Differentiation vs. Attachment in Couples Therapy
Couples therapists in the United States often find themselves navigating two major schools of thought: differentiation-based therapy and attachment-based therapy. These approaches offer contrasting philosophies on what makes relationships thrive, and their proponents have engaged in a lively debate over which is more effective (or how to best integrate both). Below, we’ll explore the theoretical distinctions between these models, how widely each is used, and how professional organizations (like AAMFT and APA) view or promote these approaches – all to paint a clear picture of the current state of this debate.
Differentiation-Based Couples Therapy: Growth Through Individuality
Differentiation-based couples therapy centers on the idea that each partner must develop a strong sense of self withinthe relationship. The concept originates from Murray Bowen’s family systems theory in the late 1970s, which defined “differentiation” as the ability to balance deep connection with others and autonomous identity. In practice, this means helping partners not become overly emotionally fused or dependent. Two prominent examples of differentiation-focused models are David Schnarch’s Crucible® Therapy and Terry Real’s Relational Life Therapy (RLT).
Schnarch’s Crucible Approach: Rooted in Bowen’s principles, the Crucible approach frames the relationship as a crucible – an intense container in which personal growth is forged through the tension of maintaining individuality while staying emotionally connected. Schnarch observed that intimacy and sexual desire often wane when partners become too fused or reliant on each other for constant validation and soothing. Thus, his therapy goal is to foster self-differentiation – each partner developing a “solid” sense of self that can remain steady in the face of relationship pressures. Crucible therapy is known for its introspective and confrontational style: the therapist directly challenges each partner to face their own anxieties and “self-soothe” rather than demanding the other fix their emotional state. For example, a Crucible therapist might ask a pointed question like, “What will it take for you to feel good about yourself if your partner’s sexual desire doesn’t change?” – forcing the individual to confront their self-worth issues independent of the partner’s behavior. This process can be intense, but it “validates that, right here, in this conflictual ickiness, the relationship is doing exactly what it’s supposed to do” – creating a crisis that demands personal growth. The payoff, according to Schnarch, is greater long-term passion and resilience: partners learn to tolerate anxiety, hold onto their own values, and self-validate their worth, which paradoxically enhancesthe relationship’s depth. In short, Crucible therapy reframes relationship problems as opportunities for each partner to grow up emotionally, rather than just issues to be quickly resolved.
Terry Real’s Relational Life Therapy (RLT): RLT is another differentiation-oriented model, but with its own flavor. Terry Real blends family systems thinking with feminist and practical coaching principles. Like Schnarch, Real emphasizes personal accountability and confronting dysfunctional behaviors, but RLT aims for rapid relief of relationship crises. He calls for “full-respect living,” meaning each partner must take an honest, accountable stance and drop their defenses of shame or grandiosity that sabotage connection. An RLT therapist often takes an active, coaching role – sometimes quite direct or even blunt – to interrupt negative patterns. For instance, Real teaches tools like the “Feedback Wheel” for structured communication and uses “leverage” (e.g. highlighting the real risk of divorce or consequences of not changing) to motivate partners in acute distress. The focus is on actionable change: How can we fix this now? – which contrasts with Schnarch’s slower, introspective question of How can you grow yourself to improve us?. In practical terms, RLT might involve the therapist actively calling out a spouse’s harmful behavior in-session and then teaching the couple new interaction skills on the spot. The goal is to quickly restore respect and connection between the partners. RLT’s strengths are its pragmatism and speed – it’s often effective for “last chance” couples on the brink, as it can de-escalate conflicts quickly and demand constructive behavior changes. However, critics note it may not delve as deeply into long-term personal development or sexual dynamics as the Crucible approach does. In the differentiation camp broadly, though, the guiding philosophy is that conflict and discomfort are catalysts for growth. Partners learn to stand on their own two feet emotionally, which (in theory) allows them to love each other more genuinely – not out of need or fear, but by choice.
