Anxious Attachment and the Psychology of People-Pleasing

Attachment theory provides one of the most insightful frameworks for understanding how individuals form, maintain, and sometimes sabotage their relationships. Developed by John Bowlby and later refined by Mary Ainsworth, attachment theory proposes that early interactions with caregivers shape internal models of security and trust that influence later relationships. Among the attachment patterns identified – secure, avoidant, and anxious – the anxious attachment style stands out as particularly associated with emotional dependency, fear of abandonment, and maladaptive interpersonal behaviors such as people-pleasing. People-pleasing can be seen as a behavioral manifestation of the anxious attachment system, a desperate attempt to maintain proximity and approval from significant others by sacrificing one’s own needs and autonomy. Although such behaviors may temporarily stabilize relationships, they tend to perpetuate insecurity, dissatisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Understanding how anxious attachment leads to people-pleasing not only clarifies the roots of this behavior but also illuminates potential paths toward healthier relational dynamics.

Bowlby’s conceptualization of attachment as an innate survival mechanism underscores the human need for closeness and protection. In infancy, this attachment is primarily directed toward the caregiver, whose responsiveness determines the child’s sense of safety. Infants who experience consistent care develop secure attachments, internalizing the belief that others are reliable and that they themselves are worthy of love. Conversely, when caregivers are inconsistent – alternating between attentiveness and unresponsiveness—children may develop anxious attachment. They learn that love and care are unpredictable, fostering hypervigilance and a chronic fear of rejection. These early experiences become mental templates that persist into adulthood, shaping expectations and behaviors in close relationships. Adults with an anxious attachment style often seek excessive reassurance, interpret neutral cues as signs of disinterest, and overinvest emotionally in relationships to avoid perceived abandonment.

Empirical research has consistently demonstrated that early attachment patterns predict later relational outcomes. Securely attached adults tend to experience higher satisfaction, stability, and mutuality in their friendships and romantic partnerships. They are comfortable with intimacy and capable of managing separation without significant distress. In contrast, those with insecure attachment, particularly the anxious subtype, often report greater conflict, dependency, and ambivalence in their relationships. Studies have shown that anxious individuals display heightened physiological responses to perceived rejection and are prone to rumination about their partners’ availability. Their preoccupation with maintaining closeness can result in behavioral patterns that, paradoxically, undermine the very security they crave. One of the most common of these behaviors is people-pleasing – the excessive prioritization of others’ needs and desires at the expense of one’s own.

People-pleasing, as a psychological construct, refers to a pervasive tendency to seek approval, avoid conflict, and gain affection through compliance and self-sacrifice. It is not simply politeness or altruism; rather, it involves an underlying fear that rejection or disapproval will result in the loss of the relationship. Anxiously attached individuals are particularly vulnerable to this dynamic. Because they equate love with acceptance and attention, they may adopt submissive or accommodating behaviors as strategies to secure attachment. They may agree to requests they find uncomfortable, suppress their opinions to avoid disapproval, or apologize excessively even when not at fault. On the surface, these behaviors appear prosocial – people-pleasers are often described as kind, helpful, and empathetic. However, beneath this facade lies anxiety, low self-worth, and an inability to assert personal boundaries.

The relationship between anxious attachment and people-pleasing can be better understood through the lens of emotion regulation. When anxiously attached individuals perceive potential threats to their relationship – such as conflict, criticism, or distance – they experience intense emotional distress. To alleviate this discomfort, they engage in what attachment theorists call “hyperactivating strategies.” These include excessive reassurance-seeking, clinging, and compliance – behaviors designed to elicit closeness or validation from the attachment figure. People-pleasing functions as one of these strategies: by accommodating others’ needs and suppressing one’s own, the individual temporarily reduces anxiety about abandonment. Yet, over time, these patterns reinforce dependency and prevent the development of authentic, reciprocal intimacy.

Neuroscientific research provides further evidence for this dynamic. Studies have found that individuals with an anxious attachment style exhibit heightened activation in brain regions associated with social pain and rejection, including the amygdala, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, and anterior insula. This suggests that anxiously attached people literally experience social rejection as a threat to survival. Consequently, their efforts to prevent such rejection become compulsive and self-defeating. People-pleasing, in this sense, represents an attempt to regulate a hyperactive attachment system by ensuring relational security through constant appeasement. Unfortunately, this strategy often leads to resentment, burnout, and the perpetuation of insecure bonds.

Two major forms of people-pleasing behaviors can be distinguished in this context: harmful self-sacrifice and risky conformity. Harmful self-sacrifice involves consistently neglecting personal needs, values, or boundaries in order to satisfy others. An anxiously attached person may, for example, take on unreasonable tasks for a friend or partner, suppress emotional needs, or avoid expressing disagreement to maintain harmony. While self-sacrifice can be an expression of love when balanced and mutual, in the case of anxious attachment it often stems from fear rather than genuine care. Partners or friends may eventually perceive such constant giving as excessive or inauthentic, which can strain the relationship rather than strengthen it. Research indicates that individuals who engage in self-sacrificial behaviors out of fear of rejection report lower relationship satisfaction and greater emotional exhaustion.

Risky conformity, another manifestation of people-pleasing, refers to the tendency to adopt others’ behaviors or opinions – sometimes even engaging in harmful activities—to avoid rejection. Adolescents and young adults with anxious attachment, for instance, have been found more likely to conform to peers’ risky behaviors such as substance use or unsafe social practices. This is not due to impulsivity but rather to an overreliance on external validation. By mirroring others’ actions, anxiously attached individuals hope to maintain acceptance within the group. However, this conformity further erodes their sense of self, reinforcing the belief that approval must be earned through compliance rather than authenticity.

Over time, people-pleasing becomes part of a destructive cycle. The more an individual sacrifices their needs for others, the less confident they feel in their own worth. This diminished self-esteem, in turn, increases their dependence on external approval, perpetuating anxious attachment dynamics. Each act of self-denial or forced conformity strengthens the internal narrative of unworthiness and fear of abandonment. The result is a paradoxical relationship pattern: the very behaviors intended to preserve closeness ultimately generate distance, frustration, and instability. The partner or friend may grow weary of constant reassurance demands, while the anxious individual feels even more insecure, interpreting any withdrawal as confirmation of their fears.

