Related Post
Comparison table of four relationship dependency types: Dependence, codependence, independence, and interdependence, across seven psychological characteristicsComparison table of four relationship dependency types: Dependence, codependence, independence, and interdependence, across seven psychological characteristics
| Characteristic | Dependence | Codependence | Independence | Interdependence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall pattern | Unbalanced — reliant | Dysfunctional — enmeshed | Disconnected — isolated | Healthy — mutually supportive |
| Respect | Excessive deference to the other; own views and preferences are regularly abandoned to avoid conflict or disapproval | Respect is extended to the other at the direct expense of self-respect; personal autonomy and needs are consistently sacrificed | Self-respect is strong, but regard for others’ needs, feelings, or boundaries may be limited — a “my way” orientation | Genuine, mutual recognition of each person’s worth, needs, and autonomy; respect flows in both directions without self-erasure |
| Reciprocity | One-sided reliance — one person leans heavily; the other is often left carrying the emotional or practical load | Chronic one-sidedness: the codependent person gives and enables, while the other takes; sustained by the giver’s need to be needed | Little appetite for mutual exchange; interaction tends to be transactional or self-focused rather than genuinely reciprocal | Balanced give-and-take that flexes with circumstances; neither person keeps a tally, but both feel the exchange is broadly fair |
| Autonomy | Little or no independent decision-making; the dependent person habitually outsources choices, often due to anxiety or low self-efficacy | Autonomy is outsourced — the codependent’s sense of self is defined by, and contingent on, the other person’s state, needs, and approval | Strong individual autonomy, but exercised in ways that exclude or override others; autonomy as self-sufficiency rather than self-direction | Each person retains a secure, stable sense of self while choosing to share their life; autonomy and closeness are seen as compatible, not competing |
| Boundaries | Weak or absent; the dependent person struggles to assert needs or limits, often fearing rejection or abandonment if they do | Blurred or non-existent; emotional enmeshment is central — one person feels responsible for the other’s inner world and vice versa | Rigid and inflexible; protective walls rather than healthy limits, often rooted in avoidant attachment or past relational hurt | Clear, flexible, and openly negotiated; allow genuine intimacy and breathing room to coexist; adjusted as the relationship evolves |
| Communication | Marked by fear of expressing needs, disagreement, or vulnerability; communication is often indirect, placating, or suppressed | Frequently indirect, enabling, or controlling; may include people-pleasing, hinting, or managing the other person’s emotional state rather than direct dialogue | Reluctant to disclose personal matters or emotional needs; communication tends to be functional, guarded, or focused on problem-solving rather than connection | Open, honest, and emotionally safe; needs, feelings, and disagreements are expressed directly and received without fear of destabilising the relationship |
| Responsibility | Personal responsibility is ceded; the dependent person relies on the other to manage decisions, emotions, or practical life tasks | The codependent assumes responsibility for the other’s emotions, wellbeing, and behaviour — often enabling harm in the process; both people’s growth is stunted | Responsibility is taken for oneself but rarely sought or accepted collaboratively; help-seeking is resisted even when it would be adaptive | Responsibility is appropriately owned and shared; each person takes accountability for their own actions while supporting, but not managing, the other |
| Self-esteem | Fragile and externally anchored; feelings of worth are contingent on the other person’s approval, presence, or positive regard | Chronically low and outsourced; the codependent’s self-worth is tied to their caretaking role — they feel valuable only when they are needed or useful | Can appear high, but is often defended rather than genuine; may be maintained through achievement, self-sufficiency, or emotional distancing rather than authentic self-acceptance | Stable and internally grounded; does not depend on the partner’s approval or on performing a particular role; resilient to relational stress |
| Support | Constant and disproportionate support is sought; the dependent person struggles to self-soothe or function without frequent reassurance from the other | One party is chronically over-reliant on the other for emotional regulation; the codependent may also subtly require the other to remain dependent in order to feel needed | Support is rarely sought, even when genuinely needed; self-reliance is prioritised to the point of isolation, and vulnerability is experienced as threatening | Support is both offered and sought fluidly and appropriately; neither person feels burdened by the other’s needs, and both feel safe to ask for help |
Sources: APA Dictionary of Psychology (2023); Mental Health America; Rusbult & Van Lange, Annual Review of Psychology (2003); research on attachment theory, interdependence theory, and the “dependency paradox” (Feeney & Van Vleet). The goal state in healthy adult relationships is interdependence — not independence.
Self-sabotage is self-sabotaging. Why would anyone do this?Self-sabotage is self-sabotaging. Why would anyone do this?
As I always like to say, there are as many reasons why people self-sabotage as there are people. A common theme is to protect the self from failure, feeling things we don’t want to feel, and to control our experiences.
One of the hidden culprits behind self-sabotage is the need for perfection and control. Self-sabotage has a strange way of helping us maintain the illusion that if only we had put in more effort or had better circumstances, everything would have worked out as it should. Social psychologists call this counter-intuitive strategy of regulating self-esteem ‘self-handicapping.’ It’s very seductive to engage in self-sabotage because the hidden payoff is high. It’s often easier to be a perfect whole rather than a real part. It’s a short-term solution that sidesteps the more arduous but ultimately more fulfilling work of individuation and self-realization. It takes risk, patience, suffering, and ultimately wisdom to come to the place where you can let go of self-sabotage and learn how to be real.
Behaviour is said to be self-sabotaging when it creates problems in daily life and interferes with long-standing goals. The most common self-sabotaging behaviors include procrastination, self-medication with alcohol and other drugs, comfort eating, and forms of self-injury such as cutting.
Self-sabotage originates in the internal critic we all have, the side that has been internalized by the undermining and negative voices we’ve encountered in our lives. This critic and ‘internal sabotuer,’ functions to keep the person from risking being hurt, shamed, or traumatized in the ways they had been in the past. While it keeps the individual safe, it does so at a very high cost, foreclosing the possibility of new, creative, and three-dimensional experiences. Like an addiction, self-sabotage insidiously lulls and deludes us into thinking that it has the answer. In fact, it is the problem masquerading as the solution. Nothing stops self-sabotage faster in its tracks than shining this particular light on it. Consciousness is true power. We need to let go of our illusions of omnipotence and perfection and see that it is only when we are real and imperfect that we can create a true work of art. Then and only then we can enjoy the gifts of being Real.
– Michael Alcée, Ph.D., Relational therapist/ Clinical psychologistArt: Bawa Manjit, Acrobat
