Psychology and Stress

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.”

Dr. Larry Nassar, physician for United States Olympics and Michigan State University, pleaded guilty in November 2017 to sexual molestation of female gymnasts over more than 10 years, some as young as 13. In the final stages of his trial, Judge Rosemarie Aquilina allowed the victims, numbering well over 150, to give personal impact statements in the courtroom, a process that took over five days as young-women victims came forward.

As each woman spoke, she looked directly at her tormentor and said things like, “You are learning that kids grow up to be strong women who can destroy your world.” “I used to consider myself a victim, but now I am a survivor.” “We are the voice. We have the power now.” “We are a force and you are nothing.” “How dare you ask any of us for forgiveness?”

            From a coping perspective, the victim-impact statements were remarkable examples of l courage, honesty, confidence, channeled anger, and empowerment. The young women proved to be perfect examples of what it means to cope with adversity. Note how they used their anger in socially-acceptable, civilized, self-assured, and forceful ways. They unleashed their anger at Nassar by being assertive, by standing toe-to-toe with him, and demonstrating that they were the better party.

            I like to think that these young women were the products of a society that—beginning in the last 30 years of the 20^th century—modified its view of women as a group largely subservient to the whims of men, to a group with high achievement motivation, and capable of independent action, leadership, military service, rugged athletics, and many more activities previously considered more appropriate for men. Today, however, we find ourselves 25 years into the 21^st century, and in the midst of some men who offer a view of women that reverts to 50 years ago. Fueled by their fragile and insecure ego, these men argue that the appropriate role for women in society should once again stress sensitivity, emotionality, passivity, and dependence—in short, they want women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Fortunately, strong, assertive, competitive women models for little girls—like those abused gymnasts—abound in today’s society. I can only hope that parents will encourage their daughters to identify with those models, and not buy into the narrative of yesteryear.

Dependency is one of many enemies of effective coping. Developing a sense of personal empowerment is difficult if you are psychologically dependent on others to fulfill your needs and wants. Does that mean you shouldn’t let your parents, spouse, or friends do anything for you? Of course not! We’re warning against chronic patterns of psychological dependency, not isolated occasions where you receive some assistance. There’s a big difference.

One of the best examples of excessive dependency is membership in a cult, or a group with strong cult-like features. Devotion to such organizations can be extremely hard to break when the group complements adherents’ personalities. They join because the leader compensates for their inner insecurities and weaknesses, often unconscious. If Pete joins an organization because they pay him a high salary, it would be easy to dissolve his loyalty: pay him more than that organization pays him! But if Pete is tormented by fears and helplessness that the organization mitigates with the reassuring message, “Join us and together we will help you resolve your fears,” weakening Pete’s loyalty will be difficult.

Loyalty to a cult and its leader is not based on political, legal, financial, or patriotic enterprises; it is a psychological undertaking based on one’s search for meaning, purpose, truth, and values. The simplicity and definitiveness of cult principles attracts those who are adrift, confused, and bewildered in that search. Unerring loyalty to the cult may fly in the face of logic, rationality, and self-preservation, but convincing believers that their loyalty is illogical, irrational, and self-destructive is futile when that loyalty satisfies psychological needs. Finding ways to help the follower satisfy those psychological needs without the cult and its leader, is the only way to show cult devotees the way out of their commitment. The key is to show them how to re-calibrate the search for values that brought them to the cult in the first place. It’s not an easy process, but few things worthwhile are easy. The point is, appealing to reason, logic, and level-headedness is not the way to go.

In the 1950s a small cult gathered on a hillside on a date specified by their leader as the day the world would end. According to the leader, God would save them and destroy everything else. In preparation for this day, these folks sold all their belongings, their houses, cars, clothes – everything! They made an incredibly strong commitment to their leader. When the world survived and the group experienced cognitive dissonance, they did not turn on their leader as a false prophet. Instead, they joined him in praising God for rewarding them for their great faith by saving the world. They reduced their dissonance by distorting reality, not by changing their beliefs about their prophet. They decided the world continued to exist because of faith in their leader. If you said to one of them, “Your leader was all wrong and caused you to get rid of all your worldly possessions! He’s a fake!” Their reply would be, “You’re wrong. God was so impressed with us and our prophet that He decided to spare the world. We saved you! And it was all because of our prophet!”

Many emotions are a signal that something is bothering you. Whether it’s anger, anxiety, grief, or depression, there is a temptation to focus on the emotions, and that can lead to complications. For instance, you might start blaming yourself, or others, for them. “I shouldn’t feel this anxious.” “Anyone who had to put up with my spouse would walk around angry, too.” When you focus excessively on your emotions, they can take control of you. To prevent that, you need to focus on actions you can take, not on how you feel. When you identify, evaluate, and analyze the events that bring on your emotions, you can practice those actions to channel emotions and give you a sense of personal control over yourself.