Breaking this cycle requires both cognitive and behavioral change. Anxiously attached individuals can begin by cultivating a sense of internal security independent of external validation. One effective approach is the practice of emotional detachment – not in the sense of indifference, but as a balanced ability to be alone without distress. Learning to tolerate separation and uncertainty helps recalibrate the attachment system, reducing the compulsion to please others. Research suggests that when anxiously attached individuals believe that they will find new, supportive relationships, they are more capable of letting go of unhealthy ones. This cognitive reframing – recognizing that one’s worth and security do not depend on a single person – fosters resilience and reduces people-pleasing tendencies.

Another key step involves shifting perspective on social cues and perceived threats. Because anxious individuals tend to interpret neutral behaviors as signs of rejection, learning to reinterpret these cues can reduce unnecessary anxiety. Cognitive-behavioral strategies, such as identifying and challenging automatic negative thoughts, can help them recognize that not every delayed text or ambiguous remark indicates disapproval. Emotional regulation skills, such as mindfulness and grounding exercises, further assist in moderating hyperactive responses. By viewing others’ behaviors more objectively, anxiously attached individuals can respond with authenticity rather than compliance.

Open communication also plays a crucial role. People-pleasers often avoid expressing negative emotions or needs, fearing that honesty will lead to rejection. However, research demonstrates that constructive communication strengthens, rather than threatens, relationships. When anxiously attached individuals learn to express their needs clearly and respectfully, they invite reciprocity and reduce misunderstandings. This process requires courage and practice, as it contradicts the ingrained belief that love must be earned through self-denial. Over time, honest dialogue can transform relationships from asymmetrical dependence to mutual respect.

Equally important is the skill of assertive refusal. People-pleasers must learn to differentiate between kindness and compliance, understanding that saying “no” does not equate to rejection or selfishness. Setting boundaries is not only protective but also a sign of self-respect, signaling to others that their needs and comfort matter. Assertiveness training can help anxiously attached individuals develop this capacity, teaching them to decline requests without guilt or hostility. Small acts of refusal – such as declining an unreasonable favor or expressing disagreement – can gradually rewire the association between self-assertion and fear of abandonment. As individuals learn that healthy relationships withstand boundaries, their internal security strengthens.

Ultimately, the path from people-pleasing to secure relating involves cultivating self-compassion. Anxiously attached individuals often internalize shame about their dependency and emotional sensitivity. Recognizing that these tendencies arise from unmet childhood needs rather than personal weakness can be liberating. Self-compassion allows individuals to respond to their fears with understanding rather than criticism, creating the emotional safety necessary for change. Therapeutic interventions that emphasize self-acceptance, such as attachment-based therapy or mindfulness practices, have been shown to reduce attachment anxiety and foster healthier relational patterns.

In conclusion, the link between anxious attachment and people-pleasing illustrates how early experiences of inconsistency and insecurity shape lifelong relational strategies. People-pleasing emerges as an attempt to mitigate the pain of potential rejection by ensuring approval through compliance and self-sacrifice. Yet, these behaviors paradoxically deepen insecurity, undermine satisfaction, and perpetuate fragile relationships. By practicing detachment, reinterpreting social cues, communicating openly, and setting boundaries, anxiously attached individuals can begin to dismantle the cycle of people-pleasing and move toward genuine intimacy. Future research should continue to explore how attachment-based interventions can reduce people-pleasing behaviors across different cultural and gender contexts. Ultimately, healing anxious attachment is not about eliminating the desire for closeness but about learning to pursue connection from a place of confidence rather than fear – a transformation that replaces the compulsion to please with the capacity to love authentically.

Source

How to Stop Being a People-Pleaser

Being a people-pleaser often begins as a desire to help, to be seen as kind, dependable, and cooperative. Yet this desire can slowly transform into a trap—one that ties self-worth to the approval of others. In the workplace, the people-pleaser is the person who cannot say no, who always volunteers for extra work, and who measures their value by how useful they are to the group. Despite their efforts, they are rarely appreciated, often becoming invisible or taken for granted.

The roots of this behavior usually reach back to childhood. From an early age, children learn that being “good” or “bad” depends on the emotional reactions of the adults around them. When being helpful and compliant earns affection and attention, that pattern becomes deeply ingrained. As adults, these early lessons evolve into a belief that one’s worth is defined by how much others approve or need them. The result is an endless cycle of seeking validation through service, at the cost of personal boundaries and emotional balance.

Breaking free from this pattern requires confronting the anxiety that drives it. For many, the thought of not pleasing others provokes deep discomfort—if they are not the helpful one, will they still matter? Learning to put oneself first begins by questioning motives: “Why am I doing this?” and “Who is this really for?” There is nothing wrong with being kind or cooperative, but when those actions come from fear of rejection rather than genuine choice, they stop being healthy.

Learning to say no is a vital skill. Practicing refusal, even in imagined situations, helps reveal the emotions that surface—guilt, shame, or fear of disapproval. Instead of burying those feelings, sitting with them allows understanding and growth. Each time a person resists the automatic “yes,” they reclaim a small part of their independence. Over time, the discomfort fades and is replaced by a sense of control and self-respect.

Another important realization is that self-worth is not dependent on how others see us. It is natural for relationships to involve mixed emotions—others will not always feel positively toward us, just as we cannot always be pleased with them. Accepting this ambivalence is part of emotional maturity. Likewise, understanding that disappointment is inevitable in human relationships allows us to connect more authentically. To never disappoint or be disappointed is to live without real connection or honesty.

The fantasy of the perfect workplace—where everyone is kind, cheerful, and endlessly supportive—does not exist. Real workplaces, like real families, are filled with differing moods, frustrations, and imperfections. Constantly striving to maintain harmony through self-sacrifice drains energy and erodes confidence. True teamwork does not come from pleasing everyone but from being honest, setting limits, and respecting both personal and collective boundaries.

Ultimately, the path away from people-pleasing is not about becoming unkind or unhelpful. It is about reclaiming the right to make choices that honor one’s own needs as much as others’. Saying no does not mean being selfish; it means recognizing that kindness has no value when it is forced or fearful. By letting go of the compulsion to please, a person creates space for authenticity, confidence, and genuine respect—both from themselves and from those around them.

Source

PACE: A Trauma-Informed Approach to Supporting Children and Young People

Introduction to PACE

PACE is a therapeutic approach developed by Dr. Dan Hughes more than two decades ago, designed to help adults build safe, meaningful, and trusting relationships with children and young people who have experienced trauma. Rooted in attachment-focused family therapy, PACE encourages adults to think, feel, communicate, and behave in ways that help children feel secure. It is not a rigid, step-by-step procedure, but rather a flexible mindset that integrates four essential qualities: Playfulness, Acceptance, Curiosity, and Empathy.

Children who have lived through traumatic experiences often struggle with trust, connection, and emotional regulation. Their interactions with adults may be shaped by fear, defensiveness, or shame, making it difficult to form stable attachments. PACE aims to create an environment where these children feel safe enough to explore emotions, express themselves, and build resilience. By adopting PACE, adults can slow down their own responses, regulate their emotions, and remain engaged even during challenging moments. This emotional regulation is essential: when adults stay calm and supportive, children are more likely to mirror that stability, gradually learning to manage their own intense emotions.

Ultimately, PACE offers both children and adults a pathway toward understanding, connection, and healing. Instead of focusing primarily on correcting behaviours, it emphasises relationship-building and emotional safety. In this way, it equips caregivers, teachers, and social workers with strategies to guide children through difficult emotions and behaviours, without compromising their sense of self-worth.

Playfulness

Playfulness is the first element of PACE and serves as an important bridge to closeness without fear. Many children affected by trauma may withdraw from joyful experiences, having lost hope in the possibility of fun or shared enjoyment. For some, affection feels threatening, and hugs or overt displays of love may be rejected. A playful stance provides a gentler alternative, allowing warmth and closeness without overwhelming the child.

Playfulness reassures children that conflicts or separations in a relationship are temporary and not damaging to the connection. In tense situations, a light tone of voice, animated facial expressions, or humour can defuse defensiveness and create opportunities for reconnection. This is not about minimising serious misbehaviour but about keeping minor incidents in perspective. For instance, when a child resists transitioning between activities, introducing a playful game or role-play can reduce resistance and maintain cooperation.

Practical strategies for playfulness include storytelling tones rather than lecturing, softening facial expressions, lowering body posture to avoid intimidating presence, or transforming routine tasks into small games. These subtle adjustments communicate warmth and safety while maintaining the adult’s authority.

Importantly, playfulness is not about distracting from difficulties or denying a child’s struggles. Instead, it signals to the child that relationships can contain joy, even in the presence of challenges. For children who expect rejection or punishment, playfulness can be a powerful reassurance that their presence is valued. Over time, playful interactions rebuild a child’s belief in positive connection and create space for emotional growth.

Acceptance

Acceptance in PACE communicates to a child that their inner world—thoughts, feelings, and intentions—is safe from judgment. For many children, especially those shaped by trauma, the fear of being criticised or rejected for their feelings can prevent honest expression. Acceptance means separating the child’s identity and intentions from their behaviours. Adults can challenge unsafe behaviours while still affirming the child’s worth and humanity.

For example, when a child declares, “You hate me,” a typical adult instinct may be to deny or correct the statement. However, PACE encourages an accepting response such as, “I’m sorry it feels that way to you. That must be really painful.” This communicates understanding without dismissal, showing the child that their perspective matters, even if it is painful or inaccurate.

Through acceptance, children learn that conflict does not equal rejection. They discover that behaviours can be addressed and limited without threatening their relationship or self-worth. Adults may say, “I’m disappointed by what you did, but I know you were upset. It doesn’t change how much I care about you.” Such statements reinforce the difference between disapproving of behaviour and rejecting the child as a person.

This practice strengthens children’s confidence in relationships, making them more willing to share vulnerabilities. Acceptance fosters resilience by teaching children that they can be loved despite their mistakes, and that their feelings—whether anger, fear, or sadness—are valid and worthy of attention.

Examples or how to express acceptance:

“I can see how you feel this is unfair. You wanted to play longer”
“You probably think that I don’t care about what you want”
“You were letting me know that you were really scared when you ran
away from me”
“I can hear you saying that you hate me and you’re feeling really cross.
I’ll still be here for you after you calm down”.
“I’m disappointed by what you did, but I know you were really upset. It
doesn’t change how much I care about you”.

Curiosity

Curiosity is the element of PACE that invites children to explore and reflect on the reasons behind their behaviours. Many children, especially those living with trauma, may recognise that their actions are inappropriate but lack the words or awareness to explain why. Instead of asking “Why did you do that?” in a demanding or accusatory way, curiosity involves gentle wondering, aimed at understanding rather than interrogating.

For instance, rather than scolding a child for breaking a toy, an adult might say, “I’m wondering if you broke the toy because you were feeling angry.” Such open-ended reflections give children the opportunity to recognise and articulate their emotions without fear of judgment. The tone is vital: curiosity must be communicated lightly, with compassion rather than frustration.

Curiosity helps children distinguish between their behaviours and their identities. When adults show genuine interest in the underlying feelings—such as sadness, fear, or confusion—children begin to understand that their behaviours are expressions of unmet needs rather than evidence of being “bad.” This reduces shame and defensiveness, replacing them with healthier emotions such as guilt, which can motivate positive change.

Examples of curiosity include phrases like, “I wonder if…,” “Could it be…?,” or “Tell me if I’m getting this wrong.” These sentence starters signal openness and a desire to understand, not to correct. Over time, curiosity builds children’s capacity for self-reflection and strengthens trust in their caregivers.

Examples of curiosity:

“I’m wondering if you broke the toy because you were feeling angry.”
“I’m thinking you’re a little nervous about going back to school today,
and that’s why you don’t want to get ready this morning”.
“I’ve noticed that you’ve been using a really loud voice, and if you’re
trying to tell me that you’re angry with me.”
“I’m a little confused. Usually you love going for a walk, but today you
don’t want to go. I’m wondering what’s different about today”.
“When she couldn’t play with you today, I’m wondering if you thought
that meant she doesn’t like you.”

Empathy

Empathy is the heart of PACE, ensuring children feel that they do not face struggles alone. Empathy involves actively recognising and validating a child’s distress, demonstrating compassion and solidarity. For traumatised children, empathy communicates that their emotions are not too overwhelming or burdensome for the adult to handle.

