In the early 1970s, men walking across the Capilano Suspension Bridge in Vancouver, 450 feet of planks swinging in the wind above a canyon, were stopped by an attractive woman with a short questionnaire. She gave each of them her phone number in case they had questions. More of the men from the swaying bridge called her than men stopped on a solid one, and when a man did the interviewing, the bridge made no difference. Their hearts were pounding from the crossing, and they put it down to her. As dating strategies go, it's cheaper than dinner.
If you keep falling for the wrong person, your dating life may be running the same experiment. The racing heart, the uncertainty, the waiting for a text all feel like chemistry, and they can be nothing of the kind. It's a pattern with moving parts. Anxious and avoidant people keep finding each other, love switches off part of your judgement, and the partner who feels a bit boring may be the safest bet you've had. Once you can see the parts, you can change what you're drawn to.
Why the wrong person feels right
Your first lessons in love came long before your first date. The way the people who raised you responded when you needed them left you with a working model of how closeness goes: whether it's safe, whether people stay, whether you have to earn it. Adults fall into the same broad attachment styles that show up in infants, secure, anxious or avoidant, in roughly the same proportions, and the style tracks the relationship you had with your parents. It's an influence and not a sentence. Across 95 samples, the link between a parent's attachment and a child's was real but modest, and weaker than it had looked 20 years earlier.
To place yourself, ask which of these sounds most like you. Getting close comes fairly easily and you trust it, which is secure. Closeness makes you uneasy and trust comes hard, which is avoidant. Love feels all-consuming and you worry they don't feel as much as you do, which is anxious. When 620 newspaper readers placed themselves, 56% came out secure, 25% avoidant and 19% anxious, and the secure group's relationships had lasted longest, about 10 years on average against 5 to 6. They were volunteers, so treat that as a rough picture.
That model runs your attraction in the background. A partner who fits it feels familiar, and familiar feels like "this is it", even when what's familiar is someone who runs hot and cold.
You're not imagining the repeat. A nine-year German study compared how the exes and current partners of 332 people described their own personalities, and it found real similarity between them, even allowing for partners who simply resembled the person choosing them. So you really do have a type. Your friends have been telling you this for years. A type isn't a problem by itself, unless yours keeps hurting you.
It can go further than familiarity. We tend to want partners who confirm what we already believe about ourselves, because it makes life predictable. Among married couples, people who thought well of themselves were more committed to spouses who thought well of them, and people who thought poorly of themselves were more committed to spouses who thought poorly of them. If you don't rate yourself, someone who agrees can feel like home, and someone who adores you can feel like a mistake. 10 Tips to Fall in Love with Yourself is where I'd start.
The pull is also chemical. When people who had just been dumped but were still in love looked at a photo of the person who left them, the reward and craving areas of the brain lit up, the same system that drives happy love. Your brain can keep wanting someone long after your head has decided they're bad for you.
Love is also a little blind, in a way that shows up in the scanner. When people looked at someone they loved, the brain areas that judge other people and weigh up their intentions went quiet while the reward areas lit up. That's why the early red flags are so easy to miss, and why your friends spot them first.
The anxious and the avoidant
Some pairings show up far more than chance would allow. Among 354 dating couples, zero pairs had two anxious partners, and zero had two avoidant ones. Anxious partners tended to pair up with avoidant ones. And the relationships of avoidant men, and of anxious women, were surprisingly stable over three years, even though both partners rated them poorly from the start.
The dance goes like this. The anxious partner reaches for reassurance, and the avoidant one feels crowded and pulls back. The pulling back sets off more anxiety, which sets off more distance. It's exhausting, but it's also familiar to both of them, which is exactly why it lasts. Amir Levine and Rachel Heller's lays out the three styles and how to spot them in the first few dates.
When anxiety feels like chemistry
This is the bridge again. A partner who's warm one day and distant the next keeps your nervous system on alert, and your body reads the alert as passion. It isn't only bridges. When 300 people at amusement parks rated a photo of a stranger, those coming off a roller coaster found the person more attractive than those waiting to get on, unless they were riding with a romantic partner. The rewards come at random, a sweet message after days of silence, and rewards that arrive unpredictably keep people hooked longer than steady ones.
At its worst, that mix of an imbalance of power and unpredictable warmth and coldness is what forges a trauma bond, the attachment that keeps people in relationships that are hurting them. Staying is its own subject, and Red Flags: Why You Saw Them and Stayed Anyway, linked below, covers it. Here the point is the start: the person who makes your stomach flip may be setting off your alarm system, and the person who makes you feel calm may be the one worth a second look.
When it's more than a pattern
If a partner frightens you, controls who you see or what you spend, or threatens you, you're dealing with abuse, and help is free and confidential. In the US, the National Domestic Violence Hotline answers around the clock on 1-800-799-7233, or text START to 88788. In the UK, the National Domestic Abuse Helpline is on 0808 2000 247 at any hour, and the Men's Advice Line is on 0808 801 0327. Lundy Bancroft's gets inside the thinking of controlling partners, and shows why their warning signs are so easy to wave away.
The patterns that repeat
The template, the dance and the alarm play out as a handful of storylines you may recognise.
The project. You fall for who they could be. The potential is thrilling, and you sign up to bring it out. Months later you're dating the same person they were on day one, and doing the work for two.
The intensity hit. Big declarations in week one, constant messages, talk of the future before you know their middle name. It feels like being chosen. Intensity at the start says more about their pace than about their feelings, and it can cool just as fast. Love Bombing in Relationships: How to Recognize and Stop Emotional Manipulation, linked below, shows how to tell the two apart, and Warning Signs of Narcissistic Behaviour in a Relationship has why the most self-centred people can make the best first impression.
The chase. The one who's slightly out of reach holds your attention. The one who replies promptly and shows up when they said they would somehow feels less exciting. What you're chasing is the hit of finally winning them over.
The fear. Any partner seems better than none. Fear of being single had little to do with the standards people said they had. It did predict more interest in dates who were less responsive and less attractive, and less chance of ending an unsatisfying relationship. So you can keep a high list and still settle.
The return. The same person, again. Among 445 US students, almost two thirds had been in an on-again, off-again relationship. Those partners reported more problems and less love and understanding than couples who had never split, and each round of getting back together went with more of the bad and less of the good.
The script. The details change, the plot stays. Different job, different city, same fight in the car on the way home.
How to change who you're drawn to
Map your pattern. Write down your last few partners and, for each one, how they treated you in the first month and how you felt around them. The common thread tends to jump off the page once it's written down. If one ex keeps pulling you back, add what was wrong with them. When people upset about a breakup thought through an ex's negative qualities, their love feelings dropped, though they felt worse in the moment. Distraction lifted their mood and left the love untouched, so use each for its own job.
Slow the start. Let the first rush pass before you decide anything. A second and third date, a few weeks of seeing someone in ordinary moods, tells you more than any first-date spark. It may pay off later too. Among 2,035 married people, those who waited longer before becoming sexually involved reported better communication, satisfaction and stability, even allowing for religiosity and number of partners. They were looking back, so it can't prove cause.
Slowing down doesn't mean sitting out. In two studies, people who started seeing someone new after a breakup were more confident and more settled about their ex, and starting sooner went with better wellbeing. Slow the person, not the calendar.
Rethink "boring". If you're used to turbulence, steady can feel flat at first. Calm can be chemistry without the fear mixed in. Give the consistent person a few more dates and notice how you feel the day after seeing them as well as during.
That's no case for settling for dead. Among 123 married couples, more boredom in year seven predicted less satisfaction by year sixteen. Calm means you feel safe, and bored means nothing is growing, and they're different things. Beyond Attraction: Love, Intimacy and Lasting Connection has how couples keep it alive.
Watch what they do over time. Words come cheap in the early weeks. Consistency is the thing that's hard to fake: turning up, following through, being the same person on a dull weeknight as on a big night out.
Listen to your body, carefully. A knot in your stomach, checking your phone every few minutes, feeling you have to perform: these are alarm signals before they're proof of love. Ease, curiosity and feeling more like yourself point the other way.
Ask the people who know you. Friends see the pattern from outside. If the people who love you go quiet when you talk about someone, that silence is information. Forget the idea that disapproval makes love stronger: a 1972 finding that parents' opposition drew couples closer found little support later, and what held up was the reverse, with relationships approved of by friends and by the partner's family less likely to end. Romeo and Juliet never had to choose a sofa.
Friends also used to do the screening for you. For heterosexual couples in the US, meeting online overtook meeting through friends around 2013 and is now the most common way couples meet, so friends often meet a partner months in. Bring someone new into your circle early, and listen to what your friends say afterwards.
Patterns can shift. Newlyweds became more secure in their attachment over the first two years of marriage, on average, as a steady relationship rewrote some of the old expectations. A secure partner, and a few experiences of closeness that ended well, can teach your nervous system a new normal.
You needn't wait for the right person to find that out, either. Attachment security tends to rise and anxiety to fall during therapy, across different approaches and settings, though the evidence on avoidance is unclear and more controlled trials are needed. If your attachment is the problem, therapy that focuses on close relationships may suit you best. For couples already caught in the chase-and-retreat dance, Sue Johnson's walks through the conversations that build that security.
Choosing differently
Falling for the wrong person again and again is a habit of attraction, and habits can be retrained. You fall for what feels familiar, and your body mistakes alarm for attraction. Those are learned responses, and learned responses can be unlearned.
The man behind the bridge experiment, Arthur Aron, later wrote a list of 36 questions that two strangers take turns answering, each a little more personal than the last. It has been used to build closeness in hundreds of experiments, slowly, by sharing, with no swaying bridge required.
The next time someone makes your heart race, ask whether you're on a swaying bridge. Then give the steady one a second date, and bring a few of Aron's questions with you.
Saw the red flags and stayed anyway? Red Flags: Why You Saw Them and Stayed Anyway — the attachment, the hope and the sunk cost that keep people in relationships they know are wrong.
Swept off your feet in the first week? Love Bombing in Relationships: How to Recognize and Stop Emotional Manipulation — how to tell early intensity from real interest.
Know someone who keeps dating the same person with a different face? Send them this. The swaying bridge explains more than their horoscope does.
Disclaimer: This article is general information about relationships. If you feel unsafe with a partner, contact one of the helplines listed above.
Affiliate Disclosure: This article contains affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate, All For Life earns from qualifying purchases, at no extra cost to you. We only link to products we would recommend without the commission.
Sources
Dutton DG, Aron AP (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30(4):510–517. doi.org/10.1037/h0037031
Wikipedia. Misattribution of arousal. en.wikipedia.org
Hazan C, Shaver P (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52(3):511–524. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
Verhage ML, Schuengel C, Madigan S, et al. (2016). Narrowing the transmission gap: A synthesis of three decades of research on intergenerational transmission of attachment. Psychological Bulletin 142(4):337–366. doi.org/10.1037/bul0000038
Park Y, MacDonald G (2019). Consistency between individuals' past and current romantic partners' own reports of their personalities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(26):12793–12797. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1902937116
Swann WB, Hixon JG, De La Ronde C (1992). Embracing the Bitter “Truth”: Negative Self-Concepts and Marital Commitment. Psychological Science 3(2):118–121. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00010.x
Fisher HE, Brown LL, Aron A, et al. (2010). Reward, Addiction, and Emotion Regulation Systems Associated With Rejection in Love. Journal of Neurophysiology 104(1):51–60. doi.org/10.1152/jn.00784.2009
Bartels A, Zeki S (2004). The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. NeuroImage 21(3):1155–1166. doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.11.003
Kirkpatrick LA, Davis KE (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66(3):502–512. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.502
Meston CM, Frohlich PF (2003). Love at First Fright: Partner Salience Moderates Roller-Coaster-Induced Excitation Transfer. Archives of Sexual Behavior 32(6):537–544. doi.org/10.1023/a:1026037527455
Dutton DG, Painter S (1993). Emotional Attachments in Abusive Relationships: A Test of Traumatic Bonding Theory. Violence and Victims 8(2):105–120. doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.8.2.105
Wikipedia. Traumatic bonding. en.wikipedia.org
Spielmann SS, MacDonald G, Maxwell JA, et al. (2013). Settling for less out of fear of being single. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 105(6):1049–1073. doi.org/10.1037/a0034628
Dailey RM, Pfiester A, Jin B, et al. (2009). On‐again/off‐again dating relationships: How are they different from other dating relationships? Personal Relationships 16(1):23–47. doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01208.x
Langeslag SJE, Sanchez ME (2018). Down-regulation of love feelings after a romantic break-up: Self-report and electrophysiological data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 147(5):720–733. doi.org/10.1037/xge0000360
Busby DM, Carroll JS, Willoughby BJ (2010). Compatibility or restraint? The effects of sexual timing on marriage relationships. Journal of Family Psychology 24(6):766–774. doi.org/10.1037/a0021690
Brumbaugh CC, Fraley RC (2015). Too fast, too soon? An empirical investigation into rebound relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 32(1):99–118. doi.org/10.1177/0265407514525086
Tsapelas I, Aron A, Orbuch T (2009). Marital Boredom Now Predicts Less Satisfaction 9 Years Later. Psychological Science 20(5):543–545. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02332.x
Driscoll R, Davis KE, Lipetz ME (1972). Parental interference and romantic love: The Romeo and Juliet effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24(1):1–10. doi.org/10.1037/h0033373
Felmlee DH (2001). No Couple Is an Island: A Social Network Perspective on Dyadic Stability. Social Forces 79(4):1259–1287. doi.org/10.1353/sof.2001.0039
Sinclair HC, Hood KB, Wright BL (2014). Revisiting the Romeo and Juliet Effect (Driscoll, Davis, & Lipetz, 1972): Reexamining the Links Between Social Network Opinions and Romantic Relationship Outcomes. Social Psychology 45(3):170–178. doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000181
Wikipedia. Romeo and Juliet effect. en.wikipedia.org
Rosenfeld MJ, Thomas RJ, Hausen S (2019). Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(36):17753–17758. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908630116
Davila J, Karney BR, Bradbury TN (1999). Attachment change processes in the early years of marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(5):783–802. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.783
Taylor P, Rietzschel J, Danquah A, Berry K (2015). Changes in attachment representations during psychological therapy. Psychotherapy Research 25(2):222–238. doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2014.886791
Levy KN, Kivity Y, Johnson BN, Gooch CV (2018). Adult attachment as a predictor and moderator of psychotherapy outcome: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology 74(11):1996–2013. doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22685
Aron A, Melinat E, Aron EN, et al. (1997). The Experimental Generation of Interpersonal Closeness: A Procedure and Some Preliminary Findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23(4):363–377. doi.org/10.1177/0146167297234003
Wikipedia. Arthur Aron. en.wikipedia.org