In summary, differentiation-based therapies encourage couples to stop over-relying on partner validation and instead build each individual’s emotional strength. The therapist’s role is to push clients to face themselves. This can involve a good deal of challenge and “heat” in the sessions – hence the term crucible. A healthy relationship, in this view, is one where two differentiated people choose intimacy but don’t need the other to regulate their self-esteem or emotional state. As Dr. David Schnarch bluntly argued, too much emphasis on soothing your partner can create a crutch that “weakens your ability to walk on your own” – ultimately stunting both personal and relational growth. Differentiation therapy aims to remove those crutches, so that each partner stands more solidly and the relationship can reach a new level of honesty and passion.
Attachment-Based Couples Therapy: Healing Through Emotional Bonds
On the other side of the spectrum is attachment-based couples therapy, which starts from the premise that humans have an innate, biological need for safe emotional connection. This tradition is rooted in the work of John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth on attachment theory (originating in the 1950s–60s) and views adult love as an attachment bond akin to the parent-child bond. In attachment-oriented models, relationship distress is seen primarily as a protest against disconnection or insecurity – essentially, when our partner isn’t emotionally present or responsive, it triggers deep anxiety or pain rooted in earlier attachment experiences. The therapeutic focus, therefore, is on creating or restoring a secure bondbetween partners, characterized by trust, emotional safety, and responsiveness. Two of the most prominent attachment-based approaches are Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) and the Gottman Method.
Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT): EFT, developed by Dr. Susan Johnson (and Les Greenberg) in the 1980s, is explicitly grounded in attachment theory. It assumes that adult partners depend on each other for soothing and security, much like children depend on caregivers. When that sense of secure connection is threatened (through conflict, perceived neglect, betrayals, etc.), partners fall into negative “cycles” of conflict or withdrawal that are actually protests of unmet attachment needs. An EFT therapist works to de-escalate these negative cycles and uncover the vulnerable feelings beneath the fights. In practice, EFT follows a structured three-stage process. Stage 1 involves de-escalation: the therapist helps the couple step out of their frequent fights by gently illuminating the attachment emotions driving them (for example, one partner’s anger might mask fear of abandonment, while the other’s stonewalling masks shame or fear of failure). The therapist often normalizes these feelings as understandable reactions to attachment insecurity, which immediately reduces blame and defensiveness. Next, in Stage 2 (restructuring the bond), each partner is guided to openly express those deeper needs and fears to the other in new ways, and to respond to each other with empathy and comfort – essentially creating corrective emotional experiences that build a new secure attachment between them. For instance, a husband who usually withdraws might, in a key EFT session, reveal that he actually feels “not good enough” for his wife and fears her criticism, and the wife, instead of criticizing, might learn to reassure him that she does need him and was only angry out of feeling alone. These poignant bonding events are what EFT therapists call “holding each other’s unmet childhood needs with relentless empathy,” which directly strengthens the couple’s emotional bond. Finally, Stage 3focuses on consolidation – helping the couple solve practical issues and plan for the future, now that their bond is more secure. EFT is often described as a warm, empathetic, and insight-oriented approach. The therapist takes a very non-confrontational stance (quite the opposite of differentiation therapists); they act as a safe haven in the room, modeling acceptance and helping partners experience each other’s emotional wounds. The ultimate goal is for the couple to achieve a “secure attachment” with each other – a relationship where both people feel comfortable relying on one another for support, and where conflicts can be navigated without triggering panic or shutting down. Research has played a big role in EFT’s prominence (more on that below): studies show that around 70–75% of couples significantly improve with EFT and that 90% of couples report lasting better relationships after therapy. This strong evidence base has made EFT one of the most influential and widely taught couples therapies today.
