Edited by Massimo Lattanzi¹²³, Tiziana Calzone¹²³

¹Italian Association of Psychology and Criminology (AIPC), Rome, Italy ²Italian Center for Relational Psychotraumatology (CIPR), Pescara-Rome, Italy ³National Observatory on Family Homicides (ONOF), Rome, Italy

Abstract

Affective dependency and co-dependency are described as the outcome of a specific traumatic sequence that begins with early relational trauma, which forms a "co-dependent brain." This trauma is reactivated by the "Partner Paradox," leading to the choice of a partner with a complementary wound. The couple then creates a "Traumatic Bubble," a closed system where the roles of the dependent (who uses the other to self-regulate) and the co-dependent (who enables the cycle) manifest. Therefore, the clinical goal is not to treat the dependency itself, but to dismantle the entire traumatic matrix by teaching self-regulation.

Chapter 1: The Genesis of Vulnerability: From Relational Trauma to the "Co-dependent Brain"

The origin of affective dependency lies in Complex Relational Trauma (C-PTSD), caused by chronic adverse experiences in early attachment relationships (e.g., Liotti's "Caregiver Paradox"). This trauma not only leaves psychological wounds but also permanently alters the nervous system. A brain that develops in a threatening environment becomes fixed in a defensive mode, losing the ability to self-regulate emotions and to distinguish between safety and danger.

A "traumatized brain" is, by its nature, a "co-dependent brain." Unable to self-soothe, it seeks an external regulator to manage anguish and emptiness. The relationship becomes a survival strategy and a dissociative mechanism to avoid the original pain. This vulnerability leads to unconsciously seeking partners who, although dysfunctional, feel familiar.

Chapter 2: The Catalyst of the Dynamic: The Partner Paradox

The "Partner Paradox" is the mechanism that reactivates this traumatic vulnerability in adult relationships. It is a reenactment of the childhood "Caregiver Paradox": the partner is simultaneously seen as a savior and a potential perpetrator. On one hand, they are idealized as the one who can finally heal past wounds; on the other, they are feared as the source of a catastrophic abandonment.

This paradox guides the choice of a partner through a "compulsion to repeat," leading to the selection of not a healthy person, but someone who "colludes" with one's own traumatic script. The attraction is based on an unconscious recognition of compatible wounds, in a failed attempt to resolve the original trauma. Instead of resolution, this only reinforces the traumatic cycle.

Chapter 3: The Breeding Ground: The Traumatic Bubble

When two partners chosen according to the logic of the Partner Paradox come together, they create a closed and isolated relational system: the "Traumatic Bubble." This bubble is an "echo chamber" where the dependent/co-dependent dynamic is maintained and strengthened, preventing any engagement with a healthier external reality.

The bubble has a dual function:

• Protective Function (Apparent): It offers a sense of familiarity and understanding, creating a symbiotic bond that is perceived as safe.
• Pathogenic Function (Real): It isolates the couple, prevents the learning of new relational patterns, and solidifies their roles, thus perpetuating the trauma.

The Traumatic Bubble is the manifestation of a "symbiotic-traumatic-complementary bond," characterized by an enmeshment that renders the partners incapable of functioning autonomously.

Chapter 4: The Correlation in Action: Dependent and Co-dependent Roles in the Bubble

Within the Traumatic Bubble, the partners assume specific and complementary roles that manifest their wounds.

4.1. Definition of Roles

• The Dependent Partner: Unable to regulate their own internal states, they use the other as an "external tool" to distract from pain, contain anguish, and numb the emptiness. Their behavior is often active, controlling, and demanding.
• The Co-dependent Partner: They enable the system, defining their identity through "taking care" of the other. They negate their own needs and adopt a strategy of compliance to make themselves indispensable and ward off abandonment.

4.2. The Case of Marco and Giulia: Anatomy of a Dependent/Co-dependent Fit

The case of Marco (hyper-activated) and Giulia (hypo-activated) perfectly illustrates this dynamic. Marco's fear of abandonment interlocks with Giulia's sense of unworthiness. Marco, in the dependent role, seeks Giulia as a regulator for his anxiety. Giulia, as the co-dependent, seeks confirmation of her value from him through caregiving.

This results in a self-fueling loop: Marco's attempts at control trigger Giulia's withdrawal, which Marco interprets as a sign of abandonment, pushing him to intensify his control. Their relationship is not a dialogue, but a symbiotic-traumatic fusion fueled by unrealistic, childlike expectations, which represents the symptom of the traumatic matrix, not the cause of the problem.

Conclusions: Dependency as a Logical Consequence of the Traumatic Cycle

The analysis demonstrates a sequential and causal correlation:

1. Childhood trauma creates a "co-dependent brain."
2. The Partner Paradox activates it, leading to the choice of a complementary partner.
3. The union generates the Traumatic Bubble, the incubator for the dynamic.
4. Within the bubble, the dependent and co-dependent roles become the dramatization of their dysregulation patterns.

This shifts the clinical focus: the goal is not to "cure the dependency" but to dismantle the entire traumatic matrix. Therapeutic intervention must aim to "break the bubble" by teaching the partners physiological self-regulation. Only then can they see each other as separate individuals and build a relationship based on authentic connection rather than traumatic symbiosis.

Bibliographical References

• Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
• Calzone T., Lattanzi M. (2022), Manuale SVITR e SVITR P. Scala di Valutazione dell'Impatto Traumatico Relazionale [SVITR and SVITR P Manual. Scale for the Assessment of Relational Traumatic Impact], AIPC Publisher, Rome.
• Lattanzi M. (2021), Il paradosso del partner. Dalla scelta del partner alla bolla traumatica [The Partner Paradox. From Partner Choice to the Traumatic Bubble], AIPC Publisher, Rome.
• Lattanzi M., Calzone T. (Eds.) (2023), Manuale di Psicotraumatologia Relazionale [Manual of Relational Psychotraumatology], AIPC Publisher, Rome.
• Minuchin, S. (1974). Families & family therapy. Harvard University Press.
• Perry, B. D., et al. (1995). Childhood trauma, the neurobiology of adaptation, and "use-dependent" development of the brain. Infant Mental Health Journal, 16(4), 271-291.
• Siegel, D. J. (2012). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are. Guilford Press.
• Stavola, M. (2015). Dipendenza affettiva e trauma relazionale: il ruolo della disregolazione emotiva [Affective Dependency and Relational Trauma: The Role of Emotional Dysregulation]. Psicoterapiapersona.it.
• van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.
• Wegscheider-Cruse, S. (1985). Choicemaking: For Co-dependents, Adult Children and Spirituality Seekers. Health Communications.