Psychology and Stress

Justin is a first-year college student finding himself confronted with information—mostly out of class—that contradicts some of the “facts” he was raised to accept: Black people are intellectually inferior to Whites, lazy, and lacking in ambition; gays are indecent degenerates, morally corrupt sinners who seek to undermine America’s virtue; women are a threat to men in the workplace, and need to be kept out of positions of authority. As the semester progressed, Justin’s social circle expanded, and he was stressed to discover that many of his beliefs just did not stand up to the reality of his experiences. At first, he discounted his college experiences as exceptions to the real world; his thinking involved denial, selective perception, and distorting the reality around him. But slowly, he began to consider another alternative: “Maybe my beliefs about these groups are wrong.”

It’s interesting to note that when confronted with troublesome contradictions like Justin experienced, the last thing most people do to resolve their mental anguish is to change their beliefs. When you think about it, that makes some sense. When coping requires you to change your beliefs, the first step in the process is looking squarely at those beliefs and asking yourself, “Do I have poor judgment? Am I avoiding something? Am I afraid of something that makes me hold onto these beliefs?” Tackling such questions can be tough.

Rodney was an 18-year-old who believed that all Mormon men had multiple wives, only one of whom they made public. The rest were hidden away. Rodney’s father taught him this “fact,” and Rodney’s self-esteem was based on praise and acceptance from his father. He had a mostly unconscious fear of offending his father and suffering rejection, which would plunge him into anxiety about being abandoned. Psychologically, therefore, he could not reject his father’s beliefs and, to our knowledge, he never did. Allegiance to his father kept him in psychological balance. When anyone challenged Rodney’s belief about Mormons—even a practicing member of the Mormon church—he told them they were wrong. He was not interested in rejecting his father’s beliefs.

Sometimes, however, people do change their beliefs. Rachel, a 35-year-old single woman, avoided romantic commitment. At a deep mental level, Rachel feared she would be sexually promiscuous like her mother, who was a prostitute throughout Rachel’s childhood. Rachel believed and feared that romantic involvement would lead her to promiscuity, and expose to herself and others that she had no moral values. Only complete avoidance of emotional commitment could keep her fears hidden. Rachel required long-term professional counseling to be able to accept the reality of her core fears. Over time she was able to consider alternative beliefs and actions that enabled her to cope with her anxiety in more realistic fashion.

Carol, a 19-year-old college student suffered intense test anxiety. Rather than face this truth realistically, she was able to convince her school’s Learning Skills Center that she needed special arrangements in her courses for taking tests. She was a solid B student, but she was tormented with the belief that she was a “dumb, incompetent, loser” who couldn’t face a challenge without special help. Carol was aware of her core fear, and she was able to work with a college counselor for alternative ways—notably better study practices—to confront the anxiety.

When it comes to dealing with stress, no matter what beliefs we’re talking about, when they are unrealistic, illogical, inconsistent, and contradictory—and your actions perpetuate those beliefs—you should attack those beliefs critically and work at discarding them in favor of alternatives. Discuss your choices with a trusted friend, advisor, or professional counselor. Finally, when you choose new actions consistent with more realistic beliefs, make sure you have a reliable social support network. Coping with stress by changing your beliefs is seldom accomplished alone.

Are you regularly self-critical, always casting yourself as the enemy? It’s tough to cope effectively if you are your own enemy. Sure, you have negative thoughts and feelings, but it helps to remember that they are a natural part of life, and having them does not make you weird or abnormal. If someone criticizes you, well, that’s their problem, not yours; you’re not here to live up to others’ expectations. You must also remember your values. Do you give in to self-destructive behavior—drug/alcohol abuse, social withdrawal, gambling, eating disorders, jeopardizing your family’s welfare—at the expense of your values? If you value your roles as parent, spouse, employee, or friend, but, at the same time, let yourself become less effective in these roles, how can you expect to feel good about yourself?  If you value work, family, and friends, you must act accordingly, and with a sincere commitment and dedication. Coordinate your actions with your values.

            Do you regularly ask yourself, “How am I doing?” or, “Am I happy enough?” If you overdo this self-focus you can lose your ability to feel satisfied in the present. For example, chronically depressed and anxious people are likely to focus on whether they are feeling better. They search for answers in social situations to see how they are doing: “Does Joe see I’m here?” “Do I look foolish to Sally?” They also monitor their own actions: “Is my heart racing?” “Am I sweating?” “Am I just pretending?” “How well am I relating?” They try to feel “right,” which makes it impossible to be themselves and have a good time. Coping well with stress does not mean you should constantly check on your actions and worry about what others are thinking. It’s the same with trying to maintain complete control over what’s going on around you. Such efforts are not coping solutions, but only present you with coping problems. In the final analysis, actions based on fear and anxiety are the basis for the issues most people face; fear and anxiety are the motivators for the conflicts that produce most psychological problems and encourage inappropriate actions. Can you see that your emotions are not the problem, but inappropriate actions servicing the emotions are?

