As a species, we are socialized from birth to compromise various aspects of one’s true identity in order to appeal to the primary caregiver. Consequently, we learn how to play roles in relationships very early in development. Yet, role-playing continues into adulthood and even across the lifespan. Every human interaction may be conceptualized from the vantage point of roles, as roles organize emotional experience, the hierarchy of power between individual s and groups, and the execution of tasks. Human relationships, therefore, revolve around inhibitions and resistances to authentic intimacy given that roles provide an architecture of human relatedness and fend off psychological fears and anxieties about closeness. In no other aspect of human life is this most apparent than in romantic relationships. We unconsciously coerce or “induce” others to act in accordance with our role preference, and in turn we are coerced or induced to act in accordance with the role preferences of others. These induced roles quickly set into motion a sequence of interactions that constricts a person’s relational freedom, thus straight jacketing the person into a role that, over time, becomes quite rigid and constraining. Understanding these induction processes, as well as the unconscious longings that generate them, are perhaps the most important keys to having fulfilling, surprising, and viable relationships. In this presentation, I will discuss these induction processes, explain why they are so prevalent, and offer my thoughts on how they may be avoided and/or dissolved.

1. Inducing and Being Induced:
How to Recognize Dysfunctional Relationship
Dynamics
March 15, 2014
James Tobin, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist, PSY 22074
220 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949-338-4388
www.jamestobinphd.com

2. Interpersonal Patterns
• Scientists now argue that natural events do
not evolve spontaneously and without
constriction: there seems to always be a
pattern (chaos theory).
• So too in interpersonal relationships: there are
no chance occurrences; all is pre-determined.
2

3. The Contribution of Evolutionary
Psychology
• We are programmed to assign and play roles
in all social systems.
• We perceive the other with “interpersonal
shorthand,” i.e., we calculate unconsciously
what or who the other represents to us in
order to determine very quickly safety,
control, power, and vulnerability.
3

4. “Attraction”
• Attraction is largely pre-determined.
• We are attracted to two types of others:
– TYPE A: YOU INDUCE: You find someone who is
familiar (i.e., will re-traumatize you or you can flip-
flop roles with and traumatize him)
– TYPE B: YOU ARE INDUCED: You find someone
who coerces you to act out a role from their
relationally traumatic life (i.e., you are assigned a
role and play it out)
4

5. Attraction + Induction
• Romantic love needs several ingredients:
(1) Another person with enough
characteristics to play the TYPE A or TYPE B
roles (“attraction”).
(2) Induction: This other person becomes
coerced psychologically to fulfill TYPE A
and/or TYPE B roles.
(3) Relational constriction: freedom
gradually becomes narrowed and constricted.
5

6. The Code of Relationships
• These two types “code” our most significant
relationships, giving them a patterned texture so
that what is KNOWN can be repeated over and
over again (no matter how traumatic or
distressing).
• This code is similar to any complex intellectual
exercise (GRE, LSAT): once the code is “cracked”
or understood, we feel competent.
• So, people are moving through the world with a
sense of cracking the code, even though their
relationships may be highly dysfunctional.
6

7. Me/Not-Me
• Our self-concept (“Me”) is strongly fixed.
• “Not Me” is resisted and pushed away.
• We (and our partners) promote patterned
romantic relationships to maintain our notions
of Me/Not-Me for emotional and
psychological security.
7

8. Me/Not Me
8

9. The Patterns of Relationships
Inducing the Other (we find the Type A person:
someone who will re-traumatize us -- ROBERT)
&
Being Induced by the Other (we find the Type B
person: someone for whom we play a role in
their relational past -- KEN)
9

10. TYPE A: Someone Who Will Re-
Traumatize Us (“Robert”) //
“INDUCING THE OTHER”
10

11. Sandra’s “Attraction” to Robert
• Sandra’s developmental history: she never
“measured up” to her father’s expectations, and
her father subtlety shamed her.
• Robert contains “elements” of
Sandra’s father, i.e., he is an
ambitious, charismatic entrepreneur who works
very hard and has achieved success.
11

12. The Attraction is Relational Coding
• Sandra is drawn to qualities in Robert that
ultimately caused her great pain but are familiar
to her.
• Very early on in their interactions, she intuitively
senses the familiarity and is “stirred” by it.
• The stirrings are largely avoided.
• Her “ME/NOT ME” conceptions gradually create
the culture of the relationship, and Robert is
indoctrinated into this culture.
12

13. As Indoctrination Continues ...
• Robert, because of his own attachment needs
and his own psychology, “obeys” the
indoctrination and begins to lose his relational
freedom with regard to Sandra; he is then
induced repeatedly.
• Robert’s care for/tenderness/desire to support
Sandra SWITCHES OFF: he has now been role-
assigned.
• At this point, Robert will often choose to stay in
the relationship because of his need for role-
assignment, usually to his own demise.
13

14. TYPE B: “BEING INDUCING BY THE
OTHER” //someone for whom we play
a role in their relational past -- KEN)
14

15. Ken’s Past
• Includes “break-downs” when he made an
effort to attach/get close to important
caregivers.
• The break-downs were painful, humiliating,
and made him feel weak and vulnerable,
which he never again wanted to experience.
15

16. Ken “Finds” Jennifer
16

17. Ken’s Attraction to Jennifer
• Jennifer recently went through a difficult
divorce and moved to the town where Ken
lives.
• She is feeling emotionally raw, unsure of
herself (affair), low on her self-esteem,
vulnerable.
• When she meets Ken, she is “attracted” to his
confidence, strength, and helpfulness.
17

18. Jennifer Becomes Indoctrinated into
Ken’s Narrative
• Ken will induce Jennifer, perhaps to play the role
of HIM (in his prior life!).
• As their relationship evolves, Jennifer reaches out
for Ken and he is not reachable ..... Jennifer feels
the break-downs of connection and in a way
comes to know what Ken experienced vicariously.
• They become polarized: Jennifer wants more
and more, Ken withdraws/wants space more
and more.
18

19. Resentment
• As resentments solidify, they signal the
occurrence of role-assignment and induction.
• Both feel hurt and frustrated, but are usually
unable to undo their roles with regard to each
other.
19

20. DISCUSSION:
Avoiding Type A and Type B
Induction Patterns
20

21. Type B: The Other Induces Us
-we sense we are being positioned into a role or
some extreme position (we get “set up”)
-we don’t identify the other’s vulnerability
-we represent something to the other (we are the
poster child for xyz)
-we begin to change our own behavior and act in
accordance with these representations
-the relationship makes us feel as if we are polarized
in relation to our partner
21

22. Type A: We Induce the Other
-understanding our relational past
-recognizing “stirrings”
-Me/Not Me constructions and lack of flexibility
-the culture of relationship into which we socialize
our partner
-we cannot see our partner in ways that others can
-we deny our own vulnerability – our partner does
not feel as if they are meaningful to us
22

23. James Tobin, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist PSY 22074
220 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949-338-4388
Email: jt@jamestobinphd.com
Website: www.jamestobinphd.com