logo
2 Signs You're A Magnet For ‘Gaslighting' In Love, By A Psychologist

2 Signs You're A Magnet For ‘Gaslighting' In Love, By A Psychologist

Forbes07-05-2025

Are some of us more likely to be manipulated than others? New research shows that the desire to be ... More loved can make us tolerate even the worst kind of gaslighting. getty
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation where one person makes another doubt their own thoughts, feelings or reality. No one wants to go through it, and no one deserves it, yet many of us encounter it — multiple times at that. Gaslighting is always the fault of the perpetrator, but some on the receiving end might ask, 'why me?'
Given its devastating effects on one's relationships and mental health, it's worth asking, is there something that makes some people more susceptible to gaslighting than others?
In a new study published this April in Frontiers in Psychology , researchers asked the same question — 'Why are we willing to tolerate manipulation?' and found an answer — an addiction to love.
Love addiction is a compulsive need to be in love or in a relationship, often at the expense of one's well-being. People who struggle with love addiction may feel anxious, empty or even panicked at the thought of being alone, and they may cling to relationships because being without love feels unbearable.
We all want to love and be loved, but when things go wrong, some find it harder to walk away than the rest. For some, love is too precious to lose, regardless of how unhealthy it might be.
Researchers found that higher levels of love addiction are associated with greater tolerance of gaslighting and manipulative behavior in relationships. They suggest that such a dependence on relationships may stem from having an insecure attachment style, which is associated with fears of rejection and abandonment, and a need for constant reassurance and validation.
'Love addiction may also lead them to reinterpret manipulative and even abusive behaviors as 'stress' or 'displays of love,' thus turning a blind eye to the harmful effects of these behaviors. This makes it more difficult for them to recognize manipulation, increasing the likelihood that they will be affected by gaslighting,' the researchers explain.
Here are the two primary reasons why an addiction to love can make us a magnet for gaslighting, according to the study. 1. You Feel You've Given Too Much To Walk Away
When someone is addicted to love, they devote themselves entirely to their relationships. They invest time, emotional energy, effort, money and in some cases, their entire identity into their love lives, and when they've given that much, walking away feels like a loss of everything they've invested so far.
Such individuals experience 'loss aversion.' As humans, we're wired to avoid losses more strongly than we seek gains. So, for someone with a love addiction, the fear of ending a relationship isn't just about grieving love, but about trying not to feel like all that effort was for nothing . The deeper the emotional investment, the harder it becomes to leave, even when the relationship turns manipulative or harmful.
Researchers suggest that in the short-term, making sacrifices for the other person can improve relationships, and this improvement can encourage the giver to sacrifice even more. However, this dynamic soon takes a toll on the giver and makes them more susceptible to feelings of loss aversion, and in turn, more likely to tolerate mistreatment to avoid facing the emotional cost of leaving.
They may convince themselves that the relationship is still salvageable, that the manipulation isn't that bad or that things will get better if they just try harder. Over time, this becomes a mechanism of self-compromise, where the person's need to preserve the relationship outweighs their need to protect their own well-being.
As the researchers put it, 'Love addiction initiates a cascade of relational compromises, which culminate in tolerance for gaslighting.'
In these cases, gaslighting can be rationalized or reframed. The person being gaslit may downplay or reinterpret what's happening, not because they don't see it, but because acknowledging the truth would mean facing the possibility that everything they've built is crumbling.
However, continuing to invest in such a relationship only leads to losing more — of your time, mental peace and sense of self. While the past can't be changed, your future can still be protected. Remember, true love will never require you to lose yourself. 2. Your Partner Holds The Power In Your Relationship
When one person in a relationship is significantly more invested than the other, it creates a power imbalance. In fact, researchers found that higher levels of love addiction are associated with experiencing lower levels of power in one's relationship.
When you're addicted to love, the fear of losing it can be overwhelming. This emotional dependence profoundly affects your ability to influence the direction of the relationship. You may start compromising not just on the small things, but on core values, all in the hope of keeping the peace or avoiding abandonment. You may compromise your own boundaries, silence your needs and tolerate behavior you'd otherwise never accept.
When you feel powerless, it's also harder to call out manipulation or stand your ground. Instead, you might tell yourself it's not a big deal, or that you're being too sensitive. But over time, this power gap can make it easier for a controlling partner to twist reality and overpower your sense of self.
Researchers highlight how 'low-power' partners tend to avoid conflict out of fear it will lead to rejection, sacrifice personal needs to maintain harmony, accept unfair terms in the relationship and stay silent in the face of manipulation.
Over time, this weakens their sense of autonomy. The more you give up your power, the harder it becomes to speak up, set boundaries or leave — all of which makes gaslighting more likely to go unchecked.
Many people who are addicted to love also carry a deep fear that love is scarce or conditional. Especially when they've experienced inconsistent caregiving, abandonment or neglect, they may internalize the belief that love is fragile, fleeting or that they're somehow unworthy of it.
As a result, they may rush into relationships too quickly, or stay in ones that are clearly damaging — believing that if they let go, they may never find love again. This makes them more likely to stay in unstable, low-quality relationships, normalize mistreatment and downplay harm as something all relationships go through.
Additionally, when your actions (staying) and your values (wanting to be treated well) conflict, your mind works overtime to make the discomfort go away — often by rationalizing the psychological abuse rather than confronting it. You stay, invest more and hope harder, all while losing more of yourself in the process.
However, awareness and external support can help break this cycle. Research shows that people with access to emotional and social support are more likely to recognize when something is wrong and take steps to protect themselves. That's why reaching out — to friends, a therapist or a support group — can be so powerful. The more you feel supported, the easier it becomes to reclaim your sense of power and begin making choices that protect your well-being.
It's also essential to challenge any unhealthy beliefs about love. Love doesn't have to hurt to be real and your suffering doesn't prove your devotion. You deserve to express your needs without guilt and you are not more lovable because of how much you give or how much you tolerate.
Does a fear of losing out on love keep you in unhealthy relationships? Take this science-backed test to learn more: Fear Of Being Single Scale

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Denver Health partners with Flight for Life to provide critical care transport
Denver Health partners with Flight for Life to provide critical care transport

CBS News

time35 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Denver Health partners with Flight for Life to provide critical care transport

Denver Health is launching a new partnership that they said will save lives. A bright orange helicopter will now be stationed at Denver Health on the first Thursday of each month. It's one of the aircraft that belongs to Flight for Life, a critical care transport company the hospital said is known for its state-of-the-art fleet and experienced medical teams. CBS Dr. Gene Moore, a surgeon at Denver Health, said traffic can often keep regular ambulances from reaching patients in a timely manner. "Furthermore, I think we have learned more and more, particularly with our war experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, that survival is based on care to the patient as soon as possible," said Moore. Flight for Life is one of several air ambulance services that work with Denver Health.

Genetics testing startup Nucleus Genomics criticized for its embryo product: ‘Makes me so nauseous'
Genetics testing startup Nucleus Genomics criticized for its embryo product: ‘Makes me so nauseous'

TechCrunch

time36 minutes ago

  • TechCrunch

Genetics testing startup Nucleus Genomics criticized for its embryo product: ‘Makes me so nauseous'

Nucleus Genomics, a genetic testing startup founded by 25-year-old Kian Sadeghi, initially launched in 2021 with the goal of calculating a patient's risk for specific diseases. But it's been courting controversy for years with products that claim to tell people how their genetics correlate to a host of complex issues, including their IQ. On Wednesday, it ratcheted up the controversy to an ear-splitting level when it announced a new product called Nucleus Embryo with a tweet that said: 'Every parent wants to give their children more than they had. For the first time in human history, Nucleus adds a new tool to that commitment.' Every parent wants to give their children more than they had. For the first time in human history, Nucleus adds a new tool to that commitment. Welcome to Nucleus — Nucleus Genomics (@nucleusgenomics) June 4, 2025 Nucleus says it can test IVF embryos not just for well-known specific genes that have a high chance of illnesses like breast cancer, but also for appearance — sex, height, hair color, eye color — as well as IQ and complex health attributes like anxiety and ADHD. The launch video includes a screen shot of a comparison menu. The idea is to help parents choose which embryos to pick and which ones to, perhaps, discard. Nucleus Genomics embryos features screen Image Credits:Nucleus Genomics (opens in a new window) Genetic testing of embryos isn't unheard of. IVF physicians can test for genes that can cause conditions like Down syndrome, or when parents know they are of high risk for a particular genetic disorder, like cystic fibrosis. Techcrunch event Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW But that's not exactly what Nucleus is doing. It is using controversial 'polygenic scores' to determine 'complex genetic outcomes, like intelligence and anxiety,' a spokesperson says. According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, polygenic scores only calculate the probabilities of a certain complex illness occurring, mainly within populations. 'A polygenic risk score can only explain the relative risk for a disease,' the NHGR says. This is not the same as discovering a specific gene, such as for example the BRCA1 gene mutation, which gives a person a 60-80% 'absolute risk of breast cancer,' the NHGR says. There's a reason doctors don't typically use such tests for individuals. 'Polygenic risk scores are not yet routinely used by health professionals because there are no guidelines for practice and researchers are still improving how these scores are generated,' according to the NHGR. Nucleus defends that its method can be used to determine an individual's risk. The spokesperson pointed us to a 2018 paper where the authors said they had developed validated methods for five common diseases: coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, type 2 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, and breast cancer. That paper was advocating screenings to help individuals make lifestyle or therapeutic decisions, similar to Nucleus's initial concept. Wednesday's tweet was promising parents that Nucleus can help them create designer babies. It has now been viewed more than 4 million times and has hundreds of comments, many of them either expressing disbelief that this works as promised, or horror at the idea. One VC chimed into the discussion saying, 'I was going to type something like Noah get the boat but honestly the reality of this just makes me so nauseous.' I was going to type something like Noah get the boat but honestly the reality of this just makes me so nauseous — Max Niederhofer ❤️‍🔥 (@maxniederhofer) June 5, 2025 Nucleus has experienced this kind of controversy before, as TechCrunch previously reported, when it its $14 million series A earlier this year. The startup is backed by Founders Fund, Alexis Ohanian's 776, and angels including Adrian Aoun (CEO at Forward Health), Brent Saunders (former CEO at Allergan), and Matteo Franceschetti (CEO at Eight Sleep). Last year, Sadeghi launched Nucleus IQ, which is supposed to tell users how much their genetics influence intelligence. The product was blasted as 'bad science and big business' by some critics. Sadeghi published a lengthy defense of his company's methodology. Even so, telling adults that they are genetically smart is one thing. Telling IVF parents that they can choose the appearance and other complex attributes for their children is, many would argue, something else. Nucleus is not currently conducting such tests via IVF lab partners itself, The Wall Street Journal reports. It's partnering with Genomic Prediction, which works with IVF clinics. A Genomic executive told the WSJ that many parents request intelligence tests, and it doesn't provide that. Parents can voluntarily upload genetic data information to Nucleas if they want to pursue it. Or, as Sadeghi said in the launch video aimed at would-be parents: 'Not that long ago IVF-1 sparked fear and the stigma of test tube babies,' he said. 'What was once controversial is now an everyday practice. The same is true with genetic optimization. The technology is now here and it's here to stay.'