            Stop treating your emotions as if they are alien invaders. They are you! We all have them and they are a natural part of living. You are not weird. Accept your emotions but do not be governed or dominated by them. Acceptance of their presence and focusing on your behavior are the keys to effective coping.

Biological Evolution. Darwin says organisms evolve through natural selection, which occurs because those individuals with a wider variety of traits are more likely to survive and produce more offspring. In other words, diversity of traits is essential for survival.

Psychological Evolution. In 1974, psychologist Sandra Bem published the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. The test measured where one’s sex-role traits fall on a scale ranging from “Traditional Male” to “Traditional Female,” with “Psychological Androgyny” falling in the middle of the scale. Traditional Male sex-roles are characteristics like competitiveness, aggressiveness, assertiveness, and domineering. Traditional Female sex-roles include traits like sensitivity, emotional, caring, and passive. The post-WWII childrearing culture of the US identified good parenting as teaching boys traditional male sex-roles (“You need to be tough, kid!), and teaching girls traditional female sex-roles (“Remember, honey, you must always nurture your children and support your husband, and make sure your household is well-run.”)

            Bem’s message was that forcing children into rigid sex-roles limited their diversity and their ability to cope well with everyday life. For instance, what if a situation requires caring, sympathy, and displays of emotion? Well, the traditional male is lost; he doesn’t know how to behave without sacrificing his masculinity-dependent self-esteem. Similarly, what if a situation requires assertiveness and an aggressively competitive spirit? In this case, the traditional female is lost because to act in those ways would be a threat to her femininity. Thus, Bem says, teaching children to display traditional sex-roles severely limits their ability to adapt and cope—evolve—with a variety of situations. This dilemma is where psychological androgyny comes in. The androgynous woman is caring and sensitive, but if the situation demands it, she can also be aggressive and competitive. By the same token, the androgynous man is dominant, powerful, and tough, but if the situation demands it, he can also be emotional, sympathetic, and soft. Parents should, therefore, encourage androgyny—diversity of traits—in their children in order to foster psychological evolution, and help them be more effective at coping with stress.

            Social Evolution. Evolution is based on the principle of diversity of traits, which increases the odds of survival. We believe this principle applies not only to biological development of a species, but also to the psychological of individuals within a species. How about social structures that individuals form? Does the principle of diversity also apply to those groupings? Could one argue, for instance, that a human society that accepts a wide range of interests, abilities, needs, and backgrounds—compared to a society that encourages homogeneity among its members—is stronger and healthier, and more likely to adapt and successfully meet challenges? Is diversity among members of a society necessary for survival of that society?

Fernandez and Dries note in Best Practices in Supporting Grieving Students, “Many times people think those who experienced a loss have grieved ‘long enough’ (according to their own arbitrary expectations) and therefore should simply move on. As with other mental health conditions, this simply is not true; grief is a process of healing that must run its course. Mourning is the process that transforms acute grief into something manageable. It is the utilization of coping strategies, while remembering the loved person, that can lead the bereaved to healing.”

Grief is one of those emotions that holds the temptation of avoidance and denial in front of us. People often say, “I wish I could avoid the grief I’m feeling. This loss has just been devastating to me and I am having such a hard time keeping the grief from getting to me.” As we often see in these blog posts, avoidance is a major obstacle to coping with life’s challenges. Grief is no different, and when we are confronted with it, we must expend a lot of emotional effort to work through it and not work around it. Fernandez and Dries point out that grief is also often complicated by denial, depression, and guilt: The grief-stricken may not accept the loss as real (e.g., denial); they may be so consumed by their grief that they lose themselves (e.g., depression); they may feel guilty that they caused the loss (e.g., magical thinking); and, they may feel they are disrespecting the other party if they re-engage. Such reactions can exacerbate grief. People generally do not realize that grief from loss is often a sign of the strengths your lost loved one has given you. Thus, grief must not be dreaded, denied, covered up, or avoided; to do so would dishonor the memory of the one now gone. Instead of avoidance, you can direct your grief into the coping skills taught to you by your lost loved one; in this way you deal with your grief by using the strengths the person gave you, and by doing so you honor the person.

