Love In her Bad Therapy Podcast Ally Kruse talks about ’love testing’.

Love Testing #

In her “Bad Therapy Podcast” Ally Kruse talks about “love testing”, likely in the context of insecure attachment styles. Tell me more about it, first, is that a term recognized in psychology and, then, quote some research? #

In Ally Kruse’s Bad Therapy Podcast, the term “love testing” is discussed in the context of insecure attachment styles, particularly in relationships that follow traumatic or toxic experiences. This concept refers to behaviors where one partner might “test” the other to validate the security of the relationship. This often stems from fears related to trust and attachment, common in individuals with anxious or avoidant attachment styles. The idea is that by provoking certain reactions or setting up emotional “tests,” a partner seeks reassurance of the other’s commitment or affection.

While “love testing” is not a formally recognized term in psychology, the behavior it describes aligns with patterns seen in attachment theory, specifically in individuals exhibiting insecure attachment. These individuals may engage in behaviors that challenge the stability of the relationship, often unintentionally sabotaging it to cope with underlying fears of abandonment or rejection.

Research in attachment theory, particularly work by psychologists like John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth, supports the notion that individuals with anxious attachment may engage in heightened emotional behaviors (such as “testing” a partner) to elicit reassurance. Studies show that such behaviors can strain relationships, as they are often misinterpreted by the partner, leading to increased conflict and emotional distance.

In essence, love testing, as discussed in this podcast, represents a coping mechanism for those with unresolved attachment issues, rooted in insecurity and the need for emotional validation.

Let us delve into love testing dynamics in some more detail. Do “passed” tests increase intimacy and alleviate fear? #

The dynamics of “love testing” revolve around the psychological need for reassurance in relationships, particularly among those with insecure attachment styles, such as anxious or avoidant attachment. In the context of love testing, a person might create situations that covertly measure their partner’s emotional commitment or loyalty. These tests often aim to elicit specific responses that offer emotional validation, quelling fears of abandonment or betrayal. However, whether these “tests,” if passed, increase intimacy or alleviate fear is more nuanced and often complex.

Temporary Relief or Deepened Intimacy?

Temporary Alleviation of Fear: When a love test is “passed,” the immediate result may be a temporary sense of security and relief for the tester. For someone with anxious attachment, this positive outcome can momentarily ease their fears of abandonment, reinforcing the notion that their partner is invested in the relationship. In this sense, love testing can act as a short-term solution to insecurity. However, this relief tends to be fleeting. Since the root cause of the insecurity (i.e., deeper attachment issues) is not addressed, the cycle of testing often resumes once the underlying fears re-emerge.
Conditional Intimacy: Passed tests might lead to an illusion of deeper intimacy because they create a narrative of loyalty or validation. Yet, intimacy built on “testing” is inherently fragile because it’s conditional. The tester’s perception of the relationship hinges on the partner consistently meeting expectations in these subtle tests. This dynamic can make the relationship feel like a continual evaluation rather than a space for genuine emotional connection. The repeated need for reassurance can make intimacy feel precarious, as it is maintained through constant performance rather than trust.
Cumulative Damage: While a partner might pass several tests, over time, the repetition of these tests can erode trust and cause emotional strain. Partners may begin to feel that their love or commitment is being doubted, which could lead to frustration, resentment, and withdrawal. Rather than fostering closeness, frequent testing can chip away at the foundation of the relationship. Partners may feel they are in a no-win situation where any slip-up in meeting the tester’s expectations could lead to conflict, undermining the emotional safety necessary for genuine intimacy.

Research on Attachment Styles and Reassurance-Seeking

Research on insecure attachment styles, particularly in relation to attachment anxiety, supports this behavior pattern. Anxiously attached individuals often engage in hyperactivation strategies, which include seeking excessive reassurance and testing their partner’s commitment through indirect means. Studies by researchers such as Mikulincer and Shaver (2007) show that while these behaviors may provide momentary comfort, they also create a negative feedback loop where the constant need for validation prevents the development of true security within the relationship.