The Gottman Method: Developed by Drs. John and Julie Gottman, the Gottman Method is another highly influential approach that, while not explicitly built on attachment theory, shares many similarities with attachment-based principles. John Gottman’s work emerged from decades of observational research on married couples (the famous “Love Lab” studies) identifying what happy couples do differently from unhappy couples. The result is a therapy model focused on strengthening the friendship and emotional connection between partners and equipping them with communication tools to manage conflict in a healthy way. Gottman therapy is structured around building what they call the “Sound Relationship House” – with pillars like trust and commitment and levels including friendship, positive perspective, conflict management, and shared meaning. In sessions, a Gottman-trained therapist will often do a thorough assessment of the couple’s relationship (using questionnaires and interviews), then teach and coach the couple in specific skills. These include things like: using “I-statements” and taking turns speaking and listening (to discuss conflict without criticism or defensiveness), practicing daily appreciations or rituals of connection (to boost affection), and techniques to soothe oneself or one’s partner when conversations get heated. A key emphasis is on making each partner feel heard, validated, and safe during conflicts. For example, one hallmark Gottman intervention is having a couple work through a conflict using the “gentle start-up” (softening how an issue is raised) and the “stress-reducing conversation” (where partners take turns listening to each other’s stresses empathetically). By doing this, partners learn to attune to each other’s emotions and avoid the “Four Horsemen” (criticism, defensiveness, contempt, stonewalling) that Gottman’s research found to predict divorce. In essence, the Gottman Method is about creating a stable, secure emotional climate – one where positive interactions far outweigh negatives, conflict can be discussed without flooding, and the couple nurtures their bond through intimacy and understanding. While Gottman therapists don’t usually use the same attachment terminology as EFT, the end goal is quite aligned: a relationship where both people feel emotionally safe and connected. Indeed, the approach explicitly aims to bolster what attachment theorists would call the “secure base” of the relationship – Gottman just operationalizes it in terms of concrete skills and behaviors (communication, emotional attunement, trust-building). Because the Gottman Method is very practical and skills-based, it appeals to many therapists and couples who want a structured, coaching flavor to therapy (sometimes seen as a complement or alternative to the deeper emotion-focused work of EFT). It’s also recognized as research-based, given its origins in observational studies, though it’s important to note that direct outcome research on the Gottman Method is still developing (a few studies show its effectiveness, but it doesn’t have as extensive a body of clinical trials as EFT does yet). Still, it remains extremely popular: thousands of clinicians have attended Gottman training workshops across the U.S., and couples often specifically seek out “Gottman-certified” therapists due to the approach’s public visibility (e.g., through Gottmans’ best-selling books and media appearances).
In summary, attachment-based therapies prioritize creating a secure, comforting bond between partners. They see dependence not as a weakness but as a normal and healthy part of adult intimacy – what Dr. Sue Johnson calls the “assumption of dependence” in love. When couples fight or become distant, attachment-based therapists look for the hurt, fear, and longing underneath, and work to help partners turn toward each other for comfort rather than attacking or withdrawing. The therapist’s role is more of a facilitator of safe emotional exchanges than a provocateur; they strive to keep the environment accepting and non-blaming so that both partners can lower their defenses and reach for each other. A healthy relationship, through this lens, is one where both people can rely on each other as a secure base, communicate their needs and feelings openly, and soothe each other’s hurts. Notably, this approach encourages a lot of mutual validation and reassurance – essentially the opposite strategy of Crucible’s self-validation approach. An attachment-oriented therapist would encourage partners to verbalize understanding (“I can see why you feel that way; I’m here for you”) on the premise that this co-regulation of emotion is what calms the nervous system and allows love to flourish. Differentiation therapists, as noted, worry this can create over-dependence – and here we arrive at the core of the debate.
