This is an excellent introduction to adult attachment theory and research.

http://www.zurinstitute.com/online/attachment2.pdf

It is my experience that all primary relationships include inherent disappointment. The result is a drama of love & hate living within the psyche of each in relationship. The disposition of each partner’s inherent negative is hugely determining of the fate of relationship. A successful “conscious marriage” generally requires that each in the marriage “do something” with their inherent disappointment/negativity.
In the marriageofopposites situation one in the relationship is generally intruded on by longings/disappointment/protest while the other tends to avoid experiencing their own version of longings/disappointment/protest. The healing progression begins with containment for the purposes of communication on the part of the core styled and claiming acknowledgment of the “inner negative” on the part of the outer-styled. The healing progression moves from enmeshed acting-out, to deescalated communication, to the establishment of both empathic contact and internal differentiation, which then enables replacement of polarizing escalation with emotionally connected communication.

Over many years of couples practice there have been hundreds of moments of intense enmeshed conflict in couples sessions where the only productive intervention in my therapeutic repertoire was to encourage each in the marriage to step back and “take in” the extent of difference between themselves and their partner; in essence, a differentiating intervention. The strength and limitation of this therapeutic direction is that the room is then left occupied by two individuals trying to figure out where they stand with each other; relationship conflict is markedly reduced but also the range of the relationship connection is narrowed. The maturity and tolerance in the relationship is generally increased but at the same time the emotional foundation of the relationship is thinned. The ultimate fate of the relationship is then left largely dependent upon the increasing maturity of both in the marriage and both partners rationally choosing to accept the other, limitations and all. A valued positive outcome to this approach was that each in the marriage has effectively taken back their neurotic projections from the marriage into their own individual psyche’s, thus freeing up the marriage to be the best it can be. Note that the end result of this approach depends largely upon the ability of each in the marriage to sustain themselves individually and individually mature and personally heal. Often such an approach is combined with individual therapy, often with quite positive outcomes. 

The attachment model enables a whole range of additional possibilities. Rather than viewing escalating conflict as destructive enmeshment that needs to be interrupted, it is viewed as dysfunctional expression of thwarted attachment need. Interventions are then directed to the underlying positive intent of how each partner is longing/seeking safe connection, but also defending/protecting from the anticipation that attachment is unsafe, each in fashion characteristic of their attachment history. Empathy of each others both desire and fear of connection is supported and built upon in therapy. A result of taking the therapy in this direction is that the underlying attraction/desire for the attachment is harnessed for the purposes of the therapy. This is in marked contrast to the differentiation model where underlying attachment seeking is often interrupted in the service of reducing unrealistic fantasy and enmeshment. 

Which ever model one subscribes to, attachment or differentiation, the natural history of marital therapy sessions always includes a large portion of polarizing, push away behaviors. Practically, what this means is that therapy generally alternates between work towards closening behaviors on the one hand, and reconnecting behaviors following polarization on the other hand. It is even possible to conceptualize the therapeutic process itself as a dialectic between these two opposite emotional moments. 

In recent years a groundswell of huge proportions has begun to impact the practice of marital therapy. This lies in the application of attachment theory pioneered by John Bowlby. Mary Ainsworth and Mary Main to the understanding and treatment of couples. Exemplified by the work of Sue Johnson and Les Greenberg, the foundations of this approach is the understanding that marital attachment is largely an adult expression of primary attachment styles learned in early childhood. A central point made by attachment theorists is that psychological differentiation follows after the creation of attachment in the developmental process; hence, it is reasoned that in marriage the same sequencing is important. The argument here is that to grow differentiation in a marital relationship without first growing attachment is to grow differentiation without a solid relational foundation upon which the marital differentiation can rest; that differentiation is only healthy when it is based upon the security of safe home-based attachment. That such differentiation ends up missing emotional depth and emotional connection. This is a very different view from those marital therapists who argue that initial differentiation is the necessary foundation for secure self-other relating. In the differentiation school of thought it is only in getting fully separate from one’s partner that one is then able to fully and richly “see” and “hear” and “experience” ones partner. From the differentiation perspective, it is the experience of psychological apartness that then enables a a taking down of negative projecting onto ones partner that then enables reattachment within the marriage. The thought here is that it is the taking down of projections that creates a renewed sense of safety with one’s partner.