Showing empathy requires both words and actions. Adults might say, “That must have been so painful,” or “You are really upset right now, and that’s so hard.” Such statements acknowledge the child’s feelings without minimising them. Non-verbal cues, such as calm body language, gentle tone, and attentive presence, reinforce the message.

Importantly, empathy is not about pity or indulgence. It is about recognising that behaviours often stem from deeper struggles and showing willingness to share in those struggles. By doing so, adults demonstrate resilience and commitment, reassuring the child that the relationship remains intact even during difficult moments.

For example, when a child lashes out after feeling excluded, empathy might sound like: “It hurt so much when she didn’t ask you to play. That must have felt confusing.” This helps the child name their emotions and feel understood. Over time, empathy helps children build trust in relationships, knowing that their vulnerabilities will be met with care rather than criticism.

Examples of empathy:
“You are SO upset about this right now. That must be really hard!”
“It hurt so much when she didn’t ask you to play. You were probably
thinking ‘Why did she do that?’ It was a real shock for you.”
“You wanted to have another turn so badly. You were so excited about it
and it’s so unfair that we ran out of time”.
“It seems to you like he hates you. That must be really hard. I know you
like him a lot, so this is pretty confusing”.
“I know it’s hard for you to hear what I’m saying.”
“Me saying ‘No’ has made you angry with me. I get why you don’t want
to talk to me right now”

PACE in Practice

While PACE is simple in principle, applying it consistently in real-life situations can be challenging. Adults often feel the urge to correct or discipline, especially when confronted with disrespect or aggression. Yet practice shows that PACE-oriented responses defuse conflict and build stronger relationships.

Take, for instance, Emily, who becomes angry when denied a turn on the swings, yelling “I hate you!” A typical response might involve correcting her rudeness. A PACE-ful approach, however, acknowledges her anger with playfulness and empathy: “Wow, you’re really angry! It feels rubbish when you can’t do what you want.” Such responses validate her feelings while keeping the relationship intact.

Similarly, when Tom swears at his dad after school, a typical response might be punishment. But with PACE, his dad could say, “I can see you’re really angry. I’m wondering if something happened at school.” This curiosity and empathy create space for Tom to share his feelings rather than escalating conflict.

These examples illustrate how PACE transforms discipline into connection. Instead of viewing behaviours as personal attacks or defiance, adults see them as expressions of inner struggles. By responding with playfulness, acceptance, curiosity, and empathy, adults guide children toward emotional regulation, resilience, and trust.

Example:
Emily asks Mum if she can play on the swings. Mum says she can’t as they need to be home soon. Emily gets very upset and angry and starts yelling “that’s so unfair, I hate you. You’re horrible!!!!”
Typical response:
“Emily, don’t be so rude!”
“Life’s unfair!”
“I am not horrible and you don’t hate me.”
PACE-ful response:
“OH WOW [in an animated voice], you’re feeling REALLY ANGRY [with a concerned expression]….you think I’m being mean by not letting you go on the swings when you really want to go…I’m saying no and you really want to go and that feels rubbish…it’s so frustrating when
someone says we can’t do something that we want to do!”
“I’m really sorry you feel that I hate you Emily that must feel awful – no wonder you’re so angry and upset if you think I hate you! I’d want to scream and shout too…”
“It’s rubbish that we can’t do the things we enjoy right now…I’m missing the swings too…maybe we could all have a think about what other games we could on our way home…”

The 4 R’s of Responding with PACE

To support practical application, PACE can be aligned with the “4 R’s of Responding”: Regulate, Relate, Reason, and Repair. These steps provide a framework for managing challenging behaviours while maintaining emotional safety.

Regulate involves calming both the child and the adult. Adults must notice their own emotional state, ensuring they remain calm, compassionate, and engaged. They also help the child regulate by addressing immediate safety concerns and using soothing, light-hearted approaches.

Relate comes next, where adults seek to understand the meaning behind the child’s behaviour. Using curiosity and empathy, they explore the child’s motives, fears, or frustrations, showing genuine interest in their experience.

Reason follows, when the adult and child can discuss the behaviour rationally. Logical consequences may be introduced here, but always in a way that separates the behaviour from the child’s worth.

Repair is the final step, ensuring the relationship remains strong. This might include offering a hug, doing something enjoyable together, or using words and actions to affirm ongoing love and connection.

For example, if a child breaks a jar in a supermarket, a PACE-ful process would involve regulating emotions first, then relating by wondering what feelings triggered the act. Once calm, the child can reason about consequences, such as writing a letter of apology. Finally, repairing the relationship reassures the child that the incident does not damage their bond with the adult.

This structured yet compassionate approach ensures that discipline is balanced with emotional safety, turning difficult incidents into opportunities for growth.

Conclusion

PACE offers a trauma-informed, attachment-based framework for supporting children and young people. By integrating Playfulness, Acceptance, Curiosity, and Empathy into everyday interactions, adults can build stronger, safer, and more trusting relationships. The approach recognises that behind every challenging behaviour is an unmet need, an unspoken emotion, or a legacy of trauma. Instead of focusing narrowly on behaviour management, PACE invites adults to engage with the whole child, affirming their worth and supporting their healing journey.

Through consistent practice, PACE not only helps children regulate emotions but also strengthens the resilience of caregivers, teachers, and social workers. The “4 R’s of Responding” provide a practical framework for applying these principles, ensuring that discipline and connection go hand in hand. Ultimately, PACE reminds us that children are not problems to be fixed but individuals to be understood, supported, and valued.

Source

Introduction to “Self” and “Use of Self” in Social Work

The concept of “self” is essential in social work practice. Yet, there is no universal agreement on what “self” means, leading to challenges in applying and teaching “use of self.” This term refers to the ways social workers use their personalities, insights, and emotional responses to engage with clients. The article seeks to define “self” within a theoretical framework that social workers can rely on for effective practice.