Key Theoretical Differences: Individual Growth vs. Emotional Security
The divergence between differentiation-based and attachment-based models is often described as a “polarization” in the field of couple therapy. While both perspectives ultimately value both connection and personal autonomy, they disagree on which should be prioritized when push comes to shove, and how best to help couples achieve a loving, lasting relationship. A 2018 review in the journal Family Process summed it up well: “They substantially differ in terms of how they view the fundamental aspects of adult development, have vastly divergent approaches to how a therapist intervenes in the room, and different ideas of how a healthy couple should function.” Below are some of the key contrasts between the two approaches:
View of Adult Love and Needs: Attachment-oriented therapy sees adult love as a bond where dependence is natural. The mantra here is “everyone needs someone” – even healthy adults require comfort and responsiveness from partners, and this reliance is biologically wired. Differentiation-oriented therapy, in contrast, views adult love as a union of two independent individuals. The emphasis is “stand on your own feet.” Love is certainly important, but an individual must not psychologically collapse into the relationship. As Dr. Ellyn Bader (a proponent of integrating both models) explains, partners often experience a “developmental dilemma” as the honeymoon phase wanes – they start to realize their differences and may either fight or withdraw in self-protection. Differentiation therapy holds that partners must grow up at this juncture by strengthening their selves (tolerating the anxiety of “we are different” without freaking out). Attachment therapy, by contrast, would encourage partners at that same juncture to turn toward each other for support and reassurance so they can reconnect and not feel so threatened by those differences.
Role of Conflict and Emotions: In differentiation models, conflict is seen as productive – a necessary friction that highlights where partners need to mature. A slogan could be “no pain, no gain” in the emotional realm. For example, if one partner feels hurt because the other isn’t meeting a need, a differentiation therapist might explore how that pain points to an area the hurt partner can become more self-sufficient or clarify their values. The discomfort is a crucible for personal growth. Attachment models see conflict more as a sign of disconnection or insecurity. The same scenario (one partner not meeting the other’s need) would be handled by exploring the underlying attachment injury or fear (“You’re afraid they don’t love you – that’s why you’re so angry”) and then helping the partner express that need in a vulnerable way to get comfort from the other. So while both approaches acknowledge conflict, one mines it for individual insight, whereas the other soothes it with empathic understanding. Notably, strong emotions in session are handled very differently: an EFT therapist might slow the conversation and gently encourage a crying partner to tell their spouse “I feel alone and just want to know you’re here for me,” fostering a tender moment. A Crucible therapist might acknowledge the tears but then ask something like, “What does this feeling tell you about you? Can you tolerate that pain and still hold onto yourself while your partner is different from you?” – essentially using the emotional moment to build the client’s self-soothing muscle.
Therapist Stance and Techniques: Attachment-based therapists are generally non-directive, empathic facilitators. They believe healing happens through experiencing new emotional responses, so they focus on creating a safe atmosphere and guiding the couple through softer emotional exchanges. The therapist often validates both partners heavily (e.g. “it makes sense you feel that way given X”) to reduce threat and increase safety. In contrast, differentiation-based therapists can be quite directive and challenging. They often act more like coaches or even provocateurs at times – calling out clients’ avoidance or childish behaviors in order to jolt them into self-awareness. For example, Terry Real is known to sometimes tell a husband in session something like, “Look at how you’re talking to her. Did you just hear the tone you used? That’s exactly the behavior that’s killing your marriage.” This kind of direct confrontation is meant not to shame, but to wake the client up to their part in the problem and push them toward change. Schnarch similarly advocated “collaborative confrontation,” where the therapist aligns with the relationship’s growth (almost treating the relationship as the client) and challenges each individual’s ego defenses that get in the way. The starkest contrast is perhaps in how the two camps use validation: attachment therapists freely encourage partners to validate each other’s feelings to build safety, whereas differentiation therapists actually warn against doing too much validation. Schnarch argued that constantly validating your partner can backfire by making them dependent on external validation for emotional stability. He instead teaches clients to self-validate – to calm and reassure themselves internally – even when their partner is upset or disagreeing. In his words, “manage your own emotional reactions and stay calm even when your partner is anxious”. This fundamental difference – external soothing vs. internal soothing – is at the heart of the debate.
