Puppy-dog Syndrome and the Consequences of Avoidant Parents

“lab/shepherd/pointer mix puppies” by bullcitydogs is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

Puppy-dog Syndrome and the Consequences of Avoidant Parents

This article looks into the basic family relationship, as driven by our genetic need for connection, support, nurturing and protection. We then propose a simple dysfunctional family scenario, based on parents that are avoidant of that connection. It proposes that this will result in children that will include a scapegoat, who may well develop C-PTSD based Stockholm Syndrome, before they are old enough to verbalise their long-term micro-aggression based abuse. It also introduces a new term – Puppy-dog Syndrome, to describe one of the observable behaviours of adults that have had this type of childhood.

The Instinct to Connect

The instinct to connect and bond is fundamental in both animal and human development, serving not only to ensure infant survival but also to shape the child’s social role within the family and wider society (Ainsworth, 1979; Bowlby, 1969). From an evolutionary and developmental perspective, attachment is systematically tested through direct observation and interaction, as the infant evaluates the reliability and trustworthiness of their caregivers; their “pack” leaders and guides (Ainsworth, 1979; Bowlby, 1969).

Systematic Testing of Caregivers

Children instinctively “test” their caregivers, using repeated interactions to determine who can be relied upon for emotional and physical support. The Strange Situation experiment demonstrates how infants show different attachment styles based on their caregiver’s responsiveness (Ainsworth, 1979). When a mother fails to provide consistent comfort or security, the child may transfer attachment attempts to other family members, such as the father, older siblings, or even extended family (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth, 1979). Each failed attachment can reinforce insecurity, as the child experiences repeated rejection or neglect (Ainsworth, 1979; Bowlby, 1969).

These ongoing rejections, may contribute to the child rejecting, or dissociating into the unconscious world of forgotten memories and dreams. Such dissociations may well develop into a variety of disorders, many directly related to this need to find a connection.

Consequences of Failed Attachments

Repeated failure to find a reliable caregiver can lead to insecure attachment styles, such as avoidant, ambivalent, or disorganized attachment (Ainsworth, 1979; Bowlby, 1969). Insecurely attached children may become anxious, withdrawn, or develop defensive strategies to cope with ongoing insecurity (Ainsworth, 1979; Bowlby, 1969). They may also prematurely seek attachment elsewhere, attaching to objects, roles, or peers to compensate for the lack of reliable human connection (Ainsworth, 1979; Bowlby, 1969).

This shows how children can often be forced to form inappropriate relationships with others. But also, it shows how society pushes those same children to find security, through gifts and other objects. This means that capitalism, and the ownership of objects, is promoted by society as “proof”, of care. It is an addiction, as the desire for connection has simply been replaced by a token, and the longer the individual spends acquiring such “tokens of value”, the less perceived value each object, including new objects, will have.

This is a negative spiral, but it drives consumerism, and profit. Ultimately, more “expensive”, or dramatic such objects will become. An individual, deprived of “food”, as a child, will need to eat more and more, for example. Others may end up needing the intensity of gaming, in order to avoid their inner “hunger”, and their rejected need for connection.

Developmental and Social Outcomes

Secure attachment with a reliable caregiver is crucial for healthy social and emotional development (Ainsworth, 1979; Bowlby, 1969). Insecure attachments, however, can impair the child’s ability to form trusting relationships, regulate emotions, and engage socially, often resulting in maladaptive beliefs about themselves and others (Ainsworth, 1979; Bowlby, 1969).

When the pack leader fails to lead

When the figure identified as the “pack leader,” such as the mother or father, fails to provide adequate support or validation to the new pack member (the child), this can signal to other family members a pattern of neglect or instability. They signal to the other members of the family, that they have rejected the child, and that they should too, and avoid showing too much affection.

This phenomenon is particularly pronounced when a parent has an avoidant personality disorder (APD), which is characterised by persistent emotional distance, reluctance to engage, and difficulty in forming or maintaining close relationships (Bridgestorecovery, 2018; Cleveland Clinic, 2025). The family’s relational dynamics often reflect this style, with children and siblings subsequently learning to withdraw or emotionally distance themselves (Bridgestorecovery, 2018; Healthentral, 2022).