How can you best grieve over the loss of a loved one? Accept that grief is a sign of the immense strengths the one you have lost has given you. Your grief means that you have loved. Work through your grief by cherishing the love you experienced with the one you have lost. Grief must not be denied, or avoided; to do so would dishonor the memory of the one now gone. Use mourning to embrace your grief as a tribute to the loved one. Channel your grief into the coping skills taught to you, and thus re-define the grief into effective coping behavior. You will always miss your loved one; but you will also treasure the memories of this person who so effectively taught you to meet the challenges now facing you. Remember that the deeper your grief, the stronger your love for the lost one, and the better you are able to cope. Move forward positively, and work through your grief, not around it by denial or avoidance. Complete the tasks and challenges that face you to honor your lost one.

One of the important components of being able to cope well with stress is empathy, the ability to understand how another person is feeling. The upside of empathy is that it fosters helping others, and that helping often leads to putting your own issues in perspective, and getting a better understand of those issues.

Recently I was talking with an acquaintance who is a strong anti-vaccine guy. Let’s note that one’s position on the value of vaccinations is usually based on doctrines from any of several streams of thought, such as political science, religion, history, and medical ethics, just to name a few. It is also safe to say that most anti-vaxers are comfortable with their opinion and not psychologically troubled, even though their opinion may make them sound like they are not concerned with the welfare of others and have no empathy them. In other words, empathy is not required for one to be psychologically healthy. What we are saying is that if you are troubled and having difficulties coping with the stresses in your life, finding empathy for others at that point can help you.

Let’s consider the case of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), 32^nd US President. After beginning what looked to be a great political career, FDR was stricken with polio at the age of 39, and was never again able to walk without leg braces and assistance. Just standing, much less taking steps, was an immense undertaking involving considerable pain and effort, and he spent most of his days in a wheelchair. In her book, Leadership in Turbulent Times, historian Doris Kearns Goodwin describes how FDR—long before becoming president—underwent a kind of psychological rebirth at a health spa in Warm Springs, Georgia. He found his way there after hearing reports that the waters of the spa had positive effects on paralyzed victims like himself.

FDR came from the “upper crust” of the American socioeconomic ladder, the elite of society. At Warm Springs, however, he interacted with—and became friends with—people he came to call his “fellow polios.” They were not the elite of society, but victims like him. He discovered that his association with them energized his spirits, and taught him the importance of teamwork, friendship, and a sensitivity to how others felt. He learned how to communicate—both listening and speaking—with his fellows as equals, without elitism, condescension, or superiority. In short, FDR discovered humility and empathy, two qualities we often discuss in this blog as essential to learning how to cope with psychological adversity and become more mentally healthy. If you are troubled and having difficulties coping with the stresses in your life, finding personal humility and empathy for others, and serving them, can help in the recovery journey.

In the immediate aftermath of tragedies like school shootings, we often hear officials say something like, “Classes will resume after a time of remembrance. Counselors will be available for anyone feeling the need for help.” Counselors will be available—and fast (this is called Immediate Crisis Debriefing). After all, psychologists know that letting stress from a traumatic event fester can lead to severe emotional problems down the road. So, we need to nip things in the bud right away. That sounds good, but there is research showing that immediate crisis debriefing can be ineffective and in some cases even makes things worse for victims. How can this be? How can talking with a counselor about your trauma not help you? Let’s consider two possibilities.

            First of all, maybe the debriefing took place too soon. Whenever a traumatic event strikes us, our brain needs time to process the event. Sometimes for days we can be in somewhat of a fog over what happened. At a conscious level we seem to be denying the event when we say, “I don’t want to talk about it.” At a sub-conscious level, however, once the emotional reactions begin to subside, our brain is processing and sorting and attempting to make sense of it all. Talking about it during that period may be ineffective because the cathartic restructuring is premature. The brain is not ready to process the healing.

            A second potential problem with immediate debriefing is that it may give the victim a false sense of security. Thus, several weeks after the event you may say to a friend, “You know, you still seem a little out of sorts about it. Maybe you should see a counselor.” The victim responds, “No problem, I already talked to a counselor. Everything’s cool.” But everything is not cool if the counseling took place before the victim was cognitively prepared to profit from it. In a sense, the counseling never took place. Unfortunately, the victim, feeling reassured from talking with a counselor, has trouble recognizing the coping problem.       

            Given these potential problems, when is the right time to encourage a victim of a traumatic event to receive counseling? One week later? Six weeks? Several months? Unfortunately, there is no absolute answer that would be appropriate in every case. That reality can make it difficult for a friend or relative to know when to reach out to a victim. If the victim is a relative or a close friend, the odds are you will be able to sense that he or she is not progressing well following the event. Just remember, for a few days following the trauma that is to be expected. Once several weeks have gone by, however, and you still sense poor coping, it is probably best to get more forceful in getting the victim out of the denial and avoidance pattern that is still present. Unfortunately, there is no hard and fast rule to follow here.

One of my students told me a story that shows how easy it is to think you have “put a trauma to rest” in your mind. About four weeks after 9/11, this student went home for Fall break. She lived in New Jersey and the World Trade Center had always been plainly visible from her bedroom. That night she crawled into bed and reflexively turned toward her window to say goodnight to the twin towers, her “guardian angels” since she was a child. “My God!” she said to herself, “they’re gone!” She was surprised at how startled she was because she knew they were destroyed in the attack four weeks earlier. “In a sense,” she told me, “I guess I had not really processed the reality directly, and at some level in my mind there was denial that the event occurred. It’s fascinating because I had talked about the event several times with my parents on the phone and I had obviously seen news clips on TV. But there had been no direct contact until that night in my bedroom. In that sense, I had not really directly experienced the reality of the event.”

            My student was not suffering from PTSD, but her story illustrates the dynamics of recovery from trauma. At some level, and at some point in time, the victim must “establish contact” with the reality of the event. How this is done varies from person to person. For some, mentally reliving or rehearsing an event and talking about it is sufficient. Others, however, may require something more tangible. Many Vietnam veterans find remarkably positive effects from visiting “The Wall” in Washington, just as survivors of the Orlando Pulse Club mass shooting find solace when standing next to the Club. WWII veterans have had similar cathartic experiences visiting Pearl Harbor or the beaches of Normandy. The grief-stricken can often cope with a traumatic loss better by visiting the grave of the lost one

            The important point here, however, is that “making contact,” whether mentally or physically present, is most likely to be beneficial when there is a time gap between the event and the safe contact. Time must be allowed for the mind to process the event. This processing delay may look like Denial to an outside observer, but it is helpful before the mind can begin the healing process. If crisis debriefing takes place too soon, that healing might be obstructed.

            So, when you see a friend troubled by an upsetting event (and that can include a romantic breakup), and they don’t want to talk about it right away, give them a break. Grant them some “denial breathing room” for a period of time. That period will probably be longer for serious trauma, such as a rape or near-death experience, compared to milder events, such as a romantic partner announcing, “I hope we can still be friends.” In either case, however, allowing a victim some time to process the event will make your helping actions more effective.

Meredith’s case illustrates how childhood experiences can form the core of psychological dysfunctions and persist well into adulthood—specifically how early chronic avoidance of psychological conflicts can lead to later self-destructive actions. When these actions occur over long periods of time, replacing them with more productive behaviors is extremely difficult for both therapist and client.

Meredith grew up in a secluded, economically- and socially-depressed small town. She was the oldest of five siblings and it was her job to help take care of them because mom worked and dad was chronically ill. Her parents were very domineering, and throughout her teen years they reminded Meredith again and again that she was not living up to their expectations; her early years brought her nothing but constant criticism from her parents. Their frequent scolding and emotional abuse stifled her development of a healthy identity, self-esteem, and self-confidence; she grew into adulthood believing she was incompetent, unworthy, and unable to meet others’ standards.

Meredith graduated from high school and over the next ten years had two failed marriages, both to alcoholics. Predictably, she married men who treated her poorly. Because of her childhood, she expected poor treatment from men and, ironically, this was the type of treatment that made her comfortable. It seems paradoxical—although a dynamic that psychologists see often—that people who have psychologically painful experiences in childhood frequently find themselves as adults attracted to partners who re-create that childhood distress. Why? The conflict and distress are what they are used to dealing with, and that familiarity provides them with a sense of predictability.

In her 30s Meredith found her way into counseling, and began to show some insight into her problems. “Everywhere I go I see couples. It seems that there is no one made for me.” She adds, “Being alone makes me wonder if I think right. Sometimes I pray to die. Since high school the world isn’t what I thought it would be. I’m tired. I’ve worked all of my life and have nothing to show for it.” Her counselor says, “Meredith doesn’t want to kill herself because she believes she will go to hell as a sinner. But, she says there’s no joy in her life, only fear. She admits that people are her downfall.” She doesn’t speak with others unless they speak to her first, and at lunchtime she eats in her car to avoid being around co-workers. These actions keep her feeling lonely and alienated. Her counselor says, “Meredith has no confidence when it comes to interacting with others. The strong negative influence of her troublesome childhood years is very apparent. It’s tough to break down.”