           John is a middle-aged man who was a correctional officer in a prison for twenty years. During this time, he suffered from numerous assaults from inmates. This was a much higher frequency than experienced by other officers. When asked why he thought he incurred so many assaults, he acknowledged he was not part of the in-crowd at work. As a matter of fact, he was disliked by most of the prison guards because he was outspoken about his progressive views and political activism, which put him at odds with most of his co-workers. He was the butt of jokes made by his co-workers and his commitment to his job duties did not bring him their respect. There were instances when he heard them talking about him in negative ways, which he found very disappointing, and that made him anxious and suspicious. After suffering a couple of severe assaults during which his peers did not try to help him, he developed PTSD.

           He started seeing a psychologist for counseling. He was already working with a psychiatrist on medication for PTSD and Major Depression. Slowly, they found a medication regimen that reduced his anxiety, flashbacks, and nightmares while not disturbing his sleep and positive mood. He also worked with the psychologist to deal with his emotions—especially his anger at work. He learned to walk away from situations, recognizing that it would be self-defeating to be confrontational. He also slowly accepted that walking away did not mean that he was a coward for doing so. This was an important perspective for him to accept, and more effective than his futile attempts to try and suppress his anger. He learned that managing his emotions did not mean trying to make them go away. He reached a major milestone when he realized his temperament was not suited to working in a prison. He was a sensitive man who cared deeply about social justice and hopes for a better society, and 20 years working in a prison environment did not complement those hopes. He admitted he chose to work in a prison for “pay and benefits.” That was an ill-fated decision and much of his frustration and anger was due to that poor decision. But he was not able to see he projected some of his emotions onto other people and environments.

           Slowly, a new John began to appear: He secured a new job and worked in counseling on when to honestly confront others; he slowly learned to be more tactful, particularly when around strangers, and not people he felt comfortable with and could trust; he found someone to coach him with exercise routines; he began eating healthier. Persistence with these habits facilitated needed weight loss, increases in self-esteem and assertiveness (as opposed to passive-aggressiveness), and reduction in depression, PTSD, and insomnia symptoms. At this writing he is much happier and content with himself and life, though he still checks in with his counselor about once/month to ensure he stays on the straight and narrow.

How do some people manage to “find” each other and think their relationship stands a chance? Imagine, for instance, putting a mean child and a selfish one in the same room day after day. That’s Alexis and Ed, two manipulative, self-centered takers—“I want what you have and will give nothing in return.”—who eventually frustrate and bring out the worst in each other. Each also blames the other for the relationship problems, which eliminates any hope of conflict resolution. They had each been married before they met. Alexis had only been married once, but had three children from this marriage. They had married when young and immature, and the children basically “got in the way” of their development as individuals and as a couple. They argued a lot and grew apart. Ed had two unsuccessful marriages under his belt. He had no children, had been in prison, and had a history of drug use, abusing women, and failed relationships.

            Alexis and Ed came to counseling together. Both were middle age, smart and attractive. Alexis had a histrionic personality—vain, demanding, and attention seeking. Everything about her was dramatic, from her mannerisms, to her style of dress, to her obvious breast enhancement surgery. She drank excessively in public, and was flirtatious toward both acquaintances and strangers. “Hey, what’s wrong with having a good time and showing off your assets,” she said. “Guys like to flash their American Express card. Well, I’ve got some things going for me, too!” Ed complained, “Alex is out of control most of the time. She spends and spends and is always flaunting herself around other men. She should be with me, spending more time with me. She seems to forget that I have needs, and a wife should satisfy her husband’s needs.”

            In counseling it was quickly obvious that there were many sources of conflict. Ed could not see any positive things Alexis brought to their relationship, and he would not acknowledge responsibility for his part in their difficulties. He was preoccupied with money and Alexis’s expensive lifestyle. He showed little commitment to Alexis’s children or a family life in general. He wanted time with his new wife and his hobbies, and only gave lip service to being a stepfather. He wanted Alexis all to himself, and refused to sacrifice or compromise.

            Alexis was slow to recognize that she had brought a psychological monster into her family. He was self-employed because he did not like to work for others or deal with rules and authority figures. Alexis also hated his friends. “They’re crude and disgusting. I can’t stand having them in the house. They’re just pigs!” she declared. Early in the relationship, she let the kids get to know him, but he was a poor role model. Alexis kidded herself and kept hoping he would change so she could monopolize his attention. Her wishes, of course, never came true. Ed’s dysfunctional personality was not going to change—nor was Alexis’s—and because both she and Ed were takers, their pairing would never work.

            In counseling, Ed saw that things were not going his way and he stopped coming. He moved out of the house and took everything that was not nailed down. The honeymoon was over, and now Alexis would not get the attention she craved. For her future, unless she changes her histrionic styles—which is not likely—she will never have anything but superficial relationships. As for Ed, he is unlikely to change and does not really want a good relationship because he is a consumer who takes advantage of others for his own benefit. He only sought counseling to see if he could turn things to his advantage.

            Ed and Alexis’s marriage was based on locked-in personality traits that stressed taking, not giving, and denial of the realities around them. There was little hope of communication, compromise, and empathy, fundamental pillars of any healthy relationship.