Family Dynamics and Social Signal

The failure of a parent, especially one with avoidant traits, to provide emotional support communicates to the extended family (siblings, relatives) that the child is not reliably protected or validated (Healthentral, 2022; Cleveland Clinic, 2025). This lack of validation becomes a tacit permission for other family members to replicate the pattern, resulting in a broader atmosphere of emotional neglect or avoidance (Bridgestorecovery, 2018; Healthentral, 2022). Children may develop avoidant attachment styles themselves, further perpetuating cycles of insecure bonding and social disconnection within the family unit (Bridgestorecovery, 2018; Healthentral, 2022).

Broader Implications

Such family environments can significantly impact the child’s social and emotional development, leading to difficulties with trust, self-esteem, and the formation of healthy relationships throughout life (Healthentral, 2022; Cleveland Clinic, 2025). The “pack logic” thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, where unreliable caregiving begets unreliable social support more broadly, reinforcing insecurity and isolation.

The Scapegoat is selected

The suggestion that the dynamics of avoidant parenting can lead to the youngest child being systematically cast as the scapegoat is supported by developmental and family systems literature, though framed most often as a consequence of relational patterns rather than intentional parental “choice” (Bridgestorecovery, 2018; Cleveland Clinic, 2025). This process is seldom conscious or deliberate; rather, it emerges from the interaction between parental avoidance, insecure attachment, and sibling dynamics (Bridgestorecovery, 2018; Healthentral, 2022).

Scapegoating as a Family System Mechanism

When a parent with avoidant traits struggles to provide emotional validation or support, the family system often seeks outlets for unmet emotional needs, unresolved conflict, and displaced blame (Bridgestorecovery, 2018). Older children, who have previously experienced the same lack of support, may unconsciously cooperate in assigning the role of the “scapegoat” to the youngest, as a way to distance themselves from their own pain and insecurity (Bridgestorecovery, 2018; Healthentral, 2022). This shifting of blame allows siblings to avoid the full weight of emotional neglect, but it comes at the cost of the youngest child’s self-worth and relational safety.

Conditioning and Lifelong Impact

In families with avoidant parents, the youngest child is positioned—often from birth—to be the “problem” that “needs to prove themselves” in order to earn basic acceptance (Healthentral, 2022). The constant need to justify their existence, voice, or emotional needs becomes a chronic condition, reinforcing patterns of insecurity, self-doubt, and hypervigilance (Cleveland Clinic, 2025). This role is not always formalised, nor is it equally distributed; however, the family’s lack of emotional visibility and support disproportionately impacts the child who is most vulnerable or least able to assert their own needs (Bridgestorecovery, 2018; Healthentral, 2022).

The Sin’s of the Father AND the Mother?

Attachment theory and developmental psychology strongly support the idea that parents who themselves did not experience consistent, nurturing attachment with their own caregivers often struggle to embody and express parental love (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth, 1979). This lack of internalized parental love, stemming from generations of avoidance or neglect, leaves such parents without the emotional vocabulary or secure behavioural scripts to respond to their child’s needs with warmth and attunement (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth, 1979).

This cross-generational impact, means that within us, possibly working against us, we have both maladaptive behaviours learnt in our current life, but also, genetic traits that reinforce this maladaptivity, making it very hard for the individual to resolve, or overcome.

Intergenerational Transmission of Attachment

Parents who grew up with avoidant or emotionally distant caregivers frequently have not had the opportunity to learn, experience, or internalize the experience of being loved and valued (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth, 1979). As a result, they may not recognize the emotional or relational cues necessary to foster secure attachment in their own children, often defaulting to neglect or avoidance when faced with emotional demands (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth, 1979). This is not usually conscious cruelty, but rather a failure to emotionally “see” or respond to the child due to the parent’s own unmet developmental needs.

The Cycle of Neglect

The cycle is perpetuated, when the child’s attempts to seek connection are met with the parent’s unconscious withdrawal, reinforcing the child’s insecurity and sense of neglect (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth, 1979). This pattern is not accidental but is a direct consequence of intergenerational transmission, highlighting how early relational experiences shape parental capacity to love and respond.

Hidden Childhood C-PTSD?

Children raised in environments marked by chronic neglect, emotional absence, and insecure attachment are at heightened risk of developing Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD), a condition characterised by pervasive disruptions in self-regulation, relational patterns, and identity (Herman, 1992). The pre-verbal or infantile onset of these traumatic dynamics means that core experiences are encoded at a sensory, emotional, and symbolic level, rather than in verbal or narrative memory (van der Kolk, 2014). This non-verbal internalisation can lead to the development of adaptive survival strategies, such as excessive pleasing, over-giving, or hyper-competence, which are often misinterpreted as “normal” personality traits or healthy social functioning (Ford, 2015; van der Kolk, 2014).

