Too Close for Comfort
By John D. Moore, MS, LPC, CADC
Recognizing an Unhealthy Attachment to the Relationship
In this article:
* Exposing the problem of Relational Dependency.
* Examining the unhealthy attachment style of a controlling person.
* The Obsessive Love Wheel as part of Obsessive Relational Progression.
* Summary: Working towards change.
Dan has a problem. "I just got dumped again", he admits with a hint of embarrassment in his voice. "She accused me of smothering her to death and claimed that I had become too controlling. I'm not sure what happened to be honest with you, because I treated her so well. It seems like all of my relationships end up this way and frankly, I'm getting sick of it."
Gayle reports a slightly different problem. "I've been dating this guy for about three months and I am about ready to pull the plug on the relationship. I hate doing it, but what else can I do? He makes me account for every moment of my time and I'm starting to feel trapped," he explains. "The phone rings half a dozen times each day and it's always him, calling to harass me about my daily activities and then laying on a guilt trip for not showing her enough attention. I feel like I don't have a life anymore because she monopolizes all of my time."
Can you relate? If so, you are not alone. Dan and Gayle's problem points to the hidden frustration of countless people who have discovered that being in a relationship means living in hell. At some point, all of us experience a certain amount of anxiety with the person we are romantically involved with and it's only natural to expect accountability.
But if she's telling you that "you are a control freak" or if you have been made to feel as if though a chain has been placed around your neck, then there might be a more serious problem at hand called Relational Dependency (RD). Simply put, relational dependency is part of an overall process by which an individual develops an unhealthy attachment to his or her relationship. This means that for some people, there is a misguided need to be romantically involved with another in order to experience self-validation. What's more, RD people subconsciously believe that by using controlling, manipulative behaviors, they can somehow trap love.
Affecting both men and women equally, RD is a problem that is progressive in nature, meaning that as the relationship continues, the controlling behaviors worsen. At the core of this quandary is a fear of abandonment, with the clues to this phenomenon that can be traced to a person's attachment style. If left unchecked, the controlling behaviors can escalate, eventually spiraling out of control and causing great misery for both parties involved.
So how do you know if you or your partner is suffering from this affliction? By examining a process called Obsessive Relational Progression (ORP), which is a specific style of attachment for relationally dependent people, it may be possible to recognize the symptoms.
Take a look at the Obsessive Love Wheel, representing the four phases of ORP. It is called a wheel because it is always turning, round and round as the relationship continues. Sometimes the wheel turns quickly, other times slowly, but it is always turning and always painful. While examining the wheel, look for any patterns of behavior over the course of your relationship(s) and ask yourself: "Do either I or the person I am involved with behave this way?"
The Obsessive Love Wheel
Phase One: The Attraction Phase
The initial phase of ORP is characterized by an instantaneous and overwhelming attraction to another person. It is at this point the relationally dependent person becomes "hooked" on a romantic interest, usually resulting from the slightest bit of attention from the person they are attracted to. Phase One ORP behaviors can include:
* An instant attraction to romantic interest, usually occurring within the first few minutes of meeting.
* An immediate urge to rush into a relationship - regardless of compatibility.
* Becoming "hooked on the look" of another, focusing on the person's physical characteristics while ignoring personality differences.
* Unrealistic fantasies about a relationship with a love interest, assigning "magical" qualities to an object of affection.
* The beginnings of obsessive, controlling behaviors begin to manifest.
Phase Two: The Anxious Phase
This phase in considered a relational turning point, which usually occurs after a commitment has been made between both parties. Sometimes however, the relationally dependent person will enter into this phase without the presence of a commitment. This happens when the afflicted person creates the illusion of intimacy, regardless of the other person's true feelings. The second phase of ORP behaviors can include:
* Unfounded thoughts of infidelity on the part of a partner and demanding accountability for normal daily activities.
* An overwhelming fear of abandonment, including baseless thoughts of a partner walking out on the relationship in favor of another person.
* The need to constantly be in contact with a love interest via phone, email or in person.
* Strong feelings of mistrust begin to emerge, causing depression, resentment and relational tension.
* The continuation and escalation of obsessive, controlling behaviors.
Phase Three: The Obsessive Phase
This particular phase represents the rapid escalation of this unhealthy attachment style. It is at this point that obsessive, controlling behaviors reach critical mass, ultimately overwhelming the RD person's life. It is also at this point that the person being controlled begins to pull back and ultimately, severs the relationship. In short, Phase Three is characterized by a total loss of control on the part of the RD person, resulting from extreme anxiety. Usually, the following characteristics are apparent during the third phase of ORP:
* The onset of "tunnel vision," meaning that the relationally dependent person cannot stop thinking about a love interest and required his or her constant attention.
* Neurotic, compulsive behaviors, including rapid telephone calls to love interest's place of residence or workplace.
* Unfounded accusations of "cheating" due to extreme anxiety.
* "Drive-bys" around a love interest's home or place of employment, with the goal of assuring that the person is at where "he or she is supposed to be."
* Physical or electronic monitoring activities, following a love interest's whereabouts throughout the course of a day to discover daily activities.
* Extreme control tactics, including questioning a love interest's commitment to the relationship (guilt trips) with the goal of manipulating a love interest into providing more attention.
Phase Four: The Destructive Phase
This is the final phase of Obsessive Relational Progression. It represents the destruction of the relationship, due to phase three behaviors, which have caused a love interest to understandably flee. For a variety of reasons, this is considered the most dangerous of the four phases, because the RD person suddenly plummets into a deep depression due to the collapse of the relationship. Here are some of the more common behaviors that are exhibited during phase four of ORP:
* Overwhelming feelings of depression (feeling "empty" inside).
* A sudden loss of self-esteem, due to the collapse of the relationship.
* Extreme feelings of self-blame and at times, self-hatred.
* Anger, rage and a desire to seek revenge against a love interest for breaking off the relationship.
* Denial that the relationship has ended and attempting to "win a loved one back" by making promises to "change".
* The use of drugs, alcohol, food or sex to "medicate" the emotional pain.
Summary
Sadly for most people who suffer from RD, the only way they can get off their chaotic wheel is by jumping onto a new one, causing the cycle of control to repeat itself in a new relationship. If what you have read speaks to your situation or the person you are involved with, then it may be time for help. There are specific reasons behind the affliction of RD, which can generally be traced to a person's past. Consider speaking with a professional trained in the field of relationships, such as a mental health counselor or family and marriage therapist.
John D. Moore is professor of psychology & health sciences at American Public University and a certified addictions counselor in Illinois, working in the social services field. His articles regularly appear in nationally syndicated magazines, such as American Health & Fitness addressing issues on mental and physical health. He holds a masters degree in Community Health Administration from California College for Health Sciences and is currently pursuing his doctoral degree in the field of Psychology.
So far, we've looked at the 'control freak', and protecting the victim.
It stands to reason that excessive controllers do not operate in a
vacuum. If it were just the controller and the victim in a little box,
sooner or later either the victim breaks out, or the controller may
tire of receiving the attention of only one person. A bit of a
narcissist these folks are, and they 'need' approval and attention for
their actions. Life sours without it, for them.
Enter the
ENABLER/S. These are those people outside of the box (where all life
takes place, of course) who are either related to, in association with,
or beholden in some way to the controller, and who just cannot 'see'
the behavior that is going on. Hence, they provide whatever it is the
controller needs, emotionally, physically, financially, etc., etc. They
are the masters at the 'second chance'. Sometimes it appears they never
heard of 'tough love'. Nor do they want to. Maybe it is a type of
co-dependence--or low self-esteem of themselves.
Here are some lines from JANNETTE ROBERT MURRY, Psycotherapist and
Clinical Hypnotherapist--Group Therapy Facilitist and Life Coach, which
I found to be relative to our subject. I hope you enjoy it and also get
some of the insight that I did.
Enabling is Very Often Part of Codependence Any time you assist/allow another person to continue in their
unproductive/unhealthy/addictive behavior, whether actively or
passively, you are enabling!
Silence condones. So even when you say nothing (such as ‘minding your
own business’), you are enabling the behavior to continue.
Sometimes you say nothing out of fear — fear of reprisal, fear
of the other person hating/hurting/not liking you; or fear of butting
in where you don’t think you belong. Perhaps even fear of being hit...
or worse!
In the media we now see messages about reporting child
abuse, or reporting domestic violence. The message is attempted to be
conveyed that it is your business to report these things — whether it’s
happening to you or to someone else. Our former First Lady’s book says
“It takes a community to raise a child” — and it does. It takes
everyone caring... enough to “butt in” when you see something that you
know is not right.
“What are some of the ways enabling manifests?”
* Sometimes enabling takes the form of doing something for another that they should do for themself.
* Sometimes it takes the form of making excuses for
someone else’s behavior.
* Sometimes the spouse of an alcoholic will call in to their boss to
say that person is ‘sick’ when they are really so hung over they can’t
make it to work.
* Sometimes it constitutes a parent bailing out their child when they
have been arrested for whatever: of Possession, use or abuse of drugs,
alcohol or some other infraction of our societal rules.
* Sometimes it is the parent of a young child who is in denial about
that child’s misbehavior at school, on the playground, in the
neighborhood; and
*Rather than recognizing there is a problem, they get into a fighting
mode and defend, rather than taking responsibility for correcting the
situation in a healthy way.
* Do you buy alcohol or cigarettes for a user/abuser of these products?
* Do you cover bad checks for a spouse, a child?
* Do you loan/give money, over and over, to anyone in your family who
hasn’t put forth the effort or the commitment to get their own act
together?
* Do you finish up/do the work of a co-worker, who isn’t pulling their share of the load?
* Do you cover for another in any way? (There is healthy helping, and
there is unhealthy enabling. We have to learn the difference.)
These are all ways you might be enabling. And they are just a few
examples of how that might happen. Anything you do (or don’t do) which
allows/assists another person to continue in their bad/unproductive
behavior or addiction... is enabling.
Why Do You Enable?
You more than likely enable out of your own low self-esteem. You
haven’t gained the ability to say no, without fear of losing the love
or caring of that other person. People who learn ‘tough love’ have to
learn that their former behaviors have been enabling, and that to
continue in them would constitute allowing the other person’s pattern
of behavior to continue... and to worsen!
Is it difficult to stop enabling?
Well, it’s difficult if you’re trying to do it with will power.
And it’s not easy until you know you deserve to stop; till you know
that you are lovable regardless of what the person you’ve previously
enabled says to the contrary! ...till you raise your own self-esteem
enough to be that strong. (You may think it’s the other person who needs all the help — in truth, you both do!)
It becomes easier and easier as you, yourself, become stronger,
healthier, more whole, learn to love yourself, raise your self-esteem,
and learn all about the patterns of codependence / enabling /
over-giving, and learn to be more assertive in saying what you know to
be true and healthy.
No matter how many warning signs they see, sometimes people just walk into a relationship that they would have done better not to have done.
On top of it all, they often go through periods of giving 'second chances' to the companion who's only goal is to control and inflict a feeling of worthlessness upon them. If they are lucky enough to live through it, the victim (can be man or woman) usually ends up needing some kind of help from legal sources to attempt to rid themselves from the controller, once and for all.
Foremost among these sources we see the Restraining Order, or the Court Order, depending on what state you live in. How many times, however, do we see mental, emotional, or physical abuse continued AFTER the order is in place--done under subterfuge or in a blatant, non-caring act? We see it on the news everyday.
Here's something I found interesting about the effectiveness of Restraining Orders. I hope you do, too.
"Will a Restraining Order Protect a Person From Abuse?
The majority of domestic violence advocates proffer that court issued protection/restraining orders will protect the plaintiff on that order from the abuser. In fact many print that promise of protection right on the order. However, for those who work in the criminal justice system and many domestic violence advocates understand that a restraining order, in and of itself, is a piece of paper that can, in and of itself, provide little to no protection.
There is not a single empirical scientific methodological study that has provided data that has demonstrated that the use of a civil protection/restraining order, in and of itself, can protect a victim or deter repeat domestic violence abuse by an abuser. Further, there is no national systematic intervention or response by prosecutors and courts nationwide. Regardless of these facts, thousands of civil protection/restraining orders are being issued each day by the courts and they are available in all 50 states.
An article concerning the safety provided by the issuance of court protection/restraining orders appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association in the Aug. 7, 2002 issue, “Civil Protection Orders and Risk of Subsequent Police-Reported Violence.” The article concludes that the majority of permanent protection/restraining orders are associated with a statistically significant reduction in future police reported physical violence (Holt, et al, 2002).
In this study we found that having a permanent protection order in effect was associated with a statistically significant 80% reduction in police reported physical violence in the 12 months after an IPV [Intimate Partner Violence] incident.
Many in the electronic and print media used the Seattle study to document that protection/restraining orders do work. Many domestic violence advocates now believe they have proof that restraining orders do work. Indeed that is exactly what occurred at a domestic violence roundtable I attended. However, the danger in this study’s conclusion and the pronouncement by advocates is that the conclusion is derived from only one research study in one city.
Seattle, Washington is a city that provides one of the most complete and intensive community wide coordinated domestic violence intervention programs in the nation. It has been the recipient of a lot of money from Federal Grants. However, this single, stand alone does not demonstrate the effectiveness of restraining orders in any other city.
This study offers no proof and there is little reason to believe that those who live in communities without a coordinated community response have the same resources and will receive the same results.
Just because the rooster crows and then the sun rises each morning we should not believe that there is a causal correlation between the crows of the rooster and subsequent rising of the sun. One action that is necessarily followed by another action is a factual observation; however, it is also a fact that one action does not inevitably cause the other.
The data in the Seattle study does appear to document that protection/restraining orders in Seattle were effective in reducing repeat physical assaults for plaintiffs. However, is there not a danger in concluding this to be a fact and then publicly proclaiming that it is the orders themselves that make the plaintiff 80% safer? What leads anyone to believe that the same protection will be provided by orders issued elsewhere?
One of the most important elements of research is that the researcher must understand the cause and effect of both the independent and dependent variable(s). The variable being influenced is called the dependent variable. In the Seattle study it is apparent that the safety of the victim is the dependent variable. The variable actually causing the dependent variable to be influenced is called an independent variable. In the Seattle study it is apparent, as nothing else is offered, that the researchers believe that the independent variable is the protection/restraining order (Barlow & Kauzlarich, 2002).
One of the most comprehensive studies sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, concerning the Violence Against Women Act and how to provide protection for domestic violence victims, Controlling Violence Against Women: A Research Perspective on the 1994 VAWA’s Criminal Justice Impact documents that, “Grants for promising practices implemented in one jurisdiction will do no good for others if the practices cannot be shown to be effective and applicable in other settings.” This warning continues to fall on the deaf ears of policy makers who pass laws in an attempt to provide quick fix solutions for the complex enigma that is domestic violence.
The Controlling Violence Against Women report documents, “Available research evidence suggests protective orders have limited value, in general, as a means of preventing violence against petitioner.” Further it notes, “Practitioners have long urged agents of criminal justice to coordinate their efforts to function as a system of intervention that might ultimately protect women from gendered violence.” Is it not logical to think that it may be the Seattle system of intervention and not the order itself that provides the protection for the plaintiff.
Another National Institute of Justice sponsored study of intimate partner homicides, Exposure Reduction or Backlash? The Effects of Domestic Resources on Intimate Partner Homicide, Final Report, documents that that some contemporary criminal justice interventions may cause more homicides in some communities rather than reduce them. Data indicates that dangers arise when criminal justice interventions are not offered in a coordinated fashion. Controlling Violence Against Women notes, “That some batterers are not deterred by protective orders may be a function of how, if at all, they are enforced.”
While the Seattle study appears to have documented that protection/restraining orders protect victims, it is more likely that the positive results were made possible by a number of important independent variables. These independent variables are available victims in the Seattle area because of the exemplary coordinated community response.
Some of the actual independent variables to be considered are:
1. is an arrest made;
2. is the abuser placed in a batterers program or sanctioned by a court;
3. is family support and resources provided;
4. is there family, public or private domestic violence support and resources available; and
5. is there a victim safety plan/program in place?
The protection provided may not a result of the order itself, but rather by the resources and support the victims receive because of the issuance and support provided after the order is in place. It is important for the safety of all victims everywhere seeking protection from an abuser to note that these resources and support are not equally available in all communities.
The Controlling Violence Against Women report notes that, “Policy makers and practitioners should feel confident that research findings, properly contextualized, [emphasis added] can be used in decision-making on preventing violence against women. Above all, both researchers and policy makers need to know that their policies and practices will not endanger women. Unfortunately, there are too few positive preventive result evaluations of policies already in place, and fewer still that approach methodological standards insuring sound data for shaping policy.” Often, policy makers and many practitioners ignore this “One Size Does Not Fit All” warning (Fagan, 1996).
Hence, the answer to the question is both yes and no. Researchers, advocates and the electronic and print media should more clearly understand the implications, ramifications and possible dangers presented by studies before the results are released to a national audience.
The maxim often used is that if one life is saved the policy and procedures have worked. However, when one accepts this maxim to be true, it is equally important they understand that if one life is lost the policy, at the very least, must be reconsidered.
There seems to be little doubt that the Seattle study was systematic, scientific, empirical and extensive and did provide positive results. The study does document that there is now evidence that protection/restraining orders, with a coordinated community wide response and support, can and do provide protection for victims. That would be a more fitting conclusion to the study and that is the real message that should have been trumpeted nationwide.
Barlow, H.D. & Kauzlarich, D. (2002) Introduction to Criminology. NJ: Prentice Hall Fagan, J. (1996). The Criminalization of Domestic Violence: Promises and Limits. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Holt, V.L., Kernie, M.A., Lumley, T., Wolf, M.E., Rivara, F.P. (2002) “Civil Protection Orders And Risk of Subsequent Police-Reported Violence.” Journal of the America Medical Association, Vol. 288 No. 5, 589-594. Wallace, H. (1999). Family Violence: Legal, Medical, and Social Perspectives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. "
