Morgan Hagner, PsyD, Post-Doctoral Fellow
Understanding Protective Strategies
Humans developed the fight-or-flight response as a natural survival mechanism to protect and prepare us to respond to physical danger. This automatic response reserves the body’s resources to either confront or escape a threat. Over time, our evolutionary biology has adapted further and now this response can be activated by the perception of any threat, whether physical, emotional, or psychological.
In general, this adaptation has helped people confront or escape threats to survive. However, this evolved response can become problematic when it is triggered by situations that are not truly dangerous, such as social interactions or everyday stressors. In these cases, the body reacts as if there is a real threat, which can lead to anxiety, anger, avoidance, conflict, strained relationships, and other challenges in daily life. When this heightened response becomes a frequent pattern, people may develop and rely on psychological strategies learned through past interpersonal experiences to manage the perceived threat. These strategies, which are often shaped by early relationships and reinforced over time, can present inside and outside of therapy sessions and influence how clients relate to others and navigate emotional discomfort.
Clients with personality disorders, or certain personality traits, may use specific strategies to protect themselves from perceived threats or cope with emotional distress. Such behaviors can be voluntary or intentional, or even involuntary or automatic, but are ultimately used to feel safe. These strategies functionally serve to manage vulnerability, fear, or discomfort. Clients often engage in protective behaviors like defensiveness, minimization, externalization, avoidance, idealization or devaluation of the therapist, testing boundaries, perfectionism, or passive resistance.
Conceptualizing Protective Strategies
Instead of pathologizing certain responses, CBT emphasizes the use of conceptualization to understand the underlying framework and function of these protective (coping) strategies. The cognitive model illustrates that when we understand what a client is thinking, and the meaning of those thoughts, we then can better understand their emotional and behavioral responses within the context. This highlights the importance of assessing cognitions that drive the coping strategies being used.
Even if a client doesn’t meet the full criteria for a particular diagnosis, they may still exhibit traits that reflect coping strategies developed to manage distress or protect themselves in challenging situations. By exploring the origin and maintenance of these strategies, clinicians and clients can collaboratively identify effectiveness and develop more adaptive ways of coping. Below you’ll find common beliefs and behaviors that clients use to protect themselves in and out of therapy, and interventions to build and repair the therapeutic relationship:
| Personality Disorder | Common Beliefs | Common Behaviors | Therapeutic Relationship Interventions |
| Paranoid (Cluster A) | “People are out to harm me.” | Suspiciousness, hostility, reluctant to confide | Build trust slowly, clarify boundaries, use transparency and avoid surprises |
| Schizoid (Cluster A) | “Relationships are not worth the effort,” or “I don’t fit in.” | Emotional detachment, preference for solitude, avoiding goals to improve life | Respect autonomy, encourage emotional expression, gently model supportive relationship |
| Schizotypal (Cluster A) | “I have special powers or insight.” | Odd beliefs, eccentric behavior, resisting alternative explanations of an event | Build on social skills; gentle reality testing; identify strengths, values, and aspirations |
| Borderline (Cluster B) | “I am worthless,” or “I’ll be abandoned.” | Emotional instability, impulsivity, intense relationships | Develop emotion regulation skills, boundary setting and crisis planning, maintain consistency |
| Narcissistic (Cluster B) | “I am inferior,” (negative activation) or “I am superior.” (positive activation) | Grandiosity, sensitivity to criticism, trying to impress, demanding entitlements | Provide non-shaming feedback, reinforce authentic strengths, maintain firm boundaries |
| Histrionic (Cluster B) | “I am nothing” (negative activation) or “I am special.” (positive activation) | Attention-seeking, dramatic or entertaining expressions | Explore emotional depth of identity, reinforce genuine connection, reduce reinforcement of attention-seeking |
| Antisocial (Cluster B) | “Rules don’t apply to me.” | Lying, superficial engagement, disregard for others | Set clear boundaries, motivational interviewing, reinforce consequences |
| Avoidant (Cluster C) | “I’m not good enough.” | Social inhibition, avoids revealing true self, resisting distress | Build trust slowly, reinforce small successes, model giving self-credit |
| Dependent (Cluster C) | “I’m incompetent and need others.” | Difficulty making decisions, resisting independence/ assertiveness | Assertiveness training, reinforce self-efficacy, promote autonomy |
| Obsessive-Compulsive (Cluster C) | “I am responsible for preventing harm” or “Others are careless.” | Perfectionism, rigidity, desire to control | Encourage cognitive flexibility, validate effort over outcomes |
Case Example
A client that I’m working with, “Nina,”* is a 32-year-old married woman who works in education. Nina sought treatment to better manage her anxiety and strengthen her relationship with her husband. She shared that she frequently worries about making the wrong decision and upsetting him. Additionally, she expressed that receiving negative feedback often feels like a personal attack. During a recent virtual session, I noticed Nina looking away from the screen, possibly at her phone. I gently asked, “Nina, is everything okay? It looks like you’re distracted.” She immediately put her phone down and re-engaged in the conversation, though she appeared uncomfortable and upset. I followed up with, “Is everything okay?” to which she responded, “Yeah, fine,” and continued the discussion.
I paused and said, “I noticed that your expression shifted when I stopped to check in with you. What went through your mind when I did that?” She replied, “I felt like you were attacking me because I looked at my phone. My husband gets so upset when I look at my phone when he and I are talking, and it makes me feel terrible.” I reassured her, saying, “It’s so good that you told me that! It wasn’t my intention to attack you or make you feel bad. I just wanted to check in because I noticed a shift in your behavior and wanted to make sure everything was okay. What’s a better way for me to check in with you?”
Through our discussion, Nina and I realized that situations like that activate her “I’m not good enough” belief. When that belief is activated, she tends to shut down emotionally and close herself off from others to protect herself from feeling bad. I also asked Nina “Could we make a plan for the times when you do need to look at your phone during session? What can both of us do to ensure that you take care of what you need to and don’t feel terrible about it?” Nina and I collaboratively identified more supportive ways for me to check in with her during sessions and developed a plan that allows her to express when she needs a moment to step away or check her phone. In doing so, we found a way to help her feel safer, respected, confident, and more understood during our sessions.
This blog is part one of a two-part series. In the next blog, I will explore how clients’ attempts to protect themselves can lead to therapeutic ruptures and how repair can lead to change both in and out of session.
*The client’s name and identifying details have been changed to protect confidentiality.
Reference:
Beck, J. S. (2005). Cognitive therapy for challenging problems: What to do when the basics don’t work. New York, NY: Guilford Press.