C-PTSD and Internalised Stockholm Syndrome

The repeated experience of needing to earn love, attention, and safety in infancy and childhood establishes a set of behavioural patterns that closely resemble Stockholm Syndrome, a psychological phenomenon in which individuals develop bonds with their captors or abusers as a survival mechanism (Sprang & Jekielek, 2015). In this context, the child’s attachment to caregivers; even if they are emotionally distant or neglectful, will become a foundational experience, internalised as a need to appease, comply, or perform in order to maintain safety or connection (Sprang & Jekielek, 2015; van der Kolk, 2014).

Memory and Identity Confusion

The early, non-verbal encoding of these experiences often leads to memory fragmentation, confusion, or even complete rejection of the traumatic past (van der Kolk, 2014). Adult survivors may find themselves exhibiting patterns of excessive eager-to-please behaviour, over-achievement, and people-pleasing, yet perceive these responses as simply “who they are” rather than survival strategies shaped by early relational trauma (Ford, 2015; van der Kolk, 2014).

Puppy-dog Syndrome

“Puppy-dog Syndrome” is a vivid and insightful metaphor for the kind of relational behaviour sometimes observed in individuals who have developed complex attachment histories, particularly those shaped by early neglect or insecure attachment (van der Kolk, 2014; Ford, 2015). The analogy captures the relentless, often unconscious, overtures to connect, characterised by excessive self-disclosure, eagerness to please, and an overwhelming need for validation—traits that are highly adaptive in childhood but often maladaptive in adult relationships.

The key distinction, is that “puppy-dogs”, jump up for attention to new visitors, and after some time, tend to settle down. That is the key aspect of this condition, it is usually sparked most intensely, upon first meetings, and diminishes over the duration of the encounter. Unfortunately, if that security feels threatened, for example, if someone else enters the room, then that puppy may come out again.

The Dynamics of Over-Presence

The “Puppy-dog” behaviour is a survival strategy formed in response to early relational insecurity: the child learns that only by being extra visible, helpful, or emotionally available does connection become possible (van der Kolk, 2014; Ford, 2015). In adulthood, this can manifest as “blurring” boundaries with strangers or new acquaintances, blurting out “too much information” as a bid for connection, and adding excessive detail or “help” to cement the relationship (Ford, 2015). This is usually not a conscious manipulation, but an automatic, patterned response built on the unconscious hope that providing more and more will finally earn the acceptance and safety that was missing in childhood.

Consequences in Social Interactions

When unchecked, this behaviour can overwhelm others, leading to emotional fatigue and withdrawal (Ford, 2015; van der Kolk, 2014). The conversation partner may feel inundated or pressured, prompting them to distance themselves—ironically, reproducing the early relational pattern of rejection, which further reinforces the suffering individual’s sense of insecurity.

Finding Proxies to Replace Connection Needs

We can see that there are variants of wounded-healer syndrome, imposter syndrome, people-pleasing, over-giving, etc., which may be seen as attempts to appease others, as proxies to ones family. This hints at the multidimensional nature of or childhood behavioural programming as we explore the dynamics of each relationship in an attempt to forge fine-slice “props” of confidence, between those family members. This family of five, gives that youngest child, four broken relational models, each asking, “What do I need to do, in order to be accepted, by you?”

These strategies are not merely individual traits but adaptive responses to the fractured relational landscape, where the child seeks to appease, accommodate, or “prop up” their own sense of self in the face of four unreliable parental figures (each with their own attachment wounds and relational deficits) (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth, 1979).

Proxy Behaviour and Relational Coping

Each role or behaviour; wounded-healer, imposter, people-pleaser, over-giver, functions as a finely tuned “prop” of confidence, allowing the child to navigate the insecure dynamics of each family member with a unique set of relational scripts (van der Kolk, 2014; Ford, 2015). The child unconsciously asks, “What do I need to be, in order to be accepted by you?” and crafts a response tailored to the perceived needs and expectations of each caregiver or sibling (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth, 1979). This leads to a multiplication of self-presentations, as the child shifts between roles depending on whose approval or attention is required in the moment.

We can see this as the child being forced to adopt a mask, one that becomes set at an almost instinctive level, supported and enabled through genetic masking behaviours, reinforced, potentially, for hundreds of generations.