Theories of “Self” in Developmental Psychology

Trevithick delves into infant psychological development to explain how a sense of self emerges. The theories examined include:

Bowlby’s Attachment Theory: Describes “internal working models” formed in early caregiver relationships, shaping individuals’ future attachments and self-perceptions.
Feminist Perspectives on Gendered Self: Feminist theories argue that identity formation is influenced by societal roles, often creating distinct gendered expectations and identities for boys and girls.
Psycho-Social Development Models: Several models (e.g., Erikson’s stages of psycho-social development, Piaget’s cognitive development stages) view human development as a series of stages shaped by relationships and experiences, each contributing to self-identity.

Core Concepts of Self

The “self” can be described with various characteristics:

Core vs. Adaptive Self: The “core self” is a stable inner identity, while the “adaptive self” reflects how individuals adjust to different contexts.
Public and Private Self: Some aspects of “self” are public (how one behaves socially), while others are private, more intimate, and inner-directed.
True and False Self: Introduced by Winnicott, the “true self” represents one’s authentic nature, while the “false self” is a defensive response to protect the “true self” in adverse environments.

Bowlby’s Internal Working Models

These models are mental frameworks developed from early experiences that guide expectations in future relationships. For social workers, understanding their own internal working models, as well as those of clients, helps create more supportive interactions.

Non-Verbal Communication in Social Work

The article highlights the importance of non-verbal cues in social work, which often reveal underlying emotions and states. Practitioners should be adept at reading body language, tone, and expressions to understand clients better. This skill enhances the “use of self” by allowing social workers to respond empathetically and intuitively.

Self-Awareness and Reflexivity

Self-awareness is fundamental in the “use of self,” enabling practitioners to recognize their reactions, biases, and emotions. This awareness aids social workers in maintaining objectivity and empathy, vital for effective client interactions. Trevithick emphasizes that self-awareness should be continuously cultivated through reflection, emotional honesty, and a “curious exploration of self.”

Developing a Coherent Framework for “Use of Self”

Trevithick proposes a theoretical framework linking three elements:

Internal Working Models: Practitioners should recognize how these models influence their reactions and interactions.
Communication Theory: Understanding non-verbal cues enriches the relational dynamics of social work.
Self-Awareness: Reflecting on one’s behavior, beliefs, and emotions is key to developing a responsive and ethical practice.

Conclusion

The article emphasizes that to apply “use of self” effectively, social workers need a coherent framework grounded in psychological theories, communication skills, and self-awareness. This approach fosters genuine connections and therapeutic relationships in social work, highlighting the profession’s relational essence and commitment to client-centered care.

Source

Relational Trauma: The Enduring Effects of Maternal Imprisonment on Families

The imprisonment of mothers is a multifaceted issue that leaves profound and enduring effects on family structures, relationships, and individual emotional well-being. Sophie Mitchell’s research explores the complexities of this phenomenon, examining the far-reaching consequences of maternal incarceration on children, kinship carers, and the broader family unit. By focusing on relational trauma—a disruption in familial bonds caused by separation and societal stigma—Mitchell sheds light on the hidden struggles faced by these families. This work not only highlights the depth of these impacts but also challenges current criminal justice practices, advocating for more compassionate and relationship-centered solutions.

The rising debate around female imprisonment questions its necessity and the disproportionate harm it causes. Unlike the incarceration of men, the imprisonment of women, especially mothers, disrupts family units in ways that often cannot be repaired. In many cases, women are imprisoned for non-violent or minor offenses, yet the punitive effects are amplified by the emotional and practical upheaval experienced by their children and relatives. Mitchell’s work positions these relational damages as a central issue that policymakers must address when considering the sentencing and rehabilitation of mothers.

Relational theory serves as a foundation for understanding how maternal imprisonment causes harm. This theory suggests that women’s sense of self is deeply intertwined with their relationships. Unlike men, whose social structures often remain intact during imprisonment, women experience profound disruptions to their familial connections. This severance creates what Mitchell terms “relational trauma,” a form of emotional and psychological harm stemming from broken bonds with children, kinship carers, and extended family members. Such trauma is not confined to the incarcerated mothers but radiates outward, affecting generations and perpetuating cycles of emotional distress and social disadvantage.

A central theme of this research is the unique impact on children, who are often the most vulnerable victims of maternal incarceration. While paternal imprisonment typically allows children to remain in the care of their mothers, only a small fraction—around 5%—of children stay in their family homes when their mothers are imprisoned. Most are placed with grandmothers, other female relatives, or into state care. This sudden displacement uproots their lives, causing significant emotional and psychological challenges. The lack of stability, combined with the absence of a primary caregiver, leaves children grappling with feelings of abandonment and insecurity.

Mitchell’s study brings a much-needed focus to the experiences of older children, a group often overlooked in discussions about maternal imprisonment. Adolescents and young adults face unique challenges, including navigating their own transitions into adulthood without maternal guidance. Many report feelings of anger, resentment, and confusion, often struggling to reconcile their love for their mothers with the stigma and disruption caused by their incarceration. For instance, one mother described her teenage son’s outbursts of anger and difficulty maintaining relationships, showing how deeply the loss of maternal support affected his emotional well-being.

For younger children, the trauma manifests differently. They may not fully understand the circumstances of their mother’s absence, but they experience its effects acutely. Symptoms such as bed-wetting, anxiety, and social withdrawal are common. Mitchell describes the concept of “ambiguous loss,” where children grapple with the absence of their mother despite her psychological presence in their lives. This conflict, compounded by societal stigma, leaves deep scars that shape their emotional development and future relationships.

Kinship carers, often grandmothers, also bear the brunt of maternal imprisonment. These caregivers step into roles they may not have anticipated, often at great personal cost. Financial strain, emotional exhaustion, and physical health challenges are common as they take on the responsibility of raising children in their later years. Many report feeling isolated and unsupported, navigating a system that offers little assistance to non-parental caregivers. Mitchell recounts the story of a grandmother who aged visibly while caring for her grandson during her daughter’s imprisonment, illustrating the toll this role reversal takes on older family members.

The relational strain extends beyond the caregiving arrangement. The incarceration of a mother often fractures relationships between the mother and her own parents or siblings. Grandmothers, in particular, face difficult decisions about whether to shield children from the reality of their mother’s imprisonment or facilitate contact. This dynamic can create tension and resentment, further complicating familial bonds. One participant shared how her mother refused to bring her young daughter to visit her in prison, prioritizing the child’s emotional well-being but deepening the estrangement between mother and grandmother.

