What Is a Trauma Bond? The Clinical Truth About Abusive Attachment

Written by Stephanie Underwood, RSW

You may be familiar with the term “trauma-bonded relationship”. Many people mistakenly believe a trauma bond forms when two people connect over shared emotional wounds. But this is not what the term actually means. Clinically, trauma bonding refers to a much more serious and dangerous pattern, a form of emotional attachment that develops through repeated cycles of abuse, fear, and intermittent kindness.

Understanding trauma bonds correctly matters, especially for those trying to make sense of their experiences in toxic or abusive relationships. Let’s explore the true meaning of a trauma bond, its clinical origins, and how it’s recognized by psychologists and trauma experts.

Clinical Definition of Trauma Bonding

A trauma bond is a psychological attachment formed between a victim and their abuser, sustained by cycles of abuse followed by moments of reward or reconciliation. This intermittent reinforcement creates confusion, emotional dependency, and a sense of loyalty to the abuser.

This concept was first introduced by Patrick J. Carnes, PhD, in his 1997 work The Betrayal Bond: Breaking Free of Exploitive Relationships. Carnes described trauma bonding as a dysfunctional attachment that develops when a person is mistreated but simultaneously experiences emotional or physical intimacy, creating a powerful and confusing emotional connection that’s difficult to break.

“Exploitive relationships create betrayal bonds. These occur when a victim bonds with someone who is destructive to them. These bonds are stronger when there is a history of childhood trauma, and they involve intensity, secrecy, and a perceived power imbalance.” — Patrick J. Carnes, The Betrayal Bond (1997)

Since Carnes’ initial work, the concept has been explored in academic literature on domestic violence and trauma. Trauma bonding is closely related to intermittent reinforcement (Skinner, 1937; Solomon & Corbit, 1974) and coercive control (Stark, 2007).

Key Signs of a Trauma Bond

Clinicians and researchers have identified a number of hallmark signs of trauma bonding, particularly in contexts of intimate partner violence (IPV) and coercive control:

• Intermittent reinforcement: The abuser alternates between cruelty and affection, which deepens the emotional dependency of the victim.

• Power imbalance: One partner holds emotional or physical power, while the other remains emotionally tethered despite the harm.

• Cognitive dissonance: The victim justifies or rationalizes the abuse due to moments of kindness or connection.

• Emotional addiction: Victims can experience withdrawal symptoms similar to substance dependence when trying to leave.

• Distorted attachment: Victims may feel they “need” the abuser for validation, security, or identity, even when aware of the harm.

This pattern can be observed in romantic relationships, parent-child dynamics, cult settings, and even work environments where power and control are misused.

Psychological Mechanisms at Play

Trauma bonding is deeply connected to the nervous system and early attachment experiences.

From a neurobiological perspective, the body becomes dysregulated due to the emotional rollercoaster of abuse followed by affection. This pattern activates the brain’s reward circuitry (primarily dopamine), making the victim crave the “relief” of love and safety after each abusive episode.

From an attachment lens, trauma bonding is more likely to occur in individuals with insecure or disorganized attachment styles, particularly those who experienced abandonment, neglect, or inconsistent caregiving in childhood. These early experiences can make someone more susceptible to confusing love with pain, attention with control, and intimacy with chaos.

“The trauma bond is not formed because of the trauma itself, but because of the emotional regulation strategies developed in the face of powerlessness and harm.” — Dutton & Painter, 1993

What Trauma Bonding Is Not

To clarify:

• A trauma bond is not a relationship where both people have experienced trauma.

• It is not about connecting with someone because you’ve both been through hard times.

• It is not synonymous with “toxic relationship.”

Trauma bonding specifically involves emotional manipulation, power imbalance, and psychological conditioning, usually in the context of abuse.

Breaking the Trauma Bond

Healing from a trauma bond is incredibly difficult, but possible with support. Breaking free often feels like losing a part of yourself—but that “part” is often rooted in survival, not genuine love or safety.

Steps to healing may include:

• Working with a trauma-informed therapist who understands abuse dynamics

• Learning to identify manipulative patterns and gaslighting tactics

• Practicing nervous system regulation to manage distress and withdrawal

• Rebuilding a secure attachment to yourself through boundaries and self-compassion

• Engaging with community support or survivors’ groups to reduce isolation

Final Thoughts

Trauma bonding is not a connection—it’s a trap. It’s not about “sharing trauma”; it’s about being emotionally conditioned to stay in a relationship that harms you. The emotional intensity, confusion, and loyalty you feel are symptoms of psychological manipulation, not love.

Understanding this difference can be life-changing. If you’ve been in a relationship that felt like a constant battle between pain and hope, you might not be weak or broken—you might be trauma bonded. And naming it is the first step to breaking free.

If you or someone you love may be experiencing a trauma bond, know that help is available. Reach out to a trauma-informed mental health professional or local support line for guidance. You deserve safety, clarity, and healing.

---

References

Carnes, P. J. (1997). The betrayal bond: Breaking free of exploitive relationships. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications, Inc.

Dutton, D. G., & Painter, S. L. (1993). The battered woman syndrome: Effects of severity and intermittency of abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63(4), 614–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079474

Solomon, R. L., & Corbit, J. D. (1974). An opponent-process theory of motivation: I. Temporal dynamics of affect. Psychological Review, 81(2), 119–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036128

Skinner, B. F. (1937). Two types of conditioned reflex and a pseudo type. Journal of General Psychology, 12(1), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1937.9917951