behaviors, and emotional responses in intimate partnerships.

Anxious attachment, characterized by a deep fear of abandonment and a constant need for reassurance, often maps onto the pursuing behaviors of criticism and contempt. The anxiously attached partner, terrified of losing connection, may use criticism as a misguided attempt to force engagement, to pull their partner closer, or to express their profound unmet needs and underlying panic. This criticism isn’t necessarily malicious; it’s often a desperate cry for attention and validation, a way to ensure their partner is still present and invested. Similarly, contempt, while damaging, can be an expression of intense frustration and hurt stemming from a perceived lack of responsiveness or care from their partner, a defense against the unbearable pain of anticipated abandonment.

Avoidant attachment, characterized by a fear of engulfment and a reliance on extreme self-sufficiency, often maps onto the withdrawing behaviors of defensiveness and stonewalling. The avoidantly attached partner, overwhelmed by the demands of intimacy and terrified of losing their autonomy, may use defensiveness to keep their partner at a distance, to protect their perceived independence, or to avoid the vulnerability that comes with admitting fault. Stonewalling, in this context, becomes the ultimate defense mechanism, a complete shutdown of communication and emotional engagement when the perceived threat of intimacy or emotional demand becomes too great. It’s a retreat into a self-protective shell, a desperate attempt to regain a sense of control and prevent emotional engulfment.

The Gottman framework gains enormous depth when viewed through this lens. We begin to see that the Four Horsemen are not just bad habits; they are the desperate, often unconscious strategies of insecurely attached individuals trying to navigate the terrifying terrain of intimacy. Understanding these underlying attachment dynamics allows us to approach these destructive patterns with greater empathy and to develop more effective, trauma-informed interventions. It’s not about blaming the individual for their attachment style, but about recognizing how these deeply ingrained patterns influence their relational behaviors and working towards more secure attachment strategies.

As the poet Mary Oliver asked, “Tell me, what is it you plan to do / with your one wild and precious life?” For driven and ambitious women, the answer often involves building a life of profound meaning and connection. But when the ghosts of an unsafe childhood haunt our intimate relationships, that connection can feel impossible to sustain. It’s a profound challenge, but one that, with awareness and intentional effort, can be overcome.

Both/And: The Four Horsemen Can Be Communication Failures and Survival Strategies Operating Simultaneously

It’s crucial to hold a “both/and” perspective here. The behaviors associated with the Four Horsemen are destructive to relationships. They do erode trust and intimacy. And, simultaneously, they are often deeply ingrained survival strategies. Recognizing the trauma origin of a behavior doesn’t excuse its impact, but it does change how we address it. It moves us away from judgment and blame, and towards understanding and compassionate intervention.

Consider Sarah, a highly successful physician. In the ER, she’s calm, focused, and capable of making life-or-death decisions under immense pressure. But at home, her interactions with her husband are often fraught with tension. She frequently points out his flaws, criticizes his parenting decisions, and micromanages his contributions to the household.

Her husband feels constantly attacked and belittled. He sees her behavior as contemptuous and controlling. But Sarah’s “criticism” in her marriage isn’t contempt — it’s hypervigilance. She scans her partner’s behavior the way she once scanned her mother’s face for signs of an approaching storm. Growing up with an alcoholic and unpredictable mother, Sarah learned that anticipating problems and trying to control her environment was the only way to stay safe. This constant vigilance, while adaptive in her childhood, now manifests as a relentless critique of her husband, a desperate attempt to preempt any perceived failure or threat.

Every unanswered text, every slight change in tone, every forgotten chore activates the same alarm system that kept her safe as a child. She doesn’t want to criticize. She wants to be safe. She doesn’t know the difference yet. Her behavior is simultaneously a communication failure that is damaging her marriage and a survival strategy that once kept her alive. The challenge lies in helping Sarah to differentiate between genuine threats and perceived threats, and to develop new, healthier ways of seeking safety and control that don’t inadvertently push her partner away.

If you’re seeing your own patterns in the Four Horsemen and suspecting they’re connected to something older — something from your family of origin — Fixing the Foundations is where I help women like you untangle the wiring beneath the relationship patterns. This program provides a roadmap for understanding these deep-seated dynamics and developing new strategies for relational health.

The Systemic Lens: Why Couples Therapy Without a Trauma Lens Pathologizes Survival

This brings us to a critical issue in the field of relationship therapy. Standard couples therapy often treats the Four Horsemen as skills deficits. The implicit message is: “You just need to learn better communication tools. Learn to use I-statements, take a time-out, express appreciation.” While these tools can be helpful in certain contexts, they often fall short when trauma is at play.

But for trauma survivors, these cognitive communication strategies bypass the nervous system entirely. You can’t I-statement your way out of a dorsal vagal shutdown. When a woman like Nadia is in a freeze response, her prefrontal cortex — the part of the brain responsible for logic, language, and rational thought — is effectively offline. Asking her to use an I-statement in that moment is like asking someone who is drowning to critique the stroke technique of the lifeguard. It’s an unrealistic expectation that ignores the physiological reality of trauma responses.

