If you missed some articles, you can click on the keywords found under the title of each article. Click on the word that represents the topic you would like to explore further. Remember that we are at your disposal for any information.

The preference for mature partners in young Italian women (18-30): An analysis of SEDA profiles between adaptive strategy and psychotraumatic matrices.

Authors: Massimo Lattanzi and Tiziana Calzone Italian Association of Psychology and Criminology (AIPC) | Italian Center for Relational Psychotraumatology (CIPR)

Abstract

This study analyzes the underlying motivations for the choice of a partner with a significant age difference in young Italian women (18-30 years old), using the SEDA scale (Security, Experience, Desire, Attractiveness). The quantitative results show an overwhelming dominance of AREA 3 (Emotional maturity and relational style), which clearly prevails over AREA 1 (Security/Tangible Benefits) and AREA 2 (Intimacy/Desire). This preference radicalizes with age, increasing from 44% in the 18-24 group to 52% in the 25-30 group.

Through the lens of relational psychotraumatology (CIPR approach), these data are reinterpreted not as a mere matter of taste, but as the expression of a need for reparation rooted in Internal Working Models (IWM) structured by dysfunctional attachment experiences. The search for "character stability" masks the vital need for an "external emotional regulator" to compensate for early deficits in caregiving, predictability, and emotional attunement. The decline in Areas 1 (Security) and 2 (Desire) with age does not indicate greater autonomy, but rather a defensive consolidation that privileges (perceived) structure and predictability over the risk of reciprocal intimacy, which is often experienced as threatening or reactivating.

1. Introduction: Beyond the surface of choice

Choosing a partner with a significant age difference is a complex phenomenon. While a sociological analysis might stop at power disparities or economic advantage (Area 1), and a general psychological analysis at "preference" (Area 3), the perspective of relational psychotraumatology demands a deeper dive.

As highlighted by CIPR research and the writings of Lattanzi and Calzone, our adult relational choices are almost never "free." Instead, they are powerful adaptive strategies (often unconscious) aimed at managing, repairing, or, tragically, replicating the dynamics experienced in our primary attachment system.

The SEDA scale, developed by AIPC, CIPR, and ONOF, ceases to be a descriptive tool and becomes an indicator of these strategies. The hypothesis supported here is that the massive preference for AREA 3 (Emotional Maturity) is not a "choice" against the superficiality of peers, but a compulsion towards what the woman's nervous system perceives as the only possible source of regulation and safety.

2. Methodology

The SEDA tool identifies three main motivational clusters that guide the choices of young women towards mature partners:

• AREA 1 (Security/Benefits): Attraction is driven by the search for a protective caregiver, translated into tangible benefits (stability, practical support, lifestyle).
• AREA 2 (Intimacy/Desire): Attraction lies in the passionate sphere, in the validation given by feeling intensely desired, and in a connection perceived as deeper.
• AREA 3 (Maturity/Relational Style): Attraction is focused on character stability, predictability, and a defined relational style, in contrast to the perceived uncertainty in peers.

The prevalent profiles of two samples of young women were analyzed, divided by age group (18-24 years and 25-30 years).

3. Results: A clear evolutionary trend

The data emerging from the SEDA analysis show an unequivocal and statistically significant trend.

In the younger group, the 18-24 age range, the prevailing motivation is already clearly AREA 3 (Emotional Maturity), which accounts for 44% of preferences. This psychological motivation clearly surpasses both the search for AREA 1 (Security/Benefits), at 28%, and AREA 2 (Intimacy/Desire), at 20%.

This orientation radicalizes in the next group. In the 25-30 age range, the preference for AREA 3 (Emotional Maturity) not only consolidates but becomes the absolute majority, rising to 52%. This increase comes at the expense of the other two areas, which show a sharp decline: AREA 1 (Security/Benefits) drops to 20%, and AREA 2 (Intimacy/Desire) suffers a collapse, almost halving, down to 12%.

In summary, the quantitative results demonstrate a clear evolution: as age and relational experience increase, the search for psychological stability (Area 3) becomes the dominant driver, while the search for tangible benefits (Area 1) and passionate connection (Area 2) progressively loses relevance.

