The DEEP stuff (in relationships)
Background
When we grow up, we unwittingly absorb the culture of our home environments. This can be good or bad, healthy or not. We get used to being the center of attention or maybe we feel neglected more often than we want. If we have older siblings, there is a pattern of interaction that emerges relative to our brother(s) or sister(s). This may or may not be consciously reinforced by parents. We may feel “one down” if our sibling is older, or we may feel “superior” if we happen to be the oldest. If we are the middle child of many, sometimes we feel “lost in the crowd,” i.e., not very special. “Only” children may also have their expectations and resultant biases. Ordinal position has a profound effect on our attitudes about relationships.
If we have special abilities (smart, good looks, athletic), these color the pattern and expectations we have of ourselves. We may cultivate grandiose feedback from others because it feels good. And, if we lack such qualities? Then the opposite can occur. We may feel dumb, ugly or inferior in some way. We have all heard of the “ugly duckling” or the “inferiority complex.”
Other forms of early experiences can be subtler. Did you live in a nice or a crummy neighborhood? Did you have enough space; that is, a large enough dwelling or overall living environment? Some kids grow up with available land while others are crammed into single room apartments. Was there enough food? Did you grow up feeling there was “enough” (money, cars, clothes, friends) or was there always some sense of deprivation? In dire circumstances many kids grow up with chronic stress associated with lack of resources. Some of these kids develop chronic pessimism or even a sense of doom.
If you had two parents, how was their relationship? Did they stay together? Did they get along? Was there equality? Did they communicate? Was there mutual respect? What if we experienced our parents constantly growling at each other, or worse? Did they ever separate? Divorce? What was the effect of that? Did we see the parent who left? Was there child support? Visitation? Under what circumstances? Did we have to go back and forth between houses? How did our parents relate to us and to each other after the divorce? Later, were there stepparents? Did we grow up in what we psychologists call “blended families” (a mixture of parents, stepparents and/or stepsiblings)?
These more negative patterns are more egregious if there is neglect, trauma or abuse, even if in subtle forms. An absent parent creates stressors that the remaining single parent must shoulder. How did they cope? Regardless of the intactness or not of the parental relationship, were there alcohol or drugs involved? Were there mental or physical illnesses in the family? Were there other family hardships? Was there domestic violence? How about sexual abuse?
These experiences are sometimes conceived of as if they magically occur along some sort of continuum in time (from earlier to later) or from mild to much more severe. This is unintended. The above can occur at any time to anyone, anywhere. The overall effects are fairly predictable in the human psyche, which is why we have a “science” of psychology. However, the timing of the events and our highly variable human proclivities make it impossible to say with certainty how any one person is going to react to any one or more events, no matter when they occur.
What does happen is that we form our own unique expectations that “this is the way it is” and that “the world is just like that.” Think of this process as what creates the “take away” ideas from early life. It is what we learn is reality, taken from incipient experiences. The earlier these events occur, the more likely we are to accept as fact our interpretations of these experiences. This is true because the younger we are, the less comparisons we make with others’ experiences. It is also true because the younger we are the less developed are our critical faculties. Like other human beings, our individual experiences generate our own “norms,” based upon our own idiosyncratic interpretation of reality.
Over not very much time, our norms further amass into “rules.” They generalize. These are our common beliefs manifesting into attitudes that we start to assume are true and to psychologically take for granted. Our own selective perception reinforces the very ideas that created our schema. This process takes place, usually over longer periods of time (but sometimes much quicker when there are specific, acute traumas). Our groupings of ideas and feelings settle into the back of our minds, where they continue to coalesce. These form what some researchers have dubbed, basic assumptions (Bion, 1961). These are the increasingly unconscious expectations or patterns of ideas and feelings that influence our thinking as we grow up. More recent experiences are associated with these old expectations, thus reinforcing their validity (selective perception again…). We have all heard of selective perception and now we know its genesis. The purpose of all this is ultimately, to survive. If we do not have such representations of “what is,” there is a very good chance we will not know how to negotiate reality—any kind of reality, relationships or otherwise. We need all this to give us a “map.”
The coupe de gras of “idea constancy” (a phrase referring to the stability of the above map) occurs when the now more archaic (older) basic assumptions are finally pushed into the back of our minds where they now increasingly reside, out of awareness. They are suppressed for safekeeping. They did not go away. They just disappeared from awareness. Unfortunately, they still exert an influence on our present “conscious” behavior, because while they may be “out of sight,” they are still gathering to form ever increasing, larger and deeper patterns of thoughts, feelings and associations. They have now become “truths.” This continues for most of our lives.
If the ideas, feelings, beliefs, in short, basic assumptions are relatively true as we view them from the inside out, so to speak, then they are adaptive. Their purpose is to help us automatically adjust to reality, to help us live more productive, happy lives. If the basic assumptions are correct, true to “real” reality and positive, they will help us negotiate a happier existence. If the basic assumptions are incorrect, distorted, borne of negative feelings, etc., they will eventually create tension until they reach critical mass. They will become psychological time bombs.
So, what does all this have to do with the stages of relationships? Remember that when we first meet someone, our hearts may go “pitter patter,” but what we are really doing, like our mothers admonished us, is being on our best behavior. We are very aware of how we behave, which for the most part and especially in the beginning of relationships, checks unconscious dynamics. Deeper stuff largely remains out of sight. (There are egregious exceptions, but these relationships die before they even begin.)
We “court,” to use an archaic term, and the process of going through the stages of relating begins. All goes well, for a time. We have fun because “things” are new. Novelty creates very pleasurable experiences. Background feelings and thoughts are less “up front” in our awareness.
However, we know newness is going to wear off and routines will eventually triumph. We eventually stop so vigilantly minding our “p’s” and “q’s.” Our defenses change. They relax. We are not quite so concerned about our best behavior. What begin to surface are our “default settings” behaviors. This is the beginning of the emergence of the deep stuff, projected onto our partner via the relationship.
Generally, we have expectations of how the world is, and specifically of how relationships are supposed to be, too. In this case, this comes from our beliefs, values, thoughts and feelings formed while experiencing the relationships of our original caretakers. These relationship “norms” begin to surface in the form of unconscious expectations. We unconsciously expect that our partners will behave in ways in which we have become accustomed (from history). It does not matter if these ways are adaptive (healthy deep stuff) or not (unhealthy deep stuff), they will start to emerge in direct proportion to how much our defenses lower relative to the press (intensity, push, insistence) of the deep stuff. And, over time, we all lower our defenses. It is just a matter of how much, how often, and when. With increasing time and sameness, the lowering of our defenses can be quite profound, and the deep stuff can surface in dramatic fashion. If it is good deep stuff and the unconscious expectations of each partner are more or less compatible with each other, the relationship will go relatively well. If one of the partners has bad deep stuff, this will collide with the other and the relationship will suffer. If both partners have bad deep stuff, look out. (If both partners have incompatible bad deep stuff, leave town…) We are unique in how we grew up, so our basic assumptions vary, almost infinitely. Put those patterns of expectations under the same roof with another person, who has another set of nearly infinite basic assumptions, and we begin to understand just how complicated relating to our partner can be. So, how does this unconscious “relating” happen?
Transference: In the literature on psychoanalysis, transference is usually defined as the displacement of feelings, thoughts, or attitudes (deep stuff) that we have towards others in our past onto others, in this specific case, our current relationship(s). As described above, it is largely an unconscious process by the time we are adults, having developed over a long time. This gradually surfaces and increasingly becomes obvious as our relationship develops.
In older-style therapy sessions, the analyst purposefully remained neutral, which as a technique facilitated the emergence of such deep stuff. A patient’s background expectations surfaced as a function of the contrived (distant, neutral, lacking eye contact type of) relationship with the doctor, which allowed the deep stuff to manifest more easily, in this case, to be projected onto the “neutral” therapist. At some point, the doctor interpreted (explained the dynamics of) the transference to the patient. Once it was made conscious and the patient understood his or her biases (projections onto the therapist from past relationships) changes could be made. Re-doing the patterns of thoughts and embracing newer, healthier ways of thinking was referred to as “resolving the transference neurosis.” That process was clinical, technical and somewhat artificial, but therapy was practiced that way for years. There are still proponents and adherents today that practice this form of treatment.
We psychologists now know that transference happens in the real world. Perhaps it takes longer, and its emergence may be sidetracked by uncontrolled real-life events, but it manifests. Not coincidentally, it most saliently pops up in personal relationships, in direct proportion to the lowering of defenses and in direct relationship to the intensity of the deep stuff, the dynamics and emergence of which are loosely related to the current stage of the relationship.
Remember, transferences can be good or bad or in-between. Positive transferences are expectations that we will be treated well, that we are worth something (good self esteem), that the world is a beneficent place, that resources are plentiful, that adults have functional relationships, etc. Negative transferences represent variations of the opposite themes.
Some transferences are really about how to express oneself rather than how one is in the world. This is a behavioral transference; meaning, how one typically has learned to relate to others under different circumstances. This is opposed to other aspects of transference, which are more ideational or even doctrinal. In all cases, transference is a fixed pattern of beliefs or behaviors that either works for us (represent reality relatively well, or allows us to behave in adaptive ways) or not (distorts reality or motivates us to behave poorly). Probably, there are an infinite number of individual behavioral, ideational or doctrinal transferences. This article focuses on the most common of these transferences that gum up relationships.
Transferences in relationships are usually unconscious until they manifest. They can represent broad ideas or very situation-specific or behavioral biases. In all cases, basic assumptions are acted out or “transferred” via unconscious expectation onto our partners. If the transferences are functional (adaptive, positive) and our partner has similar and compatible transferences, our relationships are better. Usually, these are not the people who come to marriage counseling. Counseling sessions usually involve couples that have one or more partners suffering from negative transferences. These are people who are doomed to act out unconscious basic assumptions. Troubled couples come to therapy stuck in acting out reciprocally negative transferences. For the purposes of this article, these are called Negative Loops.
Negative Loops: Negative loops is a term for what couples “automatically” (read, unconsciously) do to each other that makes the other person worse, not better, and is tied to unconscious expectations and assumptions (transference). Here is a simpler explanation. These transference ideas or unconscious basic assumptions dictate our adaptive behaviors. They drive how we interact with our partners. They are responsible for the patterns of behaviors that we have manifested, usually for a long time. Remember, in relationships, as we go through the stages, transference phenomena gradually surface. They increasingly color our interactions. If we have adaptive ways of behaving, good basic assumptions, etc., the loops we form with our (also healthy?) partner are reciprocally supportive—Positive Loops. If one of the partners has one or more negative transferences, the relationship manifests this and the relationship at least partially degrades. If two of the partners have such negative patterns, the relationship might downright suffer. When the patterns are mutually exclusive; that is, play off one another to actually make what the other partner does worse, then we have a Negative Loop. Here is a generic example. He does something that makes her angry, but what she does in response to his behavior is the very thing that makes him angrier, thus he behaves more in the ways that will make her even angrier. Her anger has escalated into something louder, longer or just more intense. Why? What she did failed to stop whatever he did that initially set her off. In her mind, she, of course, now has something to really be angry about (because he did it again), so she acts out even more intensely, doing, of course, the very thing that set him off in the first place, only again, at a more intense level. Frustration increases with each “round.” Why? Neither gets what they want; namely, to control the other. The process continues and now one reacts (in the same way), now doing the same thing s/he is used to do (to adapt, get his/her way, whatever the transference expectation dictates), and does so more intensely, because the other partner failed to give him or her what s/he wanted; instead, s/he did the very thing (again) that initially set him or her off. It is a little confusing, but the idea is that each partner plays off the other, escalating the intensity more at each level. This can escalate to feverish levels and result in lots of very bad experiences. (Though this is not the subject of this article, Positive Loops work the same way, dynamically; that is, playing off the behavior of the other. However, this time the behaviors that manifest are adaptive, cultivating communication at meaningful levels. The positive loop supports de-escalating of negative feelings and the building of positive feelings. The result is more satisfaction in the relationship, not frustration, hurt, etc.)
Back to the main point, virtually every couple that ends up on the therapy couch is stuck in one or more of these Negative Loops. They do not realize it, but they sure know how frustrated they are. The therapist’s job is to help identify and unravel these very destructive behavior patterns. This article outlines the basic ones and describe what we can do to ease the tensions outside of the therapist’s office. Here are the eight most common manifestations of Negative Loops commonly seen in the therapist’s office. Described are some of the characteristics of these patterns and some of the transferences that usually power them. (In the examples, the pronouns “He” and “She” represent the “players” involved in each Negative Loop. Pronouns and aspects or qualities of each Negative Loop were randomly matched and are not meant to represent gender or other partner stereotypes.)
1) Controlling vs. Passive Aggressive. He wants to control things, what she has, when she goes out, where she goes, with whom she socializes. She resents this because, well, who likes to be controlled? However, he is more overt in his attempt to control her, even though he might also be indirect if he resorts to manipulation to achieve his goal. Either way, she feels the pressure, resents the intrusion and sabotages the efforts, usually quietly, under the surface—passive aggressively. He does not recognize her “under the radar” ploys, but certainly feels frustrated when his attempts to control her fail. So, he amps up the process, doing more of the things to control her, thinking, more is better and “this time” it will work. She is more frustrated because, well, who likes to be more controlled? Her machinations, again, are off the radar screen; that is, underhanded, out of sight, indirect. The result is that she undermined his attempts again, probably retaliating by doing more of the same things he did not like in the first place that motivated him to try to control her. The level of intensity has escalated because the side effect of acted out negative transferences is frustration, hurt or increased anxiety. These feelings, once ignited, power escalation. The result is that both partners experience an increase in negative feelings because neither got what they wanted. Because there is no insight into or control over the process, it quickly gets out of hand. When this dynamic reaches “critical mass” one or both parties act out in some other way. This can be bad. One might resort to simple withdrawal. Either might start yelling, or things could actually degenerate into a physical altercation.
The transferences are fairly predictable. He has gotten used to controlling others. At some deeper level he expects this to be OK, the norm, or just the way it is. He may have seen this in his parent’s interactions, or he may have been the oldest and is used to thinking of himself as the boss of younger siblings. He may have a position of authority at work, and then comes home and unwittingly treats his wife and/or kids like employees. He got this control-others idea “somewhere.” At this point, we just do not know from where. In history, he might have gotten his way with violence. If it works, it is reinforced and the tendency increases to repeat the experience in the future.
She, on the other hand, has learned to “not make waves,” but at the same time not give up her personal power. She does what she wants, resisting his controlling ways, only she cannot be “found out.” In her mind, there might be too much risk. She may have had a controlling father who was critical, or worse, violent. She may have had sisters that got what they wanted by subtly competing, but again, “behind the scenes,” i.e., manipulating. She may be narcissistic and not care about what the husband wants. Narcissism can be severe, as in a personality disorder, or it can be mild, as in just being spoiled as a child. Again, she learned this style of interacting with intimates “somewhere” and is acting it out, more or less automatically, probably unconsciously.
Here is another example of a Negative Loop.
2) Assertiveness vs. Avoidant. He’s assertive, she’s not. He speaks up and wants their communication to be direct. She avoids clear communication and is not assertive. She may ask for something for the kids, really wanting something for herself. He busts her, telling her it would be a lot better if she just stated what she wanted, leaving the kids out of it. In response, she feels criticized and further shrinks. She may withdraw, play solitaire or just leave the house to go for a workout at the gym. He enjoys the separation until his frustration surfaces at not having help with chores, or just a compatible mate. He becomes even more determined and “comes down” on her with more force--greater insistence that she “speak up.” This drives her more deeply into her hole. Her compensations are even less direct, “driving him up the wall.”
The transferences might go something like this: He is articulate and a hard worker. He may be impatient, but sooner or later needs to speak up. He does not handle stresses well and might be compromised by physical ailments, disturbed father-son relationships, poor results communicating with older female siblings, etc. He may be very dynamic. He may be used to getting what he wants more or less immediately. He could have trouble dealing with impulses and want immediate gratification. He may have a higher sex drive.
She is more likely to have come from a family of avoiders. She probably does not like and often runs from conflict. She tends to mask her real wants in general terms, which drives the more specific/direct types crazy. She may do very well in non-personal relationship environments, such as work, where she may perform very well because of the lack of deeper personal dynamics. But at home, her personal side is exposed and she runs from intimacy, including sex. She may have social avoidance tendencies or just the opposite with a twist. Some of these individuals may be very social, even though they may be very socially superficial.
Again, the basic assumptions of each are at odds and this couple goes round and round, until frustration emerges. Sooner or later, such a couple goes to neutral corners, or worse.
Here are some more.
3) Perfectionism vs. Lackadaisicalness. She is a perfectionist. There is a right way to do everything and everything has to be in its place. He might be a conflict avoider but he certainly is not “into” being obsessive or compulsive, especially about little things. He thinks about big ideas, overall systems, whether “things” work over time. She thinks about the order of things right in front of her, right down to the placement of the salt and peppershakers. She may have a point about doing things a certain way, but he probably will resent her insisting so. In his mind, there are lots of ways of doing things. If he did not do something “just right,” so what? There’s probably not much damage and things can be fixed. The last rationalization boils down to “its no big deal.” This, of course, drives her nuts because in her mind, if he had just done “it” correctly in the first place (according to her exacting standards), there would be no need for repairs, or even discussion. To her, little things “are” a big deal.
The transferences might go something like this: Excessively orderly people tend to be very anxious. Their anxiety usually is unconscious, stemming from conflict-based basic assumptions. They frequently have anxiety disorders in their histories, sometimes current panic attacks or phobias. The extreme version of this is OCD. These folks micro-manage bigger environments by over-controlling littler ones. They focus on the minutia, which provides the illusion of control. When a small thing is out of place, it creates bigger anxiety. In her mind, this represents not being able to manage the bigger picture. Life seems out of control if a small thing is amiss.
His orientation is not from the bottom up, but rather from the top down. He thinks big and lets the details take care of themselves. His is a management-thinking style, whereas hers, in this case, is that of a worker bee. He has a problem-solver orientation, while she has an avoid-creating-a-problem (don’t “make waves”) mindset. He may be impulsive and not want to slow down to look at details, which is just the opposite of her proclivity. His impulsivity may have characteristics of a personality disorder (grandiose thinking, paying too little attention to others, hedonism, etc.).
The point of this Negative Loop is the same as the above loops; namely, two people are together in a longer-term relationship and find themselves to be increasingly frustrated by the way the other behaves. This appears to be an incompatibility and the enmity that ensues is now palpable.
4) Anxiety Dampeners vs. Anxiety Enhancers. In this Negative Loop, she stirs up trouble and he quells it. She over-reacts, he under-reacts. She talks fast and loud. In response, he talks slower and more softly. She feels out of control and hysterical. She interrupts and talks in a high voice. He retreats, manages his “personal space” with quietness, speaks more slowly and with a lower volume.
The transference here might be that she is used to getting her way by making noise or overwhelming anyone who resists. It is also her way of expressing anxiety, with rapid speech and high volume. She probably does not deal well with conflict, so it is acted out in annoying language patterns rather than more directly addressed with to-the-point words. Likely, she does not deal well with anger.
He manages his world by doing the opposite. He slows down, resorts to “logic” and keeps his voice low. His word count slows down. His demeanor becomes more deliberate under stress. Thus, he avoids conflict by engaging in “the flight to the rational.” This annoys her even more.
These two patterns of interaction are incompatible and feed each other’s tendency to escalate. She will become frustrated and speak even faster with an even more whiny voice. He will sink into a pillow and become silent. Frequently these couples wander around their house avoiding contact.
5) Critical parent vs. Rebellious Child. In this pattern, he is critical of her, reminding her of her many failings. He may do this verbally or with just a look. He is judgmental; that is, he assigns right or wrong values to her behaviors rather than just evaluating whether or not what she is doing simply works, or not. She feels judged, certainly criticized and reacts in characteristic ways. She may stop doing things when he is around, or she may overtly revolt. She may do something wrong just because she knows it will tick him off.
The transference might go something like this. He is parental and condescending. She is childlike and rebellious. When he is stern, she is light, airy. When he is demanding, she is passive resistant, even aggressive. When he is an adult, she is a child. This pattern of interacting will escalate very soon and is one of the most volatile patterns. Rarely do couples make it through Stage 2 in relationships when this dynamic surfaces.
- Spenders vs. Conservers. This is mostly seen when couples are in Stage 3 and have overlapping finances (common bank accounts). She gets anxious, mad or rebellious and leaves the house with the credit card. She goes on a spending spree. This is commonly referred to as “retail therapy.” It is indirect but accomplishes the goal; namely, discharges tension or maybe just “gets even.” He works, makes more money and has to pay the bills, including the credit card bill. She thinks, “I’ll spend money and get him.” He gets mad because she spends too much money or spends money on things, “we don’t need.” She disagrees, but her real agenda is expressing the deep stuff. Rationalizing what the money was spent on is the cover story. He might be a spendthrift. She, in a moment of anger, would call him cheap. But he might also be very anxious about money. Hence, he might very well be cheap, but with a dynamic reason (transference). His parents might have been that way, or worse, he may have come from a poorer family. Conversely, he may have come from a family where conservative spending was rewarded, so her cavalier buying is “bad.”
The transference might be this. She might be more addiction-prone. Addiction is any compulsive behavior that (usually unconsciously) changes mood, but is unable to be stopped, even when it is confronted and still causes trouble. Spending qualifies as an addiction when it decreases anxiety, expresses anger (passively aggressively), causes marital conflict, yet, compulsively continues.
He is probably more controlling, like in the #1 Negative Loop above, but less direct in his expression. He may or may not have sufficient income to cover her costs. Income levels and spending are both relative, so a little of either can cause just as much marital disharmony as huge spending in an affluent household. He may be avoidant of conflict. He probably is not too assertive. Neither he nor she talks much about their real feelings but each expresses themselves maladaptively; she vents with the credit card, he disapproves and withdraws.
7) Aggression vs. Hysteria. He is physical and threatens violence. He gets mad, yells, becomes red-faced and physically acts out. He dominates. She whines, cries, squeals but in the end, submits. But, she is burning inside and turns around and does something that really gets him back. She may have an affair or “accidentally” ding his new car. It was not her fault, but he sure blows up, probably to her (unconscious) delight. Unfortunately, these couples often end up in the legal system, usually because of calls to the police for domestic violence. It does not take too much escalation for one of the partners to end up in jail for the night. Frequently, this is accompanied by and probably engendered by alcohol abuse.
He has learned to control others with aggression, even violence. He picks submissive partners who, on the surface, go along with the program. He is used to having things his way. Probably he is selfish, immature and needy. His self-esteem probably needs a big boost, but his choice of mechanisms to prop it up is destructive.
Most likely, she also suffers from low self-esteem. This is one of the big reasons women put up with men who abuse them. They feel powerless and tolerate the abuse because most of the rest of the time, they get enough other things to justify it. Nevertheless, she is not likely to be too assertive, or to have skills to venture out on her own. Dependent or “down and out” women are more likely to be found in this group.
This pattern is similar to Negative Loop #1, but much more severe and founded upon more problematic intrapersonal psychology, such as dependence and domestic violence issues.
8) Needy vs. Withdrawal. He is needy and calls her repeatedly throughout the day. He wants attention or at least re-assurance that he is OK or their relationships is OK or that everything (or anything) is OK. He is reducing his anxiety by seeking validation. He may be especially sensitive to her mood, thus trying to allay disagreement (avoid conflict). She is self-sufficient and deigns to talk with him maybe once or even twice in a day, but after that increasingly becomes annoyed. She has her own things to do (work, create, manage the house) and increasingly resents his intrusions. Finally, she tells him to stop calling, which drives his anxiety to the next level. He may call even more (because now he’s just uncomfortable), driving her into a higher level of rejection. Alternatively, he may stop calling, now feeling justified that she is an uncaring partner. Both withdraw.
The transference might go something like this. He is not very self-confident. In general, he might suffer from low self-esteem. He may value himself very little and imagine all kinds of inadequacies (intelligence, looks, height, income made, etc.). He needs support or at least too-frequent encouragement that he is “doing OK.” Making too many contacts during the day is just the cover story.
She is more self-sufficient and probably very practical. She has work to do and her partner is starting to bug her. She thinks talking to her partner once a day is plenty. Interrupting her work more than one time a day is counterproductive, even irritating. Paradoxically, she may not actually think that highly of herself (not attractive, overweight, poor speaker, etc.), so when he leaves her alone, she is relieved. This is not as clear in this form of Negative Loop.
This pattern escalates because increasingly he feels his needs are not met and that she does not love him. She increasingly turns him away, figuring “if he doesn’t know I love him by now…” They are more and more at odds, so the tensions rise. These couples frequently withdraw into icy silence.
Interestingly, this is one of the Negative Loops where one partner (he) has more of the deep stuff problem, hence engenders most of the transference, while the other partner (she) may not. However, as in other Negative Loops, the result is the same; namely, there is increased frustration. In this case, the resources of this couple might be better because one of them is potentially less negatively affected by history.
Discussion
Each Negative Loop gives form and expression to the deep stuff, which overall, manifests through transference. For the more psychological and technically minded, we can think of transference patterns as being one or more of several types or classes. There is the negative trait loop (controlling, avoiding). Then there is the negative response loop (expanders, constrictors, aggressive or passive aggressive). Then there is the negative personality type loop (narcissistic, impulsive, even antisocial). These are not mutually exclusive. There can be elements of any, or all at play. Sometimes Negative Loops are hard to see and require couples counseling. Sometimes people spontaneously “get it,” although not with the depth of understanding required to alter the patterns. Here are some statements exemplifying an awareness of these experiences, but not much more. “The guys I meet always leave me for other women.” “I always attract losers.” After reading the above, it should be clear that these are negative transferences just looking for outlets.
As an aside, usually there is a primary Negative Loop. This is what often drives couples into therapy. In addition, there is often a secondary loop that is less obvious that surfaces when the primary loop comes into focus. For example, in Number Two, (Assertiveness vs. Avoidant), a secondary loop might be I’m rich/I’m poor. In this sub-theme, the assertive person confronts from a position of power whereas the avoidant one avoids by spending to make up for feelings of “being deprived.”
Because everyone is an individual, several of these specific aspects can be mixed and matched. For example…in Number One, Controlling might be paired with Avoiding (vs. Passive Aggressive, as described). Or, in Number Seven, Aggression might be paired with Withdrawal (vs. Hysteria). Couples in trouble can have their own idiosyncratic version of one or more of the above Negative Loops. These are some of the general maladaptive behavior patterns that surface as couples traverse the stages of relationships, but by no means is this list exhaustive.