Mitchell’s research underscores the enduring impact of these relational fractures, which do not simply heal upon a mother’s release. For many families, the damage is permanent. Mothers returning from prison often face insurmountable challenges in rebuilding their relationships with children and kinship carers. The stigma of incarceration, combined with feelings of guilt and shame, creates barriers to reconciliation. Some children, particularly adolescents, struggle to forgive their mothers, while others feel conflicted about re-establishing a relationship. These dynamics perpetuate cycles of emotional disconnection and relational trauma.

The systemic failures highlighted in Mitchell’s work call for a reevaluation of criminal justice policies regarding mothers. The use of custodial sentences for non-violent offenses must be reconsidered in light of the relational harm caused. Alternatives to imprisonment, such as community-based programs, could offer more compassionate solutions that preserve familial bonds. Countries like Germany have implemented innovative approaches, allowing mothers to care for their children during the day while returning to custody at night. Such programs not only maintain relationships but also provide opportunities for rehabilitation and growth.

In conclusion, Mitchell’s research paints a compelling picture of the far-reaching consequences of maternal imprisonment. By centering relational theory and the concept of relational trauma, her work challenges policymakers to rethink how justice is administered to mothers. The findings highlight the need for systemic changes that prioritize the well-being of families, offering support to mothers, children, and kinship carers as interconnected parts of a fragile ecosystem. In a system that often values punishment over rehabilitation, Mitchell’s work stands as a vital call for empathy, compassion, and a deeper understanding of the human cost of incarceration.

Source

Relationship-Based Practice in Social Work

Relationship-based practice has increasingly been recognized as a cornerstone of effective social work. The concept emphasizes the centrality of human connections in achieving meaningful change, acknowledging that the quality of relationships between social workers and those they serve is a critical factor in successful outcomes. A comprehensive review of the literature by Iriss (Institute for Research and Innovation in Social Services) reveals key themes that underpin this approach, offering insights into how social workers can foster meaningful relationships in their practice.

What is Relationship-Based Practice?

Relationship-based practice revolves around building genuine, empathetic, and collaborative relationships between social workers and service users. It views individuals not just as recipients of interventions but as active participants whose unique experiences, emotions, and contexts shape the process of support and change. This approach challenges more procedural or transactional models of practice, advocating for greater emotional engagement and mutual trust.

Key Themes from the Literature

Empathy and Emotional Intelligence
Central to relationship-based practice is the ability of social workers to understand and respond to the emotional needs of service users. Empathy, combined with emotional intelligence, helps practitioners navigate complex interpersonal dynamics. The literature emphasizes that showing genuine care and understanding builds trust and fosters a sense of safety for individuals facing difficult circumstances.
The Importance of Trust
Trust is foundational to effective social work relationships. Building trust requires consistency, reliability, and openness on the part of the practitioner. Service users who feel heard and respected are more likely to engage meaningfully in the process of change.
The Role of Reflection
Relationship-based practice requires social workers to engage in continuous reflection. Reflective practice allows practitioners to understand their own emotional responses and biases, ensuring that their actions are thoughtful and responsive to the needs of service users.
Power and Partnership
The literature highlights the need for social workers to be aware of power dynamics in their relationships. By adopting a partnership approach, practitioners can empower service users, recognizing their agency and expertise in their own lives.
Contextual Understanding
Effective relationship-based practice considers the broader social, cultural, and systemic contexts that shape individuals’ experiences. Social workers are encouraged to see service users as part of interconnected systems, rather than isolated individuals, to provide support that aligns with their unique circumstances.
Flexibility and Creativity
Relationship-based practice requires a flexible approach tailored to the specific needs and preferences of service users. Creativity in problem-solving and intervention design can enhance engagement and produce more effective outcomes.
The Emotional Impact of Practice
Building strong relationships can be emotionally demanding for social workers. The literature highlights the importance of self-care, supervision, and organizational support to sustain practitioners in their work.

Challenges in Implementing Relationship-Based Practice

While relationship-based practice has clear benefits, it is not without challenges. Increasing administrative demands and resource constraints in social work can limit the time available for building relationships. Furthermore, organizational cultures that prioritize procedural compliance over relational depth can hinder the adoption of this approach. Social workers must navigate these challenges while advocating for practices that prioritize human connection.

The Future of Relationship-Based Practice

To fully realize the potential of relationship-based practice, organizations must create environments that support relational work. This includes providing adequate time, training, and supervision for practitioners to engage deeply with service users. Policymakers and managers should also recognize the value of relationships in driving sustainable outcomes, ensuring that relational approaches are embedded in social work systems and policies.

Conclusion

Relationship-based practice is not merely a technique but a way of being in social work that honors the humanity of both practitioners and service users. By prioritizing empathy, trust, reflection, and contextual understanding, social workers can build meaningful connections that empower individuals and communities. While challenges exist, the growing emphasis on relational approaches signals a shift towards more compassionate and effective social work practice.

Source

The Importance of Emotional Containment in Childhood Development

As children, we experience a whirlwind of strong emotions that can sometimes feel overwhelming. Learning to navigate and regulate these emotions is an essential part of growing up, and it is during these formative years that we begin to develop the tools needed to live and work harmoniously with others. This process is known as emotional containment. It refers to the way in which adults provide the emotional support children need to process and manage intense feelings in a healthy way.

While emotional containment is vital in childhood, it is just as crucial throughout adulthood. In this article, we will explore what emotional containment is, the effects of lacking it, and how adults can support children in learning to manage their emotions effectively.

What is Emotional Containment?

Emotional containment is a concept that describes the emotional support adults provide to help children manage overwhelming feelings. It is about offering a safe space where children can feel their emotions without fear of judgment or reprisal, while also teaching them how to regulate those emotions in a healthy way. The term “containment” suggests that the child feels held and protected, both physically and emotionally.

Psychologists often trace the origins of emotional containment back to early infancy. In these early stages of life, when a baby is distressed, the primary caregiver responds to those needs with comfort, whether through soothing gestures like cuddling, feeding, or diaper changes. These comforting actions help the baby feel safe and secure, and teach them that their emotional needs can be met.