Definition of a “Healthy” Couple: Finally, each approach paints a slightly different picture of what an ideal outcome looks like. For differentiation, the gold standard is a pair of autonomous individuals who choose intimacy. That means each person can say “I love you but I don’t need you to regulate me. I can handle my feelings, and I want you rather than depend on you.” The couple’s bond is like two solid pillars standing side by side, with a bridge of connection between them – as opposed to two vines wrapped around each other. In practical terms, this might manifest as couples who can disagree (even deeply) yet remain respectful and stay emotionally present without dissolving into panic or rage. They support each other’s personal growth and tolerate periods of distance or differentness, trusting that the relationship won’t shatter. In contrast, the attachment view of a healthy couple is one of securely attached partners who act as a safe haven for one another. Here the image might be two infants (metaphorically) who have grown up and now hold each other – “I’ve got you and you’ve got me.” They can rely on one another for comfort and aren’t ashamed to admit it. In day-to-day life, this looks like a couple who, when upset, naturally turn to each other for reassurance and find it. They have a high degree of emotional responsiveness – when one reaches out, the other is accessible and engaged (what attachment researchers call being accessible, responsive, and engaged or “ARE”). A securely attached couple still respects individuality, of course, but they see depending on each other as a strength, not a weakness. This contrasts with the differentiated couple’s pride in independence.
It’s worth noting that these differences are complementary more than mutually exclusive – they’re two sides of the same coin. Most seasoned therapists would agree that the best relationships have both well-differentiated partners and a strong attachment bond. The debate has been about where to put the emphasis in therapy and which philosophy addresses certain problems better. Increasingly, many clinicians recognize that both perspectives offer vital insights. As one clinical director put it, “Couples therapy is most effective when the therapist knows how to use both attachment and differentiation based interventions and conceptualizations.” In fact, some authors argue that focusing on one to the exclusion of the other is a mistake: “Differentiation is the ability to balance autonomy and attachment so it is not an either/or. The more differentiated you become, the closer these two drives can work in harmony.”. Real-life therapy often involves a dance between the two: at times a partner must be comforted and validated (attachment), and at other times they must be gently challenged to take responsibility for their own emotions or actions (differentiation). This nuanced middle ground is where many therapists find success, and it mirrors how healthy couples likely function – they soothe each other and encourage each other’s personal growth.
Prevalence and Popularity of Each Approach in the U.S.
Attachment-based therapies (especially EFT and Gottman) have become extremely influential and widely practiced in recent decades. Emotionally Focused Therapy, in particular, is often cited as one of the most popular and empirically validated forms of couple therapy today. The International Centre for Excellence in EFT (ICEEFT), founded by Sue Johnson, has trained thousands of clinicians worldwide. As of the mid-2020s, there are dozens of EFT training centers across the U.S. and a growing number of certified EFT therapists in nearly every state. (One indication of EFT’s reach: a Psychology Today directory search in 2023 showed hundreds of therapists advertising EFT expertise in major U.S. cities, whereas two decades ago EFT was relatively niche.) This rise is tied to EFT’s strong research backing – agencies and clinics like the U.S. Veterans Affairs medical system, for example, have adopted EFT for couples dealing with PTSD and similar issues, because studies showed its effectiveness. In terms of raw numbers, the ICEEFT organization doesn’t publish a public count of all trained therapists, but a recent review notes that attachment theory has gained “widespread popularity” as a framework for adult intimacy, largely thanks to the success of EFT. Another metric: meta-analyses find that 70–75% of couples move from distress to recovery with EFT and up to 90% show significant improvements, and these results have helped make EFT a go-to modality for many marriage counselors. It is no exaggeration to say that a large proportion – perhaps even a majority – of American couples therapists today incorporate attachment-based concepts or interventions (even if they aren’t formally EFT-certified).