Meredith basically spends her days re-creating her childhood. She believes she can never live up to others’ expectations, and she has put herself between a rock and a hard place. Her withdrawal from life creates a self-fulfilling prophesy because she does not allow herself to have productive social experiences that can re-program her brain. She feels socially inept, and is so afraid of being around others that she is unwilling to learn how to interact with others and just be herself. In typical subtle-suicide, self-sabotaging fashion, she says, “I don’t care if I live or die.” Meredith’s case illustrates several rules of effective coping: First, she allows herself to be dominated by a concern for what others may think of her, something over which she has no control; second, she is unwilling to develop actions in her present that will help her stop living the pity parade of her past; third, she keeps herself as the center of her life; finally, she has not given herself permission to experience life and empathize with others. Although she continues in counseling, her counselor notes, “Her prognosis is not good.”

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a resource for mental health clinicians and researchers, first appeared in 1952, and was first revised in 1968. Both times autism was seen as childhood schizophrenia. In the 1980s, the diagnostic criteria for autism were expanded, resulting in an increase in diagnoses. In 2013, the 5^th revision of DSM combined autism, Asperger’s, and childhood disintegrative disorder into autism spectrum disorder. In 2019, The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that about 1 in every 110 children has been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. In 2020, The CDC said 1 in 54 children had been identified with an autism spectrum disorder.

In 1963, the measles vaccine was developed, and by the late 1960s, vaccines were also available to protect against mumps (1967) and rubella (1969). These three vaccines were combined into the MMR vaccine in 1971. Twenty-seven years later, Andrew Wakefield, a British physician, claimed that the MMR vaccine caused autism.

Wakefield began his career as a British physician in 1981 when he received his medical degree from St Mary’s Hospital Medical School. In 1998, Wakefield and 12 colleagues published data in the Lancet that suggested the MMR vaccine may cause kids to develop autism. Despite Wakefield’s small sample (n=12)—reputable epidemiological studies involve sample sizes in the thousands—the lack of controls, and the spurious conclusions, the paper received wide publicity, and MMR vaccination rates began to drop. Almost immediately, however, the rules of scientific inquiry took charge. In response to Wakefield’s sloppy work, many researchers conducted better epidemiological studies and found—in study after study—no link between MMR vaccination and autism. Ten of Wakefield’s 12 colleagues also published a retraction of the interpretation of the original data, saying the data did not permit concluding a causal link between MMR vaccine and autism. The Lancet also found that Wakefield had failed to disclose he had been funded by lawyers who had been engaged by parents in lawsuits against vaccine-producing companies. The Lancet completely retracted Wakefield’s paper in 2010, admitting that several elements in the paper were incorrect. Wakefield and his colleagues were held guilty of ethical violations— they had conducted invasive investigations on the children without obtaining the necessary ethical clearances—and scientific misrepresentation—they did not report that their sample was selective, plus Wakefield altered numerous facts about the patients’ medical histories. Wakefield lost his medical license in 2010.

The Wakefield fraud is likely to go down as one of the most serious frauds in medical history. Here we are in 2025, and the belief that vaccinations are dangerous to children continues to grow, vaccinations rates continue to decline, and diseases like measles—25 years ago thought to be eradicated in the USA—are on the upswing. How are parents and guardians to cope?

The answer to that question is straightforward. After reading the material above, if you still believe vaccines are dangerous for your child, nothing we can say will change your mind. As one West Texas anti-vaccination mother told a reporter in February 2025, “We’re not going to harm our children or risk the potential to harm our children so that we can save yours.” If, on the other hand, you accept the reputable science of epidemiology—and if you understand that personal opinions are subject to ego defenses that distort reality and prevent critical thinking, but the scientific process is subject to objective rules—then you will be willing to protect your family’s health and follow the recommended vaccination regimen for all your family members. From a health standpoint, that’s good coping.

I was chatting with a friend about a newspaper column we both had read. The writer noted statistics showing that American high-school kids score below their peers from other developed countries on math and science skills, and attributed this deficiency to poor policies of the federal government, the Department of Education in particular. I asked my friend, “When your kids were growing up, if one of them brought home lower than normal grades, did you blame the government?” He laughed loudly, “Of course not! And I’m sure you didn’t either. If fact, I remember a time when our son was a junior in high school, and one marking period his grades went down almost 10 points. My wife and I discussed this and it occurred to us that he had been hanging out a lot with a new friend—a friend with a car. ‘We slipped on this one,’ my wife said. We had a sit-down with him and told him we were restricting the amount of time he could spend with this new friend. We were more detailed but you get the idea: If he wanted to spend more time with his buddy, first he had to bring his grades up. We made it clear that two things were responsible for his grade decline: we were not being responsible parents, and he was not being a responsible student.”

In the model of coping developed in this blog, we stress four things: Acceptance, Accountability, Humility, and Empathy. In the case of my friend’s son, accountability is the main culprit. His parents corrected the problem, but too often in our present-day society, young folks are not held accountable. Look at that newspaper column—the federal government is to blame for kids’ poor academic performance relative to those in other countries? Seriously? Could the writer be more enabling and indulgent toward American kids—not to mention their parents?  Here we are in 2025, and both parents and their kids need to be held more accountable. How many kids regularly hear their parents badmouth reputable scientists like Tony Fauci, or feed them false information like vaccines cause autism? We are producing a generation of overindulged, psychologically-damaged kids who are unable to think critically, handle stress, resolve conflicts, and overcome hardship. We better wise up—fast—or we’re going to have a society populated by psychological invalids.

A basic premise in psychology says that if you see yourself voluntarily doing a task—no one is forcing you to do it—you are likely to decide the task is important and worthwhile. After all, isn’t deciding that the task is important more logical than concluding that you are wasting your time on the task? A nice side effect of your decision is that when you see yourself doing a worthwhile task, you are likely to feel productive, satisfied, and empowered. And when you feel empowered you feel competent, confident, energized, and useful—all characteristics of someone who is coping well with everyday stressors.

Many folks approach coping by focusing on their feelings: “I’m so stressed; I’m too anxious and worried; I’m thinking too negatively; I’ve got to think more positively and look on the bright side.” Sadly, this approach is likely to fail because you are focusing on finding elusive states like happiness and serenity by thinking your way through the search. The power of positive thinking may sound great, but that so-called “power” is severely limited. Thinking does not make it so; acting does. We’re not saying that you should never think positively; we’re simply saying that the power of positive thinking is limited, but the power of positive actions is limitless because positive feelings emerge from positive activity. You do not “find” something like happiness; it emerges by seeing yourself doing worthwhile things. Here we see the Golden Rule of coping: It’s not always all about you and how you are entitled to find happiness. To cope with everyday stressors, you must not consider yourself the main ingredient in your life recipe; you must get outside yourself and voluntarily do things for others. You will feel empowered and useful when you focus on others’ needs rather than your emotions. There are, however, limits.

Cindy and Ryan met in college. They were “crazy” about each other. “It was such a fun, carefree time in my life,” Cindy says. “I loved it!” Before too long, though, Ryan’s controlling nature began to rear its ugly head. He got upset when he felt they were not together enough. Even if it was only a few hours separation, Ryan would ask her what she was up to, and why she was not with him. Cindy remembers thinking, “He needs me. But I also felt I was being a little wimpy tending to his every need.”

After graduating, Ryan got a job that put him a four-hour drive from Cindy, who was still in college. The relationship began to deteriorate because now Ryan had less control over Cindy’s activities. He did not have a reliable car, and he was upset when she did not regularly drive four hours to see him. Ryan was insecure, but he blamed his insecurity on Cindy. Then, Cindy studied abroad for a semester. Ryan had an even harder time dealing with this geographical reality. Cindy remembers, “It became harder and harder to keep him happy as well as keep myself sane while I was overseas. Those four months I was away took the biggest toll on both of us. I didn’t allow the constant fighting to ruin my time spent overseas, but it forced me to look at my relationship for what it was and not the fairytale I had come to believe.”

When Cindy returned from her semester abroad, Ryan became almost irrationally controlling; he got upset even if she went to the mall without calling to tell him. They broke up within a month. Cindy later reflected on things: “I don’t want my experience with Ryan to turn me against trying to please my partner in a relationship. He had a lot of issues that he needed to work out that I couldn’t fix, but I still tried too long to be strong and supportive for him. Those actions didn’t work for me because I lost my confidence in making my own decisions, and was worrying about what he thought. I think I’ve learned that it’s important to support others, but not to the extent that I sacrifice my own sense of empowerment.”