Traces of the Past in Choosing a Partner
Traces of the Past in Choosing a Partner
Love, passion, affection, care, dependence, obligation, habit, arguing, making up, being abandoned, being cheated on, the self-sacrificing spouse, the indifferent spouse, regret, feeling worthless, happiness, excitement, heartbreak and more… What do all these words bring to mind?
In this post, we'll once again look at partner choice in romantic relationships. We previously talked about the why and how of choosing a partner in romantic relationships, drawing especially on scientific findings from social psychology (you can read that post by clicking here). Today, we can't yet say that the choices people make when choosing a partner have been explained scientifically to a satisfying degree. We know that factors such as familiarity, proximity, attractiveness, personality and character, and similarity play a role in partner choice. But we haven't yet worked out how all these different qualities interact with one another and, ultimately, what role they play in choosing a partner. However, various theories have been developed to shed light on the question of partner choice that science can't yet fully explain. In this post, I'll look at some interesting, and somewhat problematic, aspects of partner choice through the schemas (strong beliefs integrated into our character) defined by the well-known psychologist Jeffrey Young. Although the theoretical framework I'll discuss is hard to study scientifically, it offers a logical approach that fits human nature, developed from observations gathered over thousands of therapy sessions. By the end of this post, within the limits of this theory, you'll have seen how some people knowingly choose partners who will make them unhappy, how they enter unsuitable relationships to keep their negative self-perceptions alive forever, and what to pay attention to in order to choose the right partner.
“Girls fall in love with men who resemble their fathers!”
“Men are attracted to women who resemble their mothers!”
These sentences actually reflect ideas that are widely accepted among the public. Some studies also show that there is a degree of truth to this. Some evolutionists say that the first person we encounter when we come into the world also offers a model for adult life, and that choosing a partner with traits similar to a parent is understandable. On the other hand, according to psychoanalytic theory, what is known as the Oedipus and Electra complex, a child feeling close to the opposite-sex parent, which in later years results in forming a relationship with a partner who resembles their mother or father, is another explanation for this. The Schema Therapy Model, however, says something different: as adults, people tend to form relationships in which they can experience situations similar to those of their childhood, in order to maintain the schemas they carry from childhood (their deep beliefs about themselves and the outside world) and to protect the familiar perceptions of self and the world they are used to, good or bad. The fact that the period when our beliefs take shape and our self-perception forms coincides with the time we spend with our mother and father helps explain a little more why some people may choose partners who resemble their mother or father.
What is a schema?
Schemas are belief patterns that take shape in childhood and follow us throughout life, formed through interactions within the family or with peers. When we are exposed to harmful childhood experiences such as being abandoned, criticized, overprotected, abused, ignored or deprived, unwanted, negative schemas can emerge. These negative schemas become part of the person for the rest of their life, and as adults they make an unconscious effort to recreate the unpleasant experiences of their childhood. One way or another, they create the right conditions to experience in adulthood what they experienced as a child. For example, a person who was overly controlled by their parents as a child will likely become someone who is heavily controlled in adult life too, and to make this happen, they will form relationships with people who have personalities that want to control them. A child who was abused (sexually, physically or emotionally) may likewise want to enter relationships in which they can be abused again, unconsciously trying to protect the identity they acquired in childhood. In other words, curiously, whatever hurts us and breaks us in life, we want to keep it going. Instead of trying to change it, we make an effort to reinforce it and strengthen its place in our lives. But why?
Working from the schema model, we can say this: schemas sit at the center of our sense of self. Giving up our belief in a schema, seeing that it might not be true, also means giving up the security of knowing who we are and what kind of place the world is. That's why, however much it hurts, we want to keep alive the schemas we've carried from childhood into adulthood. This offers us a more comfortable, safer world, even if, without realizing it, we are keeping alive the source of our greatest pain…
According to Young, the founder of the Schema Therapy Model, the most common schemas are:
Abandonment Schema: Involves the belief that the people you love will always leave you.
Mistrust and Abuse Schema: Leads you to expect that people will hurt you or harm you.
Vulnerability: Gives rise to the belief that the world is a very dangerous place and, indirectly, makes the person feel unsafe.
Dependence: Leads you to believe that you can't manage your life without other people's help.
Emotional Deprivation: The belief that your need to be loved can't be met by others.
Social Isolation: This schema lies at the root of feeling different from everyone else.
Defectiveness: This schema lies beneath seeing yourself as unlovable and worthless.
Failure: Holds the belief of being inadequate.
Subjugation: People with this schema ignore their own needs and strive to please others. They let others control them.
Unrelenting Standards: People with this schema set excessively high standards for themselves and can wear themselves out trying to meet them.
Entitlement: A schema that feeds the belief that one is always right. People with this schema feel privileged and struggle to understand other people's needs.
Each of these schemas emerges from a different story. A child abandoned by their family may develop an abandonment schema; a child who was overprotected and taught that the world is very unsafe, a vulnerability schema; a child excluded by peers, a social isolation schema; children used by family members for their own selfish needs, a subjugation schema; and overindulged children who get away with everything, an entitlement schema.
How do all these schemas affect the relationships we form?
One of the most important things that draws a person into a romantic connection is the “chemistry” between two people. Chemistry refers more to the passion component of love than to its friendship component. When chemistry is felt intensely, partners idealize each other and tend to think they were made for each other. When chemistry is intense, separation or a partner being far away only serves to strengthen the feelings. On the other hand, emotional and physical closeness drives sexual arousal. Although chemistry, up to a point, is seen as useful for maintaining a healthy relationship, it can also create serious problems in relationships, because it usually stems from the triggering of at least one partner's core schemas. People often tend to enter intense, deep relationships through chemistry triggered by their schemas. If these schemas are the kind that perpetuate harmful patterns for the person, the results will be unhealthy for both the person and the relationship.
Although there's no clear knowledge of what creates chemistry, psychologists have developed ideas about what people find attractive, based on clinical experience. According to these, more chemistry is usually felt in relationships that bring back a person's past feelings and experiences that feel familiar. Accordingly, we can say that many people choose relationships that reinforce the sense of self and view of the world they are used to and familiar with. For example, if you have a people-pleasing character (subjugation schema), you're more likely to choose a partner who will suppress you and take advantage of you by putting their own needs first. People with this schema are also very likely to end up with a spouse, friend or parent who is never satisfied, even as they keep trying to please. As this pattern continues, they feel worthless and like a failure, and their belief that people are never, and will never be, appreciative is reinforced. In the end, the world is once again the painful, cruel place they know, but this is within those people's comfort zone, and this way they feel safer. That's why taking a step toward change is never easy.
In relationships, partners' behaviour can trigger each other's schemas. In the example I gave above, a person with a subjugation schema might choose a partner with an entitlement schema or a defectiveness schema. The chosen partner might unhealthily mask their underlying defectiveness schema by acting aggressive, demanding and grandiose and always getting what they want from the people-pleasing partner (though this doesn't actually heal the sense of defectiveness). In another case, if the partner has an entitlement schema, they might reinforce their own unhealthy schema by always taking the superior, “right” position over the people-pleasing partner.
It is thought that all these complex components, combining in different ways, play a significant role in choosing a partner. If both people in a relationship are happy and satisfied, problematic aspects of the relationship may go unnoticed or may not need to be addressed. However, in some troubled relationships, we can observe that people with unhealthy perceptions of themselves and the world put each other through great hardship, that both continue the relationship while unhappy, and yet neither makes any effort to change.
Let me give a few examples of troubled couple combinations:
- A woman who was exposed to violence in childhood, and a man who was exposed to violence as a child. Both developed a mistrust and abuse schema, but they cope with it differently: the woman surrenders, while the man overcompensates. The result is a relationship in which the man regularly uses violence against the woman. But because each of them has an arrangement that feeds their schema, neither makes an effort to change the situation.
- The man was always criticized as a child. He never saw love from his family clearly and openly. His strengths weren't appreciated; the focus was on his shortcomings. While his siblings were praised, they were held up to him as examples. As a result, he developed a defectiveness schema and began to see himself as flawed and worthless. Because of this, and influenced by his temperament, he has a few options: either he'll give in to his schema and be with a dominant woman who makes him feel defective, or with a woman who submits to him, allowing him to cover up his sense of defectiveness.
These examples may seem extreme. But we can say that many relationships develop through similar schema interactions at a lower intensity. If both partners have plenty of healthy qualities, the conflicts that arise in the relationship can also be resolved in a healthy way.
What should we pay attention to when choosing a partner?
The schema therapy model can offer suggestions on this up to a point. Jeffrey Young and other schema therapists recommend finding a partner who doesn't trigger our schemas, who complements what we lack, and who can make up for the parental model we didn't have in childhood. Examples like these can help us see how to enter relationships while taking our schemas into account: someone who was abused as a child finding a partner who will protect them and show them compassion; someone who was always criticized and feels inadequate being with a partner who values them and can see their strengths; a people-pleasing person with a subjugation schema finding a fair, understanding partner who treats them as an equal and considers both people's needs.
It may sound very easy and logical as you read it, but it is quite hard to achieve. A submissive person may turn down a date with a potential partner who would value them and be compassionate and egalitarian. A person with an abandonment schema may try to stay away from someone who wants to make them happy and would build a serious, good relationship with them. The reason is that the “chemistry” I mentioned earlier doesn't appear at first in these relationship models. We can say the reason the answer to the question “Bad Boy or Gentleman?” is “bad boy” in practice is that people develop chemistry with “bad boy” types through their active unhealthy schemas.
Some people reading this may say, “I'm already in a relationship” or “I'm already married.” Of course, I'm not telling them to get divorced and find a new partner. Every relationship has its problems. While trying to solve those problems, you can draw on what this model suggests. You can start recognizing your schemas and working to overcome them. This can help both you and your relationship grow. Changes within a family can be painful and contentious. But if the process is carried out constructively, it is very common and to be expected that you end up with family patterns in which both sides are satisfied and happier. The sources I've listed below will help you get more detailed information and increase your self-awareness.
Thank you for reading, and I wish you happy days.
Malik Kubilay Çadırcıoğlu, Psychotherapist
References:
Rafaeli, E., Bernstein, D. P., & Young, J. E. (2012). Şema Terapi ayırıcı özellikler. M. Şaşıoğlu, Çev.). İstanbul: Psikonet Yayınları. For mental health professionals.
Young, J. E., & Klosko, J. S. (2013). Hayati yeniden kesfedin. Bilissel ve Davranisçi Terapiler Serisi-5 [Rediscovering life: Cognitive and behavioral therapies series-5](3rd ed.). Istanbul, Turkey: Psikonet Yayinlari. A self-help book.
