Have you ever reached the end of a relationship and found yourself wondering, “How did I end up here again?” Perhaps the person was different, the circumstances were different and the relationship appeared to begin differently, yet somewhere along the way you found yourself experiencing something strangely familiar. You might once again be pursuing someone who struggles with emotional closeness, doing most of the emotional work within the relationship, overlooking your own needs, or waiting for reassurance that never quite seems to be enough.
When similar experiences occur across different relationships, it can be tempting to conclude that we simply have a “type”, or that we somehow keep choosing the wrong people. However, the reality is usually more complex. We do not enter relationships as blank slates. We bring with us previous experiences of closeness, affection, rejection, conflict, safety and loss. These experiences can gradually contribute towards our expectations of relationships, including what we have come to expect from other people and importantly, what we believe we can expect for ourselves.
Understanding these patterns is not about blaming ourselves for relationships that have been painful or unsuccessful. Rather, it involves becoming curious about the experiences and expectations that we carry with us, and considering how these may influence the way we relate to others.
Attraction is often spoken about as something spontaneous. We meet someone, there is a “spark”, and we either feel drawn towards them or we do not. While there are undoubtedly aspects of attraction that cannot be explained through psychological theory, our previous relational experiences can also influence what feels familiar to us. Attachment theory provides one useful framework through which this can be understood. Originally developed by John Bowlby in relation to the bonds between children and their caregivers, attachment theory was later extended to the study of adult romantic relationships. In their influential research, Hazan and Shaver (1987) proposed that romantic love can be understood, at least partly, as an attachment process. Bowlby also described the development of internal working models: expectations about ourselves, other people and relationships which develop through our experiences with significant others. Such expectations may relate to whether we believe others will be available when we need them, whether expressing our needs feels safe, whether we expect people to remain close to us, and even whether we believe ourselves to be worthy of receiving care. For somebody whose experiences of closeness have generally been consistent and responsive, depending on another person may feel relatively safe. For somebody whose experiences have been more unpredictable, closeness may also bring considerable uncertainty. Another person may have learned that creating emotional distance feels safer than becoming vulnerable.
It is important, however, not to understand attachment as a rigid label or as something determined entirely during childhood. Contemporary attachment research recognises both continuity and change across adulthood (Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Fraley, 2019). Later relationships and life experiences can influence how we relate to others, meaning that attachment patterns should not be viewed as an inevitable blueprint for our romantic lives.
What may repeat across relationships is not necessarily the type of person we choose, but the relational position in which we repeatedly find ourselves. Two partners might appear completely different in terms of personality, interests or background, while the emotional experience of being with them becomes remarkably similar. A person may repeatedly find themselves becoming the caretaker within relationships, putting considerable energy into understanding and accommodating their partner while gradually overlooking their own needs. Another may repeatedly become preoccupied with obtaining reassurance from partners who struggle to provide consistency. Others might notice themselves withdrawing when relationships become more emotionally intimate.
Research provides some support for considering these patterns through an attachment lens. Li and Chan’s (2012) meta-analytic review found that attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance were both associated with poorer romantic relationship quality, although the mechanisms through which they affected relationships differed. Such findings do not mean that attachment can predict the success or failure of an individual relationship. They do, however, suggest that the expectations and ways of relating that we bring into intimate relationships can influence how those relationships are experienced.
Attachment is only one way of making sense of recurring relational patterns. Schema Therapy, developed by Jeffrey Young and colleagues, offers another useful perspective. Within this approach, early maladaptive schemas refer to enduring patterns involving memories, emotions, beliefs and bodily sensations which may develop when important emotional needs are repeatedly unmet (Young, Klosko, & Weishaar, 2003). These may involve themes such as abandonment, emotional deprivation, mistrust, defectiveness, self-sacrifice and approval-seeking.
Such schemas can influence how we interpret what happens within a relationship. For example, somebody who carries a strong expectation of abandonment may experience a partner taking longer than usual to reply to a message as considerably more threatening than somebody without that expectation. The situation itself may be relatively ordinary, yet the emotional meaning attached to it can be much greater.
Similarly, a person who has learned that maintaining relationships requires placing the needs of others before their own may repeatedly accommodate, give and compromise until they eventually become exhausted or resentful.
Research examining early maladaptive schemas within romantic relationships has identified associations between particular schemas and lower relationship satisfaction, including schemas relating to emotional deprivation and abandonment (Kover et al., 2024). Again, this does not mean that schemas alone cause relationship difficulties. Relationships are influenced by the histories, personalities and behaviours of both partners, as well as by the circumstances surrounding them. Nevertheless, these findings highlight the importance of considering what each person brings psychologically into a relationship, alongside what is occurring between the couple in the present.
Our sense of self-worth may also become intertwined with romantic relationships. Knee et al. (2008) described the concept of relationship-contingent self-esteem, whereby a person’s feelings of self-worth become particularly dependent upon events occurring within their romantic relationship. In these circumstances, affection or reassurance from a partner may temporarily strengthen one’s sense of worth, while conflict, distance or perceived rejection can have the opposite effect.
When this occurs, maintaining the relationship may gradually become connected not only to loving the other person, but also to what being wanted by that person represents. It may become increasingly difficult to consider whether the relationship is actually meeting one’s emotional needs when the possibility of losing it also feels like a statement about one’s own worth.
One of the difficulties in recognising relational patterns is that familiarity does not necessarily feel problematic. At times, it may simply feel normal. A person who has become accustomed to unpredictability within close relationships, for example, may become particularly attentive to changes in another person’s mood, communication or availability. Waiting, wondering and seeking reassurance may therefore become familiar ways of navigating intimacy. This does not mean, as is sometimes suggested in popular psychology, that a healthy relationship will necessarily feel “boring”, nor does it mean that strong chemistry or butterflies should automatically be regarded as warning signs. Attraction and excitement are normal parts of romantic relationships and should not automatically be pathologised. It may be more helpful to recognise that chemistry and compatibility are not the same thing. Feeling strongly attracted to somebody tells us relatively little about their ability to communicate, respect boundaries, respond to our emotional needs, manage disagreement or participate in a reciprocal relationship. This distinction can be particularly difficult to maintain during the early stages of a relationship, when attraction, hope and uncertainty often exist alongside one another. We may also become attached not only to the relationship as it currently exists, but to what we believe it could eventually become. In these situations, it can become easier to focus on another person’s potential rather than consistently attending to their behaviour in the present.
Looking back at such experiences can sometimes result in considerable self-criticism. People may ask themselves why they tolerated particular behaviours, why they remained for as long as they did, or why they did not recognise certain difficulties earlier. Yet hindsight provides information and distance that were not necessarily available while emotionally involved in the relationship. People also remain in difficult relationships for many reasons, including love, attachment, hope, emotional investment, practical circumstances, fear of loss and the belief that things may improve.
It is also important to distinguish recurring relational patterns from responsibility for another person’s harmful behaviour. This becomes particularly significant when considering relationships involving abuse, coercion or control. Exploring why somebody remained within, returned to, or struggled to leave such a relationship should never become an exercise in assigning responsibility to the person who experienced the harm. Understanding our own relational patterns is intended to increase awareness and agency, rather than create another reason to blame ourselves.
Therapy can provide an opportunity to examine these patterns within a space that allows for curiosity rather than judgement. This does not necessarily involve analysing every previous partner or attempting to identify one particular childhood experience that explains all subsequent relationships. Instead, therapeutic work may involve looking across different relationships and noticing whether certain themes, emotional responses or roles appear repeatedly.
A person might begin by exploring what tends to attract them towards somebody at the beginning of a relationship and what changes once emotional attachment develops. They may notice what happens internally when another person becomes distant, when conflict arises or when their needs differ from those of their partner. Therapy may also provide space to explore whether there is a tendency to pursue reassurance, withdraw, accommodate excessively, take responsibility for another person’s emotions, or avoid communicating needs because doing so feels risky.
The beliefs underlying these responses can also be explored. For example, what does it mean to somebody when a partner becomes distant? What do they imagine might happen if they communicate dissatisfaction or set a boundary? Do they believe that maintaining a relationship requires them to tolerate particular behaviours? Does rejection feel painful because of the loss itself, or does it also activate a deeper belief about being inadequate or unworthy?
Depending on the therapeutic approach and the needs of the individual, therapy may involve exploring attachment experiences, schemas, boundaries, emotional regulation, self-esteem and communication. It can also involve learning to pay greater attention to what is occurring in the present rather than remaining focused primarily on what another person might eventually become. Over time, this may support an individual in identifying their emotional needs more clearly, communicating them more openly and noticing earlier when a relationship repeatedly requires them to abandon those needs in order to maintainconnection.
The therapeutic relationship itself may also become relevant to this process. Therapy involves forming a relationship in which trust, vulnerability, boundaries and misunderstandings can emerge and be explored within a professional setting. How a person experiences asking for something, disagreeing, feeling misunderstood or allowing themselves to be emotionally seen within therapy may sometimes provide valuable information about how they experience relationships elsewhere.
Becoming aware of a relational pattern does not necessarily mean that we will immediately stop experiencing familiar attractions or that every future relationship will be different. Insight is rarely that straightforward. What awareness may provide, however, is greater opportunity to notice what is happening before automatically responding in the ways we have done previously. We might begin noticing when we are overlooking our own needs to maintain another person’s interest,when we are repeatedly seeking reassurance that never provides lasting security, or when we are investing heavily in the possibility of what a relationship could become despite what we are presently experiencing.
We may become more able to consider whether another person’s actions are consistent with their words, whether care and effort are reciprocal, and whether we are able to communicate our needs withoutc continually fearing that doing so will jeopardise the relationship.
Perhaps, then, breaking a relationship pattern is not simply about learning to choose a completely different “type” of person. It may also involve developing a different relationship with ourselves and becoming more aware of the choices we make once attachment, vulnerability and fear of loss enter the picture. Rather than focusing solely on whether another person chooses us, we can gradually become more able to consider whether the relationship we are participating in is also one that we would consciously choose for ourselves.
Written by Ms. Abigail Mifsud, Warranted Counsellor
Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your doctor or another qualified healthcare professional with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition.