Training neuroscience development concept as a group of cog wheels and gears shaped as human heads with information transfer as a technology brain symbol or psychology exchange success.

To cling to someone for support and emotional safety is only a slight shift in perception away from becoming “clingy.” The former inspires sighs of contentment, the latter of exasperation. For those curious as to how the former becomes the latter, there is no concrete answer as the behavior for both is almost identical and further, largely contingent upon the viewpoint of the recipient. All of us are driven to get our needs met, often regardless of any concern for long-term consequences. In a cosmic head-shake to the belief in a person’s ability to “go it alone,” the means of meeting those needs invariably involves interpersonal relationships.

Describing someone’s actions as “clingy” is often similar to using the term “crazy” or “insane.” The purpose is a dismissal of the whole person by highlighting carefully selected behavior outside of a concern for a broader personal context. Incidentally, this is also the tactic of the arm-chair diagnostician and Google aficionado who, armed with disparate information and a need for labels, will give everyone they disagree with some form of pathology. What is rarely considered is the role and/or effect the person doing the labelling has on the situation. That no single perspective is capable of functioning without error or ceases the need to be constantly questioned, is, well, never questioned.

To be fair, there are variations of regular human behavior that cross the line into pathology. However, such behavior (and this includes personal affect) is pervasive and “typically leads to significant distress or impairment in social, work or other areas of functioning” (Bressert, 1995). This is as true of emotional disorders as it is of personality disorders. Without the significant distress, what remains is often simply “culturally appropriate,” though it may certainly still cause concern in others.

Where pathology meets dependency, we can use Dependent Personality Disorder for exploration.

“Dependent personality disorder is characterized by a long-standing need for the person to be taken care of and a fear of being abandoned or separated from important individuals in his or her life” (Bressert, 1995).

At face-value this description is rather benign, as any of us, with some help from honest introspection, have a varying degree of fear of abandonment and separation. Thankfully for most of us, this concern doesn’t rise to the surface in any strong sense because that need is being met consistently in ways we have defined as personally helpful.

With that initial definition, Bressert adds:

“Individuals with Dependent Personality Disorder are often characterized by pessimism and self-doubt, tend to belittle their abilities and assets, and may constantly refer to themselves as “stupid.” They take criticism and disapproval as proof of their worthlessness and lose faith in themselves.”

interdependencyNow, again, these characteristics are not in themselves indicative of pathology. There must still be included a consideration of whether the behavior lends itself to “significant distress” in one or more areas of the person’s life. The behavior alone is likely identifiable in many of those we may know and perhaps even in ourselves, though again to varying degrees of severity and consistency.

Faced with this potentially life-altering possibility, how does one avoid it? How do the self-doubts and questions of the average, stop from becoming the destructively pervasive of the pathological? Interestingly, an answer may exist in pursuing the very dependency that seems to be at the heart of the original problem.

Research conducted by psychological scientists Catherine Shea, Gráinne Fitzsimons, and Erin Davisson of Duke University, wanted to explore the relationship between self-control and overcoming temptation. Based on the notion that self-control is a resource, one that we each have a finite supply of from day to day, the researchers conducted two experiments.

In the first experiment, two groups were tasked with watching a video, with one group told to attempt avoiding looking at the words that flashed on the screen, thus depleting their self-control. Then both groups were given stories of office managers to read, with each displaying in the story varying levels of self-control. The group with the depleted self-control rated the manager with higher self-control much more favorably than those who still had a full glass, so to speak. The study was repeated with another two groups, with similar results.

In the second study, the researchers looked at survey data from 136 romantic couples. Across the survey, those who reported having lower self-esteem also reported having a greater degree of dependence on their partners, particularly if their partner reported having a higher level of self-control.

“…this new research suggests that individuals who lack self-control may actually have a unique skill: the ability to pick up on self-control cues in others and use those cues to form adaptive relationships” (Association and Science, 2013).

Here, adaptation is not about the individual, but about what is capable of being done from within the relationship to fulfill unmet needs. Those with lower self-control seem to implicitly look for, surround themselves and become engaged with those with higher self-control. There is little stretching of the imagination required to see what possible needs those with higher self-control are getting met. We all like being wanted for who we are.

stepsLet’s bring this back around to the issue of pathology and the human propensity to cling. It would seem that at a certain level of analysis, clinging or connecting to those with a greater degree of a quality one is felt to be lacking in, can be enormously helpful. Common wisdom is if you want to get into a new exercise or diet regimen, having people join you is beneficial for continuing success. Joseph B. Wirthlin stated:

“We know that we are often judged by the company we keep. We know how influential classmates, friends, and other peer groups can be. If any of our companions are prone to be unrighteous in their living, we are better off seeking new associations immediately.”

The truth of this statement is bound within the findings of the Duke University studies. Those we surround ourselves with reflect upon us precisely because it is their qualities we connect with in reciprocal flows of energy. We don’t make decisions alone, we do so in connection to the influences of our relational bonds. Even when alone in line at the fast-food place, or looking at the weight machines, or staring at the gambling machines, we are surrounded by others who’s actions are examples of what we would like to be doing.

Freedom is not in going down the road less-travelled, it is in carefully exploring the tread-marks of those around us. The path we choose will be in connection to those who’s strength and compassion we wrap ourselves in. Whether we expand or limit our lives will be found in how we meet our needs through the bonds of humanity we pursue. The question is not whether we will cling to our connections, but whether we will be honest with ourselves that we’re already doing so and explore the degree of influence they have upon us.


© David Teachout


Association, & Science, P. (2013, April 9). Low on self-control? Surrounding yourself with strong-willed friends may help – association for psychological science. Retrieved May 7, 2016, from

Bressert, S. (1995). Dependent personality disorder symptoms. Retrieved May 7, 2016, from


  1. I just cannot tell you enough how much i find your posts stimulating. It brings about my own passions on the subject of human nature and some of the ideas that i get after reading your post.
    I guess i sense your passion in your own writing which is a rare treat indeed.
    having said …..

    When i was a young adult , unlike other young men , for whom the subject of marriage was the furthest from their mind i was looking forward to such a union. i would say that was because as a child i was very nurtured by the women who raised me.
    So being young i naturally respected older married couples’ advice.
    That turn out to be a big mistake.
    This is what i found when asking many couples about their experience separately . The women had nothing but good to say about their husbands however every married man i talked to said that women are too “clingy” .
    I wondered what they (the husbands ) meant by too clingy and they told be that she was always trying to hug him.
    Sad to say many men feel uncomfortable with physical signs of affection from women in a romantic relationship.
    So based on my research (talking to couples) The issue of being clingy had to do with men who were either afraid of or who simply did not feel comfortable being touched.
    As for me based on my upbringing i happen to be a very affectionate man when it comes to women.And i am referring to NON Sexual affection.
    So i wonder if you have ever thought about the different ways people interpret the word clingy.
    I believe that a good relationship between romantic partners is very natural only if they both were nurtured by the opposite sex while children.
    You know little girls being very close to their fathers and little boys being close to thier mothers an idea that just a while ago was considered by many experts to be not such a good idea. thinking the boy might turn out too feminine and the girls too masculine.
    However based on my own observation i find myself as having a strong nurturing feeling towards women.

    I guess i might be assuming too much when i assume you are using the word clingy with regards to romantic relationships.
    But i thought i would share my experience and add another dimension to the issue.
    When you talk about needs being met. If i want to nurture a woman then naturally i need to find a women wanting to be nurtured. Under such ideal circumstances we both fulfill each others needs.

    Relationships are all so unique based on various needs and ideally they work if each one satisfies the others needs.
    As far as pathological relationships the words codependent relationships come to mind.
    That is where each partner satisfies each others “sick” needs.
    One of the greatest laments in my life is the preponderance of women who choose over and over again abusive relationships.
    What amazes me even more are the women who will almost never leave an abusive man.
    Well sorry i getting a bit off topic but it needs to be said.
    On the topic of self control , well the mere definition of the word self control is so elusive.
    i believe self control is not only imperative in a relationship but it is the lack of self control that leads to many problems. In spite of the research that is quoted real life experiences in my opinion tend to trump academic research at times.
    Speaking of academic research do you know of any group trying to understand this need for so many women to be in an abusive relationship ?
    Sorry about getting off the subject a bit and rambling on but your post reminded me of such things as represented by my apparent ramblings.


    1. Thank you for your comment. I’m glad you find the articles here so helpful for your continued study and pondering 🙂

      You mentioned a lot, so I’ll try to get to the central point. My starting principle for any analysis is relationship, it is the foundational building-block of reality. There is never just one thing, it is always a thing in connection to others. Whether atoms or people, the relationship form is not simply a feature, it’s the means for determining how anything manifests in action or being.

      With that in mind, I hardly ever use the term “codependent” because at a certain level we all are. My only concern is whether the codependency in question is of healthy benefit to those involved, that the form the relationship takes is one that generates an expansion in healthy personal expression, rather than limitation or restriction. Hence abuse.

      We all have needs/Values that will be met, though the means of doing so are various and to varying degrees healthy. Pathology is not so much something wholly different from the norm, but a norm that due to quantity or form leads to a marked distress and harm to self and/or others. Regardless, every example is the manifestation of a means for getting a need met. Even the most unhealthy of relationship forms is meeting a need, seen through the lens of a personal story.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s