When couples therapists don’t understand trauma, they inadvertently pathologize survival strategies. They label the withdrawing partner as “resistant” or the pursuing partner as “borderline.” They blame the partner whose nervous system is most dysregulated, failing to recognize that this dysregulation is a symptom of a deeper wound, not a character flaw or a deliberate act of sabotage. This approach can be incredibly damaging, reinforcing shame and further isolating individuals who are already struggling.

Women — who are socialized to be “the emotional ones” and who often carry the invisible mental load of the relationship — disproportionately bear this pathologizing. They’re told they’re too needy, too critical, or too shut down, without any acknowledgment of the systemic and historical factors that shaped their nervous systems. As Richard Schwartz, the creator of Internal Family Systems, notes in No Bad Parts, “The mono-mind paradigm has caused us to fear our parts and view them as pathological… we learn at an early age to shame and manhandle our unruly parts.” When therapy reinforces this shame, it deepens the trauma rather than healing it. A trauma-informed approach, by contrast, recognizes these “unruly parts” as protectors that developed in response to past pain, and seeks to understand and integrate them rather than shame them.

How to Heal: A Trauma-Informed Path Forward

So, how do we heal? How do we move beyond the Four Horsemen when they’re so deeply intertwined with our survival? The path forward requires a fundamental shift in how we approach relationship repair. It requires moving from a purely cognitive, skills-based approach to a somatic, trauma-informed approach that addresses the root causes of these patterns.

Mapping Each Horseman to Its Trauma Origin

The first step is awareness. We must map each Horseman to its trauma origin, identifying which survival strategy is driving the communication pattern. This requires deep, compassionate curiosity and a willingness to explore the past without judgment. When you find yourself criticizing your partner, can you pause and ask yourself: “What am I afraid of right now? What does this situation remind me of? What unmet need is driving this behavior?” When you feel the urge to stonewall, can you recognize the physiological signs of shutdown in your body — the sudden quiet, the feeling of detachment, the inability to speak — and say to your partner, “My nervous system is overwhelmed right now, and I need a moment to regulate. I’m not ignoring you; I’m trying to keep myself safe”?

This mapping process helps to depathologize the behavior. It shifts the narrative from “I am a bad partner” to “I am a trauma survivor whose nervous system is trying to protect me in the only way it knows how.” This understanding is the first step towards self-compassion and the ability to choose different responses.

Polyvagal-Informed Repair

Once we understand the underlying neurobiology, we can begin to practice polyvagal-informed repair. This means working with the nervous system, not against it. It means recognizing that cognitive repair attempts — apologizing, explaining, problem-solving — will fail if the body is still in threat mode. The prefrontal cortex, responsible for rational thought, is simply not accessible when the nervous system is in a state of fight, flight, or freeze.

Before we can repair the relationship, we must regulate the nervous system. This might involve somatic practices like deep breathing, grounding exercises (e.g., feeling your feet on the floor, noticing five things you can see), or gentle physical movement. It might involve taking a true, regulated break from the conflict, rather than just storming off in a huff. The goal is to bring the nervous system back into a state of ventral vagal safety and social engagement, where true connection and communication are possible. This is where we can access our capacity for empathy, compassion, and rational problem-solving.

Co-Regulation Practices

For trauma survivors, self-regulation is often incredibly difficult, especially in the midst of relational conflict. We may need to rely on co-regulation — using our partner’s calm nervous system as a resource to help settle our own. This requires a partner who is willing and able to remain grounded and present, even when we’re dysregulated, and to offer a safe, steady presence.

Co-regulation practices can be simple yet profoundly effective: holding hands, matching breathing patterns, gentle touch, or simply sitting quietly together in a safe space. It’s about communicating safety to the body, not just the mind. It’s about creating a shared physiological experience of calm. If you’re looking for structured guidance on how to build these practices into your relationship, my Building Partnerships That Last Mini-Course offers practical, trauma-informed tools for co-regulation and connection, helping couples create a more secure and responsive relational environment.

Attachment-Focused EFT

For couples with trauma histories, Attachment-focused Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) can be incredibly effective. Developed by Dr. Sue Johnson, EFT helps couples identify their negative interaction cycles (the “pursuer-withdrawer” dance) and understand the underlying attachment needs and fears that drive them. It provides a safe, structured environment for couples to express their vulnerabilities, articulate their deepest fears and longings, and learn how to respond to each other with empathy and support. EFT helps to rewire insecure attachment patterns into more secure ones, fostering a deeper sense of safety and connection. If you’re interested in exploring this type of deep, relational work, I encourage you to learn more about Therapy with Annie, where I utilize these evidence-based approaches to help couples heal and thrive.

Individual Trauma Processing

Finally, it’s essential to recognize that couples work alone is often not enough. To truly heal the patterns that drive the Four Horsemen, we must engage in individual trauma processing alongside couples work. We must repair the foundation beneath the relationship, addressing the unresolved wounds that continue to impact present-day interactions.