The Multidimensional Nature of Childhood Programming

The “family of five” (with four distinct models of relational dysfunction, impacting on the self-concept, self-esteem, confidence and authenticity of a youngest child) provides a context of escalating relational complexity. The child’s internal programming is thereby shaped by the cumulative effect of multiple, unmet relational demands, resulting in a repertoire of adaptive, but often maladaptive strategies that persist into adulthood (van der Kolk, 2014; Ford, 2015). The child’s search for acceptance is not singular but multifaceted, reflecting the varied and inconsistent relational models present in the family system (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth, 1979).

These variation will form the basis for the child’s future relationship with others. In their attempt to establish connection, exaggerated by their current lack of connection, and driven by emerging neediness due to cognitive distortions and dissociations leading to a lack of wholeness.

Impact of Blaming and Scapegoating

In the context outlined earlier, where the youngest child is systematically cast as the scapegoat within a family of avoidant or emotionally distant caregivers, the relational “games” played by peers and siblings are far from innocent (Bowlby, 1969; van der Kolk, 2014). These interactions are often shaped by a collective unconscious perpetuation of blame, microaggressions, and subtle forms of emotional harm. The scapegoat becomes the target for ongoing, normalized micro-trauma, which is frequently overlooked precisely because such dynamics are embedded in everyday family or peer interactions (van der Kolk, 2014; Ford, 2015).

The Role of Peers and Scapegoating

Peers, especially siblings, may unconsciously replicate the family’s pattern of relational aggression. The scapegoat is tripped up, blamed for the group’s problems, and exposed to repeated micro-traumas, often under the guise of humour, teasing, or “normal” sibling rivalry (Bowlby, 1969; Ford, 2015). Because these micro-traumas are normalized; dismissed as inconsequential or “just the way things are”, they accumulate over time, reinforcing the child’s internalisation of shame, worthlessness, and self-blame (van der Kolk, 2014).

Hidden Stockholm Syndrome and Symbolic Connection

The child’s ongoing, symbolised attachment to the family, especially the parental figures, may become a form of hidden Stockholm Syndrome; a desperate, often unconscious clinging to the very source of pain in the hope that acceptance or connection might one day be possible (van der Kolk, 2014; Ford, 2015). This bond is not rational, nor is it healthy, but it is profoundly powerful, shaped by the preverbal longing for a belonging that is perpetually out of reach, both within and outside the family system (Bowlby, 1969).

Long-Term Significance

The long-term effects of this hidden Stockholm Syndrome and chronic scapegoating can be as disabling as overt trauma, with lasting impacts on identity, relational capacity, and emotional well-being (van der Kolk, 2014; Ford, 2015). The “symbolic family connection” remains a phantom, a wound that shapes the self but is rarely acknowledged, seen, or treated as a source of deep psychological injury.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1979) Attachment as related to maternal sensitivity and responsiveness.

Bowlby, J. (1969) Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment.

Bridgestorecovery, 2018. Raised By a Father With Avoidant Personality Disorder.
Cleveland Clinic, 2025. Avoidant Personality Disorder: Symptoms & Treatment.

Ford, J. D. (2015) Posttraumatic stress disorder: scientific and professional dimensions (2nd ed.). Academic Press.

Healthentral, 2022. Avoidant Personality Disorder and Childhood Neglect.

Herman, J. L. (1992) Trauma and recovery. Basic Books.

Sprang, G., & Jekielek, S. M. (2015) Parental Attachment and Complex Trauma Symptoms in Adults: A Pilot Study. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 16(1), pp. 1-17.

van der Kolk, B. A. (2014) The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.

https://www.bridgestorecovery.com/blog/whos-there-raised-by-a-father-with-avoidant-personality-disorder/

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9761-avoidant-personality-disorder

https://www.brightquest.com/blog/a-guide-for-partners-of-people-with-avoidant-personality-disorder/

https://www.healthcentral.com/condition/avoidant-personality-disorder/avpd-childhood-neglect

https://www.oasisofhopebhc.com/does-having-avoidant-personality-disorder-impact-relationships

https://www.suttontrust.com/news-opinion/all-news-opinion/40-children-miss-parenting-needed-succeed-life-sutton-trust/

https://www.sheppardpratt.org/knowledge-center/condition/avoidant-personality-disorder/

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/insecure-parental-attachment-linked-to-high-social-costs

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/conditions/avoidant-personality-disorder

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19411243.2023.2177237

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559325/