Similarly, Simpson et al. (1992) found that individuals with insecure attachment styles tend to misinterpret ambiguous situations as threatening to the relationship, prompting behaviors like love testing. While successful reassurance can momentarily calm these anxieties, the underlying attachment issues remain unaddressed, leading to repeated cycles of doubt and testing.

Emotional Toll on Partners

For the partner being “tested,” this dynamic can feel burdensome. Constant testing may signal a lack of trust, which can undermine emotional intimacy over time. Rather than drawing partners closer together, these tests can lead to frustration and emotional withdrawal. Research on relationship satisfaction suggests that partners who frequently feel the need to prove their commitment may experience lower levels of relationship satisfaction, particularly if they feel their emotional efforts are not reciprocated or recognized in a healthy, mutual manner.

While “passing” a love test may temporarily alleviate the tester’s fear, it rarely leads to a sustained increase in intimacy. Instead, the cycle of testing reflects deeper unresolved insecurities and attachment issues. True intimacy and security require open communication, emotional vulnerability, and mutual trust—not ongoing validation through hidden tests. The challenge in relationships marked by such behaviors is to move beyond the need for testing toward addressing the root causes of insecurity, often through open dialogue or therapeutic intervention.

Now let us distinguish love testing from self-sabotage. Intuitively, the former is deployed in the hope of success and the latter in the hope of failure. Is it always such a clear-cut? #

The distinction between love testing and self-sabotage can indeed be blurred, even though intuitively, they may seem to serve opposite purposes. Both behaviors stem from insecurities and fears related to attachment, but they are often driven by different underlying motivations. However, their outcomes and internal processes can overlap in complex ways. Let’s explore this in more depth:

Motivation and Expectation:

Love Testing: The primary motivation behind love testing is to elicit validation and reassurance from a partner. It is employed with the hope of success, where the tester wants to see their partner demonstrate loyalty, commitment, or affection. Love testing is often seen as a way to confirm that their partner truly cares, despite the insecurities the tester may feel. It is a behavior rooted in fear of abandonment or rejection, but the ultimate hope is to reduce this fear by obtaining the “right” response from the partner.
Self-Sabotage: Self-sabotage, on the other hand, may involve behaviors that intentionally or unconsciously lead to the deterioration of the relationship. Here, the motivation is more complex, and it often stems from deep-seated fears of inadequacy or unworthiness. The individual may expect or hope for failure because they believe they are destined to be abandoned, rejected, or otherwise let down. Self-sabotage is often tied to a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the person’s negative beliefs about themselves or their relationship lead to actions that undermine it.

Blurred Boundaries:

While these motivations may seem distinct, in practice, love testing and self-sabotage can intersect in various ways:

Overlapping Behaviors: Both love testing and self-sabotage can manifest in similar actions, such as withdrawing emotionally, creating unnecessary conflict, or setting unreasonable demands. A love test might escalate to self-sabotage if the partner consistently “fails” the tests, confirming the tester’s fear that they are unworthy of love. The behaviors may start as love testing but evolve into self-sabotage when the tester’s fears are repeatedly triggered.
Emotional Outcomes: In love testing, failure to receive the desired validation can lead to further insecurity, perpetuating a cycle of more testing or, eventually, self-sabotaging actions. For example, a person who tests their partner’s love by creating a situation of jealousy might initially hope to see the partner fight for them. However, if the partner withdraws, the tester’s anxiety deepens, potentially leading them to deliberately push the partner away in anticipation of the relationship’s end. This transformation from love testing to self-sabotage reflects the overlap between the two behaviors.

Ambiguity of Intent:

The intent behind these behaviors may not always be conscious, making the line between love testing and self-sabotage even murkier. In many cases:

Unconscious Hope for Failure: A person engaged in love testing may unconsciously be setting their partner up for failure. Despite a surface-level desire for reassurance, they may harbor deep fears that no one can meet their needs, leading them to engage in tests that are impossible to pass. This dynamic reflects a defense mechanism, where the individual tests their partner, fully expecting them to fail as a way to protect themselves from future hurt.
Mixed Desires: Individuals may harbor conflicting desires—on one level, they may want to feel secure and loved, while on another, they may feel undeserving of affection. This internal conflict means that some love tests might be subconsciously designed to fail, even if the conscious intent is to seek reassurance. In such cases, love testing becomes a form of self-sabotage, where the individual’s deep-seated insecurities drive them to undermine their own chances of happiness.

