Latest news with #PersonalRelationships
Forbes
24-05-2025
- General
- Forbes
3 Signs You're Mistaking Intensity For Love, By A Psychologist
'I was broken. I felt like a shell of a woman. Lonely and desperate.' These words come from a participant of a 2023 study published in Personal Relationships, which conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 65 individuals who had survived emotionally manipulative romantic relationships marked by gaslighting. The study found that what often begins as intense emotional intimacy, through early love bombing, excessive validation and shared vulnerability, can gradually distort a person's sense of self. The most common consequence wasn't heartbreak. It was psychological disorientation, identity erosion and what researchers called a 'diminished sense of self.' 'I barely felt like a person anymore,' one participant explained. Intensity in relationships involves seeking out acute, high-stimulation feelings that often stem from fear, anxiety or a desire to escape emotional numbness, not from genuine connection. Here are three signs you are mistaking emotional intensity for passion and how to escape this damaging relationship pattern: Individuals in high-intensity relationships often report a persistent sense of emotional urgency, marked by constant preoccupation with their partner's moods, reactions or availability. This can include heightened anxiety during periods of distance, disproportionate relief during reunions and chronic self-monitoring during conversations. While these patterns are frequently misinterpreted as deep romantic investment, they may more accurately reflect emotional dependency. Survivors of emotional manipulation commonly describe becoming 'hooked' on their partner's approval, to the point where their sense of self becomes conditional on that validation. 'The start of the relationship was intense in terms of emotional intimacy. We shared many details of our emotions and traumas very early, some even on the first date,' shared one participant from the 2023 study. Another noted, 'At the beginning of the relationship, both parties were 'bending-over-backward' for each other.' Despite this emotional fixation, individuals in such dynamics often report not feeling emotionally understood. They may spend considerable time overanalyzing conversations, anticipating needs and trying to avoid missteps — yet still feel unseen or mischaracterized. The disconnect between their emotional effort and their partner's responsiveness frequently leads to confusion, self-blame and an intensified drive to repair or prove their worth. This cycle can reinforce dependency rather than connection. When emotional safety is inconsistent, we may learn to equate tension with passion. However, true intimacy cannot exist without consistency, safety and mutual vulnerability. In emotionally intense relationships, connection often seems strongest immediately after conflict. The dynamic may be marked by frequent ruptures, including arguments, silent treatment or emotional withdrawal, followed by sudden closeness, reconciliation or affection. The 'best' moments are often right after the worst ones, when the pain lifts and relief sets in. As one participant of the 2023 study explained, 'Arguments started for no reason, switching rapidly to being extremely affectionate and sexual.' In such dynamics, peace and stability may feel boring, wrong even. Over time, this cycle can create the illusion that conflict is the gateway to intimacy. Couples may mistakenly believe, 'This must be real, because it hurts this much.' Recent research supports this pattern. A 2025 study published in Frontiers in Psychology found that individuals with high levels of love addiction, defined as compulsive emotional dependence on a partner, showed a significantly higher tolerance for gaslighting, particularly when two mediating factors were present: a strong sense of giving and diminished relationship power. Participants often rationalized emotional volatility as devotion and, over time, came to equate sacrifice with love. As their sense of agency declined, their acceptance of manipulation increased. In these relationships, emotional rupture becomes not just a byproduct of conflict, but the mechanism by which closeness is repeatedly reestablished. As a result, relational calm may trigger anxiety, and intensity may become the only recognizable marker of love. In emotionally intense relationships, demeaning behavior is often reframed as emotional honesty. Criticism is interpreted as truth-telling. Withdrawal is seen as a response to being 'hurt too deeply.' Over time, these patterns can create the illusion that volatility reflects depth — that if someone reacts strongly, they must care deeply. This confusion is common in emotionally abusive dynamics. A 2013 study published in Violence and Victims found that degradation — including humiliation, belittlement and personal attacks — was the most commonly reported form of severe emotional abuse. Researchers identified patterns of ridicule, emotional withdrawal and isolation, often co-occurring and reinforcing each other. These behaviors can be misread by victims as intensity or emotional complexity rather than as abuse. When relational safety is inconsistent, individuals may begin to mold themselves to avoid conflict, earn back affection or prevent further rupture. Over time, cruelty is no longer seen as harmful but as a signal that the relationship matters — that there is something meaningful worth chasing, especially when the relationship has been positioned as unique or transcendent by the other person. But relational depth is not defined by how deeply someone can wound you. It's defined by how they respond to your vulnerability, and whether they protect it or exploit it. Genuine emotional depth requires safety, mutuality and accountability. Cruelty masked as insight or framed as undeniable truth—is not a marker of connection. It is a distortion of it. If intensity is your default, it may be a trauma response — especially if you grew up associating pain, unpredictability or adrenaline with closeness. Intensity is not proof of real love; it's a cue to pause and examine our relational patterns. Breaking these patterns requires redefining what love actually feels like. Here are a few questions worth reflecting on: If you're already losing parts of yourself early in a relationship, it may be time to pause. Intensity is not passion when it's rooted in fear. Love, care, trust and respect don't require suffering to feel real. When self-trust is shaky, emotional extremes can become the only signals we know how to follow. Rebuilding that trust helps you stop chasing love that feels unstable, and start recognizing love that feels safe. Have you found yourself holding on to love, even when the cost is too high? Take this science-backed test to learn more about your relationship patterns: Love Addiction Inventory
Forbes
19-05-2025
- General
- Forbes
The 4 Stages Of ‘Modern Dating' — According To New Research
Recent research reveals that, contrary to popular belief, dating in 2025 isn't all that different to ... More how it was 'back in the day.' Life today looks nothing like it did five, ten or twenty years ago. The world has changed in ways we couldn't have imagined back then. Naturally, our love lives haven't been immune to these changes either. Yet, despite these sweeping societal shifts, has dating itself evolved all that much? This is the question researcher Brian Ogolsky and his team set out to explore in a January 2025 study published in Personal Relationships. The rise of dating apps, the influence of social media, society's ever-evolving attitudes toward marriage, commitment and sex — considering them all, you might expect the answer to be a resounding yes. According to the study, there are four distinct stages that define how modern romantic relationships tend to unfold. And, surprisingly, they're not as different from the past as you might think. Ogolsky and his team examined college students' love lives, a decade apart: 126 students in 2012, and 133 students in 2022. Their survey asked a single open-ended question: 'Describe, in order, what you believe are the phases of a typical romantic relationship.' After comparing the answers, it was clear that — in both 2012 and 2022 — a similar pattern emerged amongst the participants. The first stage, unanimously, was what Ogolsky and his co-authors called a 'flirtationship,' which the participants described in largely similar ways. One student described it as the stage where two potential partners search for 'common interests which will be the base of the relationship.' Another encapsulated it as feeling 'attracted to what the other looks like' and wanting 'to know more.' Perhaps the most apt description of all was from the student who explained, 'One of you has expressed blatant or intended interest. You know you like each other, and this is where it ends if one doesn't reciprocate flirtation.' Despite the countless ways technology has changed how we meet and interact, the essence of this first stage hasn't budged. This is likely because the need to assess compatibility is foundational to how we form relationships of any kind. Before we attach, we observe. We pay attention to the small cues, and send out a few of our own. This process isn't new, and no swipe-based interface or algorithm can bypass it entirely. While apps and digital communication have certainly created new avenues for flirtation, they haven't eliminated the uncertainty or vulnerability that comes with it. In fact, participants in both 2012 and 2022 noted that the flirtationship phase often unfolds online. You might chat for days, exchange memes, build anticipation — but you will still need to consider whether the attraction is mutual, or whether it'll even translate offline. Even with more tools at our disposal, it's human nature to test out whether it's something worth pursuing. The packaging may have changed, but the psychology hasn't. The researchers labeled the second stage of romantic progression as 'relationship potential.' As the name suggests, the participants defined this as a stage of exploration — particularly in terms of romantic compatibility. For instance, one participant typified this stage as 'spending time together/dating.' Similarly, another described it as 'meeting and going to places together to learn more about each other.' Overall, one participant's description encapsulated it best: 'Things get a bit more serious, you want to get a bit more romantic and go out on dates. This could be one to two dates every few weeks with a few lunch dates in between.' This is where we move from 'I think I like you' to 'I want to understand who you are.' There's still ambiguity — the potential for things to fizzle — but with the addition of effort. You go on dates, talk more deeply and start mentally placing the person in the context of your own life. What's notable is that, even in an era where casual encounters and instant gratification are more accessible than ever, people still crave this slow, evaluative period. The effort to get to know each other hasn't been automated, and it's not something you can outsource to a well-written bio or curated photo grid. Digital platforms might facilitate contact, but they can't (and shouldn't) replace the experience of actively building comfort and trust. We may be quicker to connect today, but we're still cautious when it comes to investing emotionally. The deliberateness of this stage speaks to the enduring human need to 'figure it out,' so to speak. The third stage of romantic progression, both a decade ago and today, is defined by exclusivity. This 'in a relationship' stage, as described by the students, encompasses a sense of being official. One participant explained that this is the phase where two people begin 'Labeling one's relationship status as 'in a relationship' with a partner.' Another participant noted that, at this stage, 'Flirting or hooking up with someone else would be cheating.' Beyond the official label itself, the participants also associated this stage with larger romantic milestones — such as exchanging 'I love yous,' meeting each others' friends and family, as well as becoming both emotionally and physically intimate. Even as social norms around relationships have grown more flexible, this stage has remained consistent. Polyamory, casual dating and relationship anarchy are more visible and more widely discussed than they were a decade ago. Yet, the majority of participants still pointed to exclusivity as a defining marker. It's clear that, while the options have expanded, most people still value a clear, unambiguous declaration of commitment — likely due the stability that this stage offers. This isn't necessarily because it marks the end of romantic exploration, but more so because it introduces a sense of structure and expectation. This is the very clarity that guides us through everything else to come. Participants associated the fourth and final phase with decision-making. Namely, the choice between large declarations of commitment — like moving in together, getting engaged or getting married — or ultimately terminating the relationship. 'No one is perfect. Everyone has flaws,' explained one participant. 'The goal is to find someone whose flaws you can love or at least tolerate without excess frustration. After being together for a while, it is impossible to keep up a 350% perfect act. You can either accept your partner for who they are or realize you need to break up. You see them for who they are and either still love it or start to hate it.' As Ogolsky and his co-authors explain, this isn't an exact continuation of the previous stages, but rather a crossroad. By this point, the façade has been lifted. You know how your partner handles stress, whether your values align and what long-term sacrifices each of you are willing (or unwilling) to make. What you're deciding now isn't whether you love each other, but whether you can sustainably continue to love each other. Whether commitment is marriage, cohabitation or simply a private agreement to stay together long-term, the need to decide remains. Societal progress over the last decade may have changed what these commitments look like, but it hasn't eliminated the need to either build a future — or consciously walk away from one. Has the façade been lifted in your relationship yet? Take this science-backed test to learn more: Authenticity In Relationships Scale