Restricting Kids' Cell Phone Use at School: Ethicist
Restricting Kids' Cell Phone Use at School: Ethicist

Medscape

time36 minutes ago

  • Medscape

Restricting Kids' Cell Phone Use at School: Ethicist

This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hi. I'm Art Caplan. I'm at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, where I'm the head of the Division of Medical Ethics. The state that I live in, Connecticut, has seen some very interesting legislative proposals recently around cell phone use. Many other states — New York, New Jersey, and many others — are having similar Connecticut one, I think, is the furthest along of them all. It becomes important because I think parents ask questions about cell phone use for their kids. What should I be thinking? Should I restrict it? Is it dangerous? What should I do? The state of Connecticut wants to help. First, they've proposed legislation to pull cell phones out of schools — at least kindergarten up through high school — to get the cell phones taken away from the kids so that they're not distracted and that they're paying attention to the teacher and also engaged in social interaction. Even more radically, there's a proposal in Connecticut, a bill that would ban in young children from being able to access social media platforms, iPads, cell phones, or whatever between midnight and 6:00 AM. Is this a good idea? A colleague of mine at NYU, Jonathan Haidt, wrote a book called The Anxious Generation . He believes that the rates we see of teenagers who are now experiencing anxiety, which has increased from 2010 to today from 1 in 10 to 1 in 4; the number of teenagers experiencing depression, which has gone up from 1 in 10 to 1 in 5; and even death by suicide, one of the leading causes of deathfor kids aged 15-24, have to do with social media. Harassment, peer pressure, and getting stalked and bombarded with messages that attack self-esteem, target young people, and make them feel bad about their bodies can absolutely create mental health disorders. Is there sufficient evidence in his book?Do we have sufficient evidence from other studies to say for sure it's the cell phone or the iPad that somebody's looking at late at night? I'm going to concede that we don't. There's suggestive evidence, but not really many gold-standard studies that say, yes, it's the cell phone, iPad, or computerand where they are on social media. On the other hand, I support these legislative efforts, like Connecticut's, to get the cell phones out of school, to get kids talking to one another, to get them paying attention more, and to do what we can to get them off [of their devices] in the middle of the night. I would look at it this way.[Cell phones] may be causing problems by giving access to disturbing social media outlets. Let's face it, social media is a cesspool at this point, a sewer all over the place, and the companies that run it are doing nothing to self-regulate it. If we're wrong, the worst that happened is [kids] are not online for certain parts of the day. I know parents sometimes say, well, what about if there's a shooting or an emergency at school? I think we can manage that. You can absolutely have teachers with cell phones. The staff can have cell phones. It's not that there wouldn't be any ability to alert the police or to allow some communication as necessary with the kids.I don't think the rarity of a school shooting, as much as we worry about it, is enough to say, yes, let's let the kids just get lost all day long at school in their cell phones. I also understand why people are asking how this is going to really be enforced. Maybe it will be possible at school when you ask the kids to turn the cell phones in and lock them up or put them in a pouch where the teacher has the code or is that enforceable at home at night? One of the things missing, I think, from these efforts in Connecticut and elsewhere to decrease access by young kids to social media is the use of parental controls. I think some social platforms do a pretty good job saying before you give that cell phone to your kid or let them have their own computer, you're going to be able to program it with social parental discretion controls. Other platforms don't seem to care. Let's set some standards and expectations about what parents could do and would be able to do to restrict access at different times. It's going to take an across-the-board effort from parents, government requirements, and a willingness of people who control social mediato try to make sure that kids aren't getting in trouble, but we have to really start to take steps. We've got a problem in just saying there's nothing we could do about it, like the horse is out of the barn. That's not a response. I support the Connecticut effort. We'll see. I don't think federal government's going to be moving in this area anytime seem oriented toward deregulation. I think many states may, and I think that's something that, as physicians, we should try to support. Less access to social media at certain times of the day and night is not a bad thing for kids. I'm Art Caplan. I'm at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of for watching.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store