This might involve therapies like EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing), Somatic Experiencing, or Internal Family Systems (IFS), which are designed to process traumatic memories and release stored trauma from the body. It’s about addressing the root cause of the dysregulation, rather than just managing the symptoms. As Judith Herman writes in Trauma and Recovery, “In situations of captivity, the perpetrator becomes the most powerful person in the life of the victim, and the psychology of the victim is shaped by the actions and beliefs of the perpetrator.” We must untangle our psychology from the beliefs of those who harmed us, and reclaim our own agency and safety. Herman also highlights how “The use of intermittent rewards to bind the victim to the perpetrator reaches its most elaborate form in domestic battery… apologies, expressions of love, promises of reform.” Recognizing these insidious patterns is crucial for breaking free and building relationships based on consistent safety, respect, and genuine connection, rather than the volatile cycles of trauma bonding.

You’re not alone in this. The patterns you’re struggling with are not a sign that you’re broken or incapable of love. They’re a testament to your resilience, to the incredible ways your body and mind adapted to survive. But you don’t have to live in survival mode forever. I invite you to join our Strong & Stable community, to take our quiz to learn more about your unique patterns, and to begin the journey of healing. Normalizing seeking help is a strength, not a failure. It is the first step toward building the safe, secure, and deeply connected relationships you deserve.

FAQ

What are the four horsemen in a relationship?
Gottman’s framework identifies four communication patterns that predict relationship dissolution: criticism (attacking character), contempt (communicating disgust/superiority), defensiveness (deflecting responsibility), and stonewalling (withdrawing/shutting down). These are considered highly destructive to relational health.

Can the four horsemen be trauma responses?
Yes — each Horseman can be understood as a survival strategy forged in response to early trauma. Criticism often manifests as hypervigilance, a constant scanning for threats; contempt as protective superiority, a defensive wall against vulnerability; defensiveness as self-protection from punishment, a learned response to avoid harm; and stonewalling as a freeze/shutdown response, the nervous system’s ultimate retreat from perceived danger.

Why does stonewalling happen in trauma survivors?
Stonewalling in trauma survivors is often a dorsal vagal shutdown — an involuntary physiological response governed by the oldest branch of the autonomic nervous system. It’s not a conscious choice or passive aggression; it’s the nervous system’s last resort when fight and flight aren’t available, a complete immobilization to cope with overwhelming threat. It’s a biological imperative, not a relational slight.

Is contempt always abuse?
This is a nuanced issue that requires careful consideration. Contempt is always damaging to a relationship, as it erodes respect and connection. However, it isn’t always indicative of abuse. In trauma survivors, it can sometimes be a defensive wall rather than an offensive weapon, a misguided attempt to create distance and protect a fragile self from perceived attack. While intent matters, the impact of contempt is always corrosive, and it must be addressed regardless of its origin.

How do you repair after the four horsemen?
Effective repair after the Four Horsemen, especially when trauma is involved, requires integrating Gottman’s repair attempts framework with trauma-informed additions. The crucial first step is to regulate the nervous system, as cognitive repair attempts will fail if the body is still in threat mode. Once a sense of physiological safety is re-established, couples can then engage in cognitive and emotional repair, addressing the underlying patterns and developing healthier communication strategies.

Related Reading

1. Gottman, John M., and Nan Silver. The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. New York: Harmony Books, 2015.
2. Johnson, Susan M. Hold Me Tight: Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love. New York: Little, Brown Spark, 2008.
3. Tatkin, Stan. Wired for Love: How Understanding Your Partner’s Brain and Attachment Style Can Help You Defuse Conflict and Build a Secure Relationship. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger, 2012.
4. Levine, Amir, and Rachel Heller. Attached: The New Science of Adult Attachment and How It Can Help You Find — and Keep — Love. New York: TarcherPerigee, 2010.

* Fixing the Foundations: A comprehensive program designed to help you untangle the wiring beneath your relationship patterns and build a secure foundation for lasting love.
* Building Partnerships That Last Mini-Course: Practical, trauma-informed tools for co-regulation and connection.
* Therapy with Annie: Deep, relational work utilizing Attachment-focused EFT and trauma processing.
* Understanding Betrayal Trauma: A complete guide to navigating the complex aftermath of betrayal.
* Dating After Narcissistic Abuse: (Coming Soon)
* High-Functioning Codependency: (Coming Soon)
* Understanding Attachment Styles: Explore how your early experiences shape your adult relationships.
* The Psychology of Partner Selection: Why we choose who we choose, and how to make healthier choices.
* Breaking the Cycle of Trauma Bonding: Recognizing and healing from addictive relationship patterns.

:
Annie Wright, LMFT, is a licensed psychotherapist, clinical thought leader, and the founder of AnnieWright.com. With over 15,000 clinical hours and a deep specialization in relational trauma, she helps driven and ambitious women heal their pasts and build secure, deeply fulfilling relationships. She is a regular contributor to major publications and the author of a forthcoming book with W.W. Norton.

Medical Disclaimer

Medical Disclaimer