The Gottman Method is also very widely recognized. The Gottman Institute has trained over 60,000 clinicians in at least a Level 1 or 2 workshop by some reports (the exact number grows every year as workshops are continually offered). Because Gottman training is structured in levels, many therapists take the first few levels to learn the basics. However, full certification in the Gottman Method – which involves advanced training and supervision – is relatively rare. One source noted that only about 300–400 therapists in the world had achieved formal Gottman certification as of a few years ago. This underscores a pattern: many therapists integrate Gottman tools informally without completing the entire certification. In the U.S., virtually every couples therapist is aware of the Gottman research (like the “Four Horsemen” signs of divorce) and many use Gottman-inspired exercises (such as the Love Maps, or conflict management techniques) in their practice. So in terms of influence, the Gottman approach is extremely high – likely on par with EFT. In terms of strict adherence or certification, it’s smaller, reflecting that many clinicians use it as part of an eclectic toolkit. Still, Gottman Method principles are taught in many graduate programs and are common in public discourse about healthy relationships, which means couples often come in asking for it. This demand further encourages therapists to train in it. Overall, attachment-based models (EFT and Gottman included) are well-represented across the country. They are considered “mainstream” approaches now, offered in settings from private practices to hospital clinics and even some religious counseling centers (adapted to various contexts).
Differentiation-based therapies, by contrast, have a more niche following, but one that is devoted and slowly growing. Historically, the ideas of differentiation entered couples therapy through Bowenian family therapy taught in MFT programs and through influential figures like David Schnarch in the 1990s. Schnarch’s Passionate Marriage book and Crucible workshops garnered a significant audience, particularly among therapists dealing with sexual issues in marriage – an area where his differentiation approach offers unique insights (e.g. tackling low desire, intimacy problems, etc., through personal growth). However, Crucible® Therapy was never as institutionally disseminated as EFT. Schnarch ran intensive training workshops and published clinical books, but he did not create a large certification organization before his passing in 2020. Thus, therapists who use Crucible methods often do so after personal study or attending a few trainings, rather than through a standardized certification path. The number of practitioners who would explicitly label themselves “Crucible therapists” is relatively small (perhaps a few hundred worldwide). That said, Schnarch’s ideas (like the concept of “self-validated intimacy” and the importance of tolerating your partner’s differences) have permeated the field to some extent – especially among sex therapists and seasoned couples counselors who find that certain entrenched conflicts aren’t fully addressed by attachment work alone.
Terry Real’s Relational Life Therapy (RLT) has been gaining visibility in the last decade, thanks in part to Real’s charismatic presence and the success of his books (like “The New Rules of Marriage”). The Relational Life Institute offers a structured training and certification in RLT, and there is now a network of RLT-trained therapists, particularly in the U.S. Northeast and West Coast. Still, compared to the hundreds of EFT externships happening annually, RLT trainings are fewer. It’s hard to estimate, but it’s fair to say the number of fully RLT-certified therapists in the U.S. is in the low hundreds. Many more have taken a workshop or two. RLT’s influence is notable in certain circles (for example, therapists working with high-conflict or abusive dynamics might seek Real’s approach), but it hasn’t achieved the near-ubiquity of EFT or Gottman in general couples therapy practice.
It’s also important to note that many U.S. couples therapists do not strictly adhere to one model. In a survey of experienced clinicians, most identified as integrative – pulling from multiple approaches depending on the couple’s needs. For instance, a therapist might use Gottman exercises to help a hostile couple stabilize communication initially, then shift into EFT to deepen emotional bonding, and occasionally employ a differentiation lens (à la Schnarch/Real) if one partner needs to work on personal boundaries or sexual self-awareness. This eclecticism makes it tricky to assign exact percentages to “who uses what.” However, qualitatively: attachment-based frameworks (like EFT) currently enjoy a larger share of the spotlight in conferences, research, and training programs, whereas differentiation-based frameworks are often championed by a smaller community of specialists and forward-thinking clinicians who find them invaluable for certain cases (like when a couple is “stuck” in demand-withdraw cycles that never improve until each grows individually).
