Imagine a scenario where you are deeply focused on a task; maybe you’re browsing your phone for vacation destinations, or finishing a riveting book. Your attention is interrupted by your partner asking what time the movie starts tonight. Your immediate response is to let out a deep, irritated sigh, maybe to roll your eyes. This reaction is an example of a reflexive response or automatic reaction – which are actions triggered without much conscious thought [1].
It’s not uncommon for these reactions to derail an interaction, turning mundane situations into petty arguments and eventually growing resentment. You might feel justified to express annoyance – after all, you were clearly focused on a task and your partner could have answered the question for themselves without interrupting you. On the other hand, your partner might feel this is a reasonable question or a bid for connection, and your reaction was overblown.
This type of response is rooted in our survival instincts, where the brain rapidly identifies a situation as threatening and triggers the powerful fight-or-flight response (it’s actually fight, flight, freeze, and fawn). This survival response prioritizes over rational thinking, and can result in defensive, impulsive and otherwise unhelpful behaviors [2, 3]. When these visceral reactions don’t align with our long-term goals or relationship values and go unchecked, they can result in relationship challenges over time.
For instance, if we hear a friend’s comment as critical, a part of us might feel embarrassed and rejected, which overrides our “rational” part. Our heart beats faster, and we feel tense, which can lead to counter attacks or withdrawal, preventing productive dialogue. The cathartic reactions such as venting or screaming into a pillow may feel good in the moment, but they actually prolong negative emotions[4]. If both people in an interaction fall trap to this urge, a minor frustrating event can turn into a catastrophe.
Research shows that strategies that decrease arousal in the moment, such as deep breathing, changing perspectives, and mindfulness are more effective at resolving negative emotions [5]. Being able to pause allows the prefrontal cortex – the part of the brain responsible for critical thinking – to come back online, and gives us a chance to make a choice. The options are to evaluate the threat critically, or to go down the path of less resistance with the defensive response.
It’s true that one person’s decision to do things differently can completely change the course of an interaction. After the irritated sigh, you might catch yourself and explain that you didn’t like the interruption, but can shake it off and answer the question. This pause and self-awareness could defuse tensions and course-correct the interaction.
But I believe it takes commitment from both people in the relationship to be generous of spirit with each other’s reactions, and intentionally choose not to let first reactions define an interaction. It takes trust and compassion to recognize that an impulsive response that appears defensive, inconsiderate or hurtful on the surface is a reflection of a primal drive for survival. It takes humility and courage to recognize that our automatic reaction was unwarranted. A relationship does not need to be defined by initial reactions.
Our impulsive reactions may feel out of our control, and they will come to the surface occasionally even with our best intentions. The ability to pause and reflect are crucial in transforming potentially negative exchanges into positive ones. Despite their reflexive nature, we can make the intentional choice not to let them define our relationships. By recognizing, acknowledging, and addressing them, these moments can become opportunities for deeper connection and even repair.
References
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3792557/ Flykt et al. (2007)
[2] Di Giuseppe, M., & Perry, J. C. (2021). The Hierarchy of Defense Mechanisms: Assessing Defensive Functioning With the Defense Mechanisms Rating Scales Q-Sort. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 718440. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.718440
[3] LeDoux J. (2003). The emotional brain, fear, and the amygdala. Cellular and molecular neurobiology, 23(4-5), 727–738. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025048802629
[4] Bushman, Brad. (2002). Does Venting Anger Feed or Extinguish the Flame? Catharsis, Rumination, Distraction, Anger, and Aggressive Responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 28. 724-731. 10.1177/0146167202289002.
[5] Wang, Y.-X., & Yin, B. (2022). A new understanding of the cognitive reappraisal technique: An extension based on the schema theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 935007. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.935007