4. Psychotraumatological discussion: Reinterpreting the data

The CIPR analysis reinterprets these numbers as symptoms of profound dynamics.

4.1 AREA 3 (Maturity): The search for the external regulator

The data (44% and 52%) is too high to be a simple preference. It must be read as a primary need.

In developmental contexts characterized by relational trauma (unpredictable, invalidating, dysregulated, or emotionally absent parents, as described by Calzone), the child does not develop an autonomous capacity for emotional regulation. They may also undergo role reversal (parentification), being prematurely burdened with the responsibility of "managing" the adult.

As young adults, these individuals do not seek an emotional "peer"; peers, with their physiological instability, are perceived as factors of traumatic reactivation. The peer's instability replicates the chaos of the unpredictable parent.

The choice of AREA 3 (the mature, "structured," "defined" partner) is the desperate search for an external regulator. They seek a partner who, with their (presumed) stability, can finally offer the predictability and attunement (Lattanzi) that were missing in childhood. They are not looking for a "boyfriend"; they are looking for a "secure base" they never had.

4.2 The Collapse of AREA 2 (Intimacy): The Fear of connection

The collapse of AREA 2 (from 20% to 12%) is clinically crucial. If the 18-24 group is still "exploratory," the 25-30 group seems to have made a clear defensive choice.

Why do intimacy and desire become less important? Because, as highlighted by psychotraumatology, for those who have suffered relational wounds, intimacy is the place of danger. Deep, reciprocal intimacy threatens to break down defenses and reopen wounds.

AREA 2, particularly "feeling intensely desired," can be read as a need for narcissistic validation (to repair the wounds of invalidation) rather than a real desire for intimacy. The collapse of this area in the 25-30 range indicates that, after relational failures (experienced as traumatic reactivations), the woman employs a defensive hardening: she sacrifices the risk of intimacy (Area 2) and material dependence (Area 1) for the only thing her IWM identifies as "vital": structure (Area 3).

4.3 AREA 1 (Security): The transposition of caregiving

AREA 1 (from 28% to 20%) is not just pragmatism. It is the transposition of the need for emotional caregiving into material security. It is the search for a caregiver who can provide, an unmet childhood need seeking compensation in the present through tangible benefits.

The drop from 28% to 20% (parallel to the collapse of Area 2) confirms the thesis: the 25-30-year-old woman, perhaps more economically autonomous but more relationally "wounded," no longer even seeks material security; her entire focus shifts to the (illusory) psychological security offered by Area 3.

5. Conclusions: From preference to post-traumatic adaptation

The SEDA data, when read through the lens of relational psychotraumatology, reveal a profound clinical reality. The choice of a mature partner, dominated by AREA 3 (Emotional Maturity), is much less a "choice" in opposition to peers and much more a powerful post-traumatic adaptation.

It is the manifestation of Internal Working Models that push the individual to seek externally (the "stable" partner) the emotional regulation capacity and predictability that they could not internalize due to deficits and traumas in their primary attachment system.

This choice, although adaptive (it aims to prevent dysregulation), lays the groundwork for new dysfunctional dynamics (dependence, power asymmetry, repetition of sacrifice/caregiving patterns), confirming how, without specific therapeutic work (like that offered by CIPR) on relational wounds, one remains trapped in the repetition compulsion of their unresolved traumas.

Do you recognize a pattern that entraps you in these dynamics? CIPR in Pescara and Rome offers support: don't remain alone.

The Italian Center for Relational Psychotraumatology (CIPR) offers a specialized approach to address relational trauma and emotional dysregulation before they escalate into violence. Our professionals in Pescara and Rome are ready to welcome you with personalized therapeutic paths to help you find balance and well-being.

For more information or to book a consultation, you can contact us: Email: aipcitalia@gmail.com Reference website: www.associazioneitalianadipsicologiaecriminologia.it WhatsApp Phone: 3924401930

Do not postpone the possibility of undertaking a path of change.