One way to gauge the landscape is to look at outcome research and evidence-based practice adoption. EFT and behavioral approaches (including the Gottman Method, which is often grouped under “evidence-based” due to its research origins) have a strong evidence base, so agencies and insurance panels are more likely to favor those. For example, the American Psychological Association recognizes Behavioral Couples Therapy and EFT as proven treatments for relationship distress in their guidelines and publications. In contrast, differentiation-oriented models have less formal research validating them, which means they’re less often taught as stand-alone, first-line treatments in graduate programs. Instead, differentiation concepts might appear in coursework on family systems or be introduced as part of advanced training. Anecdotally, therapists who pursue differentiation-based training often do so post-licensure, when they encounter certain couples who don’t fully respond to attachment-based interventions. A common story (exemplified by James Christensen, an LMFT in California) is a therapist who starts out using the Gottman method or EFT – gains solid skills in calming conflicts and building empathy – but then finds some couples still “gridlocked.” These therapists then discover Schnarch or Real’s work and have a sort of epiphany: that some impasses require pushing partners to confront their own demons rather than just be nicer to each other. They integrate those differentiation techniques and often report better outcomes with high-conflict or sexually stagnant couples. Christensen writes, “As I gained experience, I gradually replaced Gottman-style counseling with more advanced methods from Schnarch’s Crucible Therapy… I prefer Crucible because it works faster and is more effective with high-conflict couples. I’m never going back.” Of course, that is one clinician’s stance – many others blend rather than replace. But it highlights that differentiation approaches, while fewer in number, can have a big impact on the therapists who master them, particularly for certain challenging cases.
To sum up the prevalence issue: Attachment-based therapies (especially EFT) currently lead the field in terms of widespread use, formal training programs, and research support in the U.S., with the Gottman Method not far behind in popularity. Differentiation-based therapies occupy a significant niche – they’re less commonly the “first choice” taught to new therapists, but they are highly influential in specific areas (like sex therapy, or in work with couples where personal development is a focus). Precise percentages are elusive, but if one polled American couples therapists, likely a large majority would report using some form of attachment-oriented strategy in their work, whereas a smaller (but notable) subset would report being heavily influenced by differentiation models. It’s also likely that integrative use is the norm: over half of couples therapists might say they draw from both camps to some degree. The trend in recent years has been an increasing integration of the two, rather than a staunch either/or split, which leads us to the perspective of professional bodies and training programs.
Sources:
Hardy, N. R., & Fisher, A. R. (2018). Attachment Versus Differentiation: The Contemporary Couple Therapy Debate. Family Process, 57(2), 557–571.
Finch, J. C. (2020). The Debate: Attachment Theory vs. Differentiation & A Hopeful Glimpse of a Middle Way. Medium.
Bader, E. (2013). Attachment and Differentiation in Couples Therapy. The Couples Institute Blog.
Christensen, J. (2023). Why Crucible Therapy is Better than Gottman Relationship Therapy. JamesChristensen.com.
Christensen, J. (2023). David Schnarch’s Crucible Approach vs Terry Real’s Relational Life Therapy (RLT). JamesChristensen.com.
Communicate & Connect (2021). EFT vs. Gottman: 5 Inspiring Truths About Couples Therapy Choices.
Kansas City Couples Therapy (2020). Certified Gottman Couples Therapist – Why So Few?.
AAMFT (n.d.). Adult Attachment Relationships (Consumer Update).
Wampler, K. S., et al. (2003). The Adult Attachment Interview and Observed Couple Interaction: Implications for an Intergenerational Perspective on Couple Therapy. Family Process, 42(4), 497–515.
Johnson, S. (2008). Couple and Family Therapy: An Attachment Perspective. In Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64(8), 101–109. (Background on EFT development and attachment assumptions.)
Real, T. (2010). The New Rules of Marriage. (Background on RLT concepts and techniques.)