In recent years, the global pandemic has stripped many of us of the communal emotional containment that we once relied on. Social isolation, loss, and grief have left many people feeling disconnected and unsupported. For both children and adults, emotional containment has become more necessary than ever.

The Effects of a Lack of Emotional Containment

When children are deprived of emotional containment, either because it is inconsistent or absent altogether, the long-term effects can be profound. In childhood, the lack of this emotional support can lead to:

Difficulty recognizing or expressing their own emotions
Disrupted sleep and eating patterns
Compulsive behaviors
Increased vulnerability to addiction
Anxiety and panic attacks
Low self-esteem and poor self-worth
Difficulty expressing their needs
Feelings of being undeserving of emotional support
Separation anxiety

Children who do not receive emotional containment may also struggle with managing intense feelings, as unresolved emotions from the past can resurface in stressful situations. This can lead to emotional outbursts or destructive behavior, which are often reactions to deeper unresolved pain.

How Can Adults Support Emotional Containment?

Supporting emotional containment involves creating a safe, nurturing environment where children feel validated and understood. As adults, we play a crucial role in helping children learn that feeling difficult emotions is okay, and that they don’t have to be afraid of those feelings. Below are some ways adults can provide emotional containment to children:

1. Validate Their Emotions

When a child experiences anger, frustration, or sadness, the first step is to acknowledge their emotions. Rather than dismissing or downplaying their feelings, let them know you understand what they are experiencing. For example, if a child is upset about not getting a toy they want, an adult might say:

“I see you’re feeling really angry because I didn’t let you have that toy. I understand that it’s hard, but it’s not safe for you to play with it right now. How about you try this toy instead? I know you’re frustrated, but we can work through this together, and we don’t have to let it ruin the day.”

While a child may not understand every word you say, the tone of voice and the calm, reassuring manner in which you speak will help them feel safe. This creates a space where emotions can be expressed, but without causing harm to the child or those around them.

2. Lead by Example

Children often learn how to handle their emotions by observing the adults around them. When you, as an adult, model healthy emotional regulation, children are more likely to adopt similar strategies. For example, when faced with a stressful situation, instead of reacting impulsively or angrily, demonstrate how to calm down and express frustration in a constructive manner. This teaches children that strong emotions don’t have to result in negative consequences.

3. Consistency is Key

Children will often test boundaries to see if adults will consistently support them emotionally. This is a natural part of their development, and it’s essential to be consistent with emotional containment. When a child sees that the adult is reliably there to provide support, they begin to trust that their emotions are valid and can be handled in a safe, controlled manner. This trust strengthens the emotional bond and helps the child feel secure enough to explore and express their emotions in the future.

4. Provide Clear Boundaries

While emotional containment is about providing a safe emotional space, it’s also important to set clear, consistent boundaries. This helps children learn the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Emotional containment does not mean allowing children to act out in harmful ways. Instead, it involves offering guidance on how to express emotions appropriately, while ensuring that the child knows the boundaries for behavior.

5. Teach Coping Strategies

Helping children develop emotional resilience is a key aspect of emotional containment. When children are upset, it’s important to guide them toward healthy coping strategies, such as deep breathing, taking a break, or talking about their feelings. These skills will serve them well into adulthood, helping them manage emotions in a balanced, constructive way.

Conclusion

Emotional containment is vital for a child’s development, teaching them how to understand, express, and regulate their emotions in a healthy way. Adults play a central role in providing emotional support, offering validation, consistency, and guidance. By fostering a safe, nurturing environment where children’s emotions are recognized and contained, we help them grow into emotionally intelligent, resilient individuals who can form healthy relationships and manage the challenges life brings.

Source

Navigating Engagement: Building Relationships with Involuntary Service Users in Social Work

The article titled “Engaging with Involuntary Service Users in Social Work: Findings from a Knowledge Exchange Project” explores the complexities of engaging involuntary service users within social work practices. Through a Scottish-funded knowledge exchange project, researchers and local authority practitioners analysed the challenges in involving service users, particularly involuntary clients, as active participants in social work processes.

Background and Significance of User Engagement

The concept of service user engagement has evolved within UK policy, highlighting goals like strengthening communities, enhancing citizenship, and improving social service design. Historically, social work interactions have been characterized by a hierarchical, paternalistic approach, particularly concerning “involuntary clients” such as individuals in the child protection or criminal justice systems. These clients often interact with social services under mandates, not by choice, which introduces inherent challenges to fostering meaningful engagement.

Project Overview and Methodology

The project promoted knowledge exchange between academics and practitioners, focusing on effective engagement methods with involuntary clients. Key components included literature reviews on user engagement, small practitioner-led research projects, and structured seminars. Four main practitioner research projects (PRPs) were conducted, each examining different aspects of engagement within child protection, risk assessment, and adult protection cases. These projects revealed the daily barriers and opportunities social workers encounter when trying to involve involuntary clients in a supportive, participatory manner.

Key Themes and Findings

1. Importance of Relationship-Building

Effective engagement in social work requires building trust and mutual respect between social workers and service users. Both practitioners and clients highlighted the critical role of relational work—small, everyday actions like following up on commitments were seen as foundational to establishing trust. Consistency and empathy from social workers allowed clients to feel heard and empowered to express their views over time. However, high staff turnover poses a significant obstacle to sustaining these relationships.

2. Communication and Information Transparency

Clear, honest communication and appropriate information-sharing are essential to engagement. Service users often feel excluded or confused by the complex and opaque processes of social work. Informing clients, even about difficult decisions, fosters a sense of respect and trust. The study found that miscommunication could lead to resentment, while transparency promoted understanding and reduced resistance from clients.

3. Challenges of Managerial and Bureaucratic Systems

The study revealed that managerial structures often hinder engagement. Formal procedures, such as lengthy reports, case conferences, and risk assessments, can be intimidating and overwhelming for clients, thereby creating barriers to participation. In many cases, these systems prioritize accountability and defensive practices over relational work, undermining the quality of client-worker interactions and the ability of clients to meaningfully engage.

Discourses in User Engagement

The article identifies four prevalent discourses in user engagement:

Managerialist/Technical Rationality: Focuses on improving service efficiency but often at the cost of user relationships.
Consumerist: Views clients as service consumers, yet this model is limited when dealing with involuntary service users.
Neo-liberal Governmentality: Uses engagement as a tool to enforce policy compliance, promoting acceptance rather than genuine participation.
Rights and Citizenship: Prioritizes empowerment and justice, aiming for meaningful participation and equal partnership in decision-making.

Discussion and Implications for Practice

The findings underscore the disconnect between policy rhetoric and the practical realities of engaging involuntary service users. The authors critique the use of “buzzwords” in social work policy, suggesting they obscure the complexities of practice and mask a bureaucratic, rather than relational, approach to engagement. Drawing on Michel De Certeau’s theory, the authors propose viewing user engagement not as a strategic government tool but as a series of everyday tactics that frontline social workers adapt in response to client needs.

Conclusion

For meaningful engagement, the authors advocate for a reduction in bureaucratic procedures and a focus on relational social work. Service user involvement should be embedded in daily social care practices rather than treated as a separate, formalised activity. This shift would allow social workers to navigate the complex power dynamics with involuntary clients, fostering a more supportive and participatory environment.

This comprehensive analysis offers valuable insights for improving engagement practices with involuntary service users, emphasizing the need for a pragmatic, relationship-focused approach in social work.

Source

Tactical Empathy: Mastering Reflective Listening for Better Conversations

In our daily interactions, whether at work or in personal relationships, the ability to listen effectively is one of the most powerful skills we can develop. It goes beyond just hearing the words spoken; it’s about truly understanding and empathising with the person speaking. Reflective, empathic, or active listening—whatever the name—focuses on one core objective: maximising connection and communication.

Reflective listening is a set of specific techniques designed to demonstrate that you’re fully engaged in a conversation, absorbing what is being said, and responding in a way that builds trust and rapport. This approach can turn even the most challenging conversations into constructive dialogues. When used together, these techniques create what Chris Voss, in his book Never Split the Difference, refers to as Tactical Empathy.

What is Tactical Empathy?

Tactical Empathy is not just about feeling for someone—it’s about actively showing that you understand and acknowledge their perspective. This skill is incredibly useful in negotiations, difficult conversations, and day-to-day interactions because it creates a bridge of trust and openness. It’s about making the other person feel heard, seen, and understood, which can defuse tension and foster collaboration.

At its core, Tactical Empathy involves using a combination of reflective listening techniques to improve the quality of conversations and deepen the connection with the other party. Here are the six key reflective listening techniques that make up this empathetic approach:

1. Effective Pauses

One of the most underappreciated tools in communication is silence. After posing a question—especially an open-ended one—it’s essential to pause and give the other person time to think and respond. Silence can feel uncomfortable, but it allows thoughts to develop and often leads to more profound responses.

Pausing also prevents you from filling in the gaps with your own words, ensuring that the other person has space to share their thoughts fully. It’s about controlling the conversation tempo and letting the other person drive.

2. Minimal Encouragers

These are small verbal cues like “mm-hmm,” “I see,” or “go on” that reassure the speaker you’re paying attention without interrupting the flow of conversation. While these back-channel cues show engagement, it’s important to use them sparingly. Overuse can become distracting or even annoying.

Minimal encouragers give the other person subtle permission to continue speaking, making them feel that they’re being heard without pushing the conversation too far off course.

3. Mirroring

Mirroring involves repeating the last few words that the other person said. While this might seem overly simplistic or even awkward in theory, in practice it’s a powerful way to build rapport. By mirroring, you encourage the other person to elaborate on their thoughts or emotions.

For instance, if a colleague says, “I’m really stressed about this project deadline,” you might respond with, “Stressed about the deadline?” This not only shows that you’re listening but also gives the person a chance to explore their feelings more deeply.

4. Labeling

Labeling involves identifying the emotions or feelings behind what the person is saying. It’s a way to express understanding without making assumptions. For example, if someone seems anxious about a situation, you might say, “It sounds like you’re feeling overwhelmed.”

Even if you misidentify the emotion, labeling opens the door for clarification. The person might correct you, which still signals that you’re tuned in enough to care about their emotional state.

5. Paraphrasing

Paraphrasing is like mirroring but with a slight twist—you’re repeating what the person said, but in your own words. This technique allows you to clarify understanding while reflecting the key points back to the speaker.

For example, if a friend says, “I don’t know what to do about my job situation, it’s been stressing me out,” you might paraphrase by saying, “So it sounds like you’re feeling unsure about how to handle your work challenges, and it’s been weighing on you?”

Paraphrasing helps to ensure that you’ve accurately captured their meaning while also giving them the chance to refine their thoughts.

6. Summarising

Summarising is a technique that combines paraphrasing and labeling. It involves restating the main points of what the other person has shared, often at the end of a conversation or after a significant exchange, to clarify and affirm that you’ve understood.

The goal here is to get the person to respond with “That’s right,” signaling that you’ve captured their thoughts and feelings accurately. For example, if someone is discussing a difficult decision, you might summarise by saying, “So, you’re feeling conflicted because you care about the outcome, but you’re also uncertain about the next steps.” When they respond with, “That’s right,” you’ve effectively demonstrated Tactical Empathy.

The Power of Combining Techniques

While each of these techniques—pausing, minimal encouragers, mirroring, labeling, paraphrasing, and summarising—works well individually, they are most powerful when used together. By layering these methods, you show a deep level of engagement, which makes the other person feel valued and understood.

In high-stakes situations, such as negotiations or crucial conversations, Tactical Empathy is especially effective. Chris Voss emphasizes that when people feel heard, they are more likely to trust you, which can lead to better outcomes for both parties. However, this approach isn’t limited to formal settings. Whether you’re talking with a friend, a colleague, or even a stranger, combining these reflective listening techniques can transform the quality of your interactions.

Conclusion

Tactical Empathy isn’t just about listening—it’s about engaging with people at a deeper level. By applying these reflective listening techniques, you create a safe space for others to express themselves while also building a stronger connection.

By combining these six techniques, you’ll not only become a more effective communicator but also a more empathetic and understanding conversation partner. The people you interact with will feel seen, heard, and appreciated, and that’s the cornerstone of meaningful, impactful communication.

So, the next time you find yourself in a conversation—whether it’s a difficult negotiation or a casual chat—practice Tactical Empathy and see the difference it makes.