Research and Theoretical Perspectives:

In attachment theory, both love testing and self-sabotage are often seen as strategies employed by those with insecure attachment styles. Anxiously attached individuals may engage in love testing to confirm their partner’s affection, while avoidantly attached individuals may engage in behaviors that seem like self-sabotage to maintain emotional distance. Mikulincer and Shaver’s research into attachment strategies shows how both anxious and avoidant individuals tend to employ behaviors that protect their self-concept but often at the expense of relationship stability.

Cognitive-behavioral models of relationships often discuss how distorted thinking patterns (e.g., catastrophizing or “mind reading”) can lead individuals to behave in ways that are both protective and destructive. For example, someone might simultaneously desire closeness but act in ways that push others away out of fear of eventual rejection.

While love testing and self-sabotage are often framed as behaviors with opposing goals—one seeking affirmation and the other expecting failure—the distinction is rarely clear-cut. Both can arise from underlying fears and insecurities, and they often overlap, especially when the tests lead to repeated disappointment. The behaviors may shift from one to the other as the individual navigates their fears, desires, and relationship dynamics, reflecting the complex ways in which insecurity can shape intimate relationships.

Another distinction we could probably make is between tests that are covert and the tests bordering on ultimatums? #

Yes, the distinction between covert tests and tests that border on ultimatums is important in understanding different relational dynamics, particularly how partners navigate insecurity and control within relationships.

Covert Testing:

In covert testing, the individual engages in subtle, often subconscious behaviors aimed at indirectly gauging their partner’s feelings or commitment. These tests are not communicated openly; instead, the person sets up scenarios where they expect their partner to demonstrate love or loyalty without being told they are being tested. This approach can be particularly manipulative, as the partner is unaware of the test and may fail it unintentionally.

Examples of Covert Testing:

Ignoring or withholding affection to see if the partner will initiate intimacy or express concern.
Creating jealousy scenarios, such as flirting with someone else to see how the partner reacts.
Silent treatment or passive-aggressive behavior to provoke the partner into asking what’s wrong, thereby proving they care.

Psychological Roots: Covert testing often arises from anxiety and fear of abandonment. The tester feels vulnerable and uses these subtle tests as a way to protect themselves from perceived rejection, without having to confront these fears openly. However, because the partner is unaware of the test, these behaviors can breed frustration and misunderstandings, harming the relationship over time.

Outcome and Dynamics: When the partner “passes” a covert test, it might temporarily reassure the tester, but the underlying issues of insecurity remain unaddressed. The relationship can become a cyclical series of tests, each one designed to maintain emotional control rather than foster genuine intimacy.

Ultimatum-like Testing:

Ultimatum-like tests are far more explicit and involve a clear demand or condition placed on the partner. These tests often take the form of a challenge: if the partner does not meet the condition, there will be a significant consequence, such as a breakup or some form of emotional withdrawal. Unlike covert testing, the stakes are explicitly laid out, making the test feel more confrontational.

Examples of Ultimatums:

“If you don’t move in with me, this relationship is over.”
“You need to choose between me and your friends.”
“Prove your love by doing [specific action], or I’ll end things.”

Psychological Roots: Ultimatums are often a manifestation of control, where the individual feels that they need to force the other person to make a significant commitment or decision. Unlike covert testing, the person making the ultimatum seeks clarity and resolution—either the partner commits fully, or the relationship ends. This dynamic can be linked to avoidant attachment or a fear of vulnerability; instead of dealing with emotional uncertainty, the person imposes clear conditions on the relationship.

Outcome and Dynamics: Ultimatums can provide a sense of empowerment for the person issuing the test, but they are risky and can backfire. While they may create immediate action (e.g., the partner agreeing to the demand), they often leave the partner feeling coerced rather than genuinely committed. Ultimatums place relationships in a high-stakes environment, where one partner may feel pressured into decisions that they aren’t ready for, leading to resentment.

Comparative Analysis:

Transparency: The most notable difference between the two forms of testing is the level of transparency. Covert tests are hidden and indirect, leaving the partner unaware that their actions are being scrutinized. Ultimatums, on the other hand, are explicit, with clear demands and consequences laid out.
Emotional Impact: Covert testing often leads to confusion, as the partner may not understand why their behavior is being scrutinized or what they did “wrong.” In contrast, ultimatum-like tests can lead to feelings of pressure and entrapment, as the partner is forced into making a decision under duress.
Control vs. Reassurance: Covert testing tends to be driven more by a need for reassurance without confrontation, while ultimatums are about asserting control and forcing the relationship into a specific direction. In the latter case, the ultimatum issuer wants to force a resolution, even at the risk of damaging the relationship.

Overlapping Dynamics:

Although covert tests and ultimatums are different in approach, they can intersect. For example, a covert test can escalate into an ultimatum when the partner repeatedly fails to meet the tester’s unspoken expectations. Similarly, someone who issues ultimatums might do so after covert tests have failed to bring them the reassurance they need. In this sense, both strategies reflect different points on a spectrum of insecurity and relational control.

While both covert testing and ultimatums aim to address relationship insecurity, their methods and emotional effects differ significantly. Covert testing is subtle and manipulative, often leading to confusion and eroded trust. Ultimatums, while direct, risk coercing a partner and generating resentment, ultimately threatening the stability of the relationship. Neither approach fosters the healthy communication and mutual respect required for long-term intimacy and trust.

Lastly, let us focus on the anguish of someone willing to pass all the tests, but sensing that due to the tests becoming harder and harder, failure is inevitable and all “good work” invested before will come to nought. Such partners would probably blame themselves as much as the loved one? #

The situation of a partner who senses that, despite their best efforts, failure in the relationship is inevitable due to increasingly difficult tests is a deeply painful one. This person often experiences a combination of internalized guilt and frustration, as well as a sense of helplessness. Let’s break down the emotional landscape of such a dynamic and the psychological mechanisms at play.

Emotional Investment and the Fear of Futility:

For someone who is willing to pass all the tests, the primary source of anguish is the fear that all their emotional investment and good work in the relationship will be for nothing. The gradual increase in the difficulty of tests can create a sense of diminishing returns—no matter how much effort is put into meeting the partner’s expectations, the goalposts keep shifting. This can lead to:

Exhaustion: Constantly trying to prove one’s worth or love can lead to emotional fatigue. The person feels they are in a no-win situation where their efforts are never enough.
Hopelessness: Over time, the partner might come to believe that failure is inevitable, despite their desire to succeed. This despair can lead to feelings of worthlessness, as their sense of control over the relationship diminishes.

Self-Blame and Guilt:

Partners in this situation often blame themselves as much as they do their loved one. Even though the increasing difficulty of the tests is irrational or manipulative, the person trying to meet these expectations internalizes the failure as a personal inadequacy. This is especially true in cases where the partner is deeply empathetic or conflict-averse, leading to:

Internalizing Fault: They may believe that their inability to satisfy every demand reflects a personal flaw, such as not being “enough” or not trying hard enough. This reflects a pattern seen in individuals with people-pleasing tendencies, who derive their self-worth from their partner’s approval.
Guilt for Causing the Other’s Insecurity: Paradoxically, the partner might also feel guilty for not being able to alleviate their loved one’s insecurities. They may think that if they were just more patient, loving, or attentive, their partner wouldn’t feel the need to test them.

Cognitive-behavioral theory (Beck, 1976) suggests that individuals prone to guilt and self-blame tend to engage in cognitive distortions, such as personalization—believing that they are responsible for their partner’s emotional state or actions. This can exacerbate their feelings of inadequacy, even when the tests themselves are unreasonable.

Escalation of Testing and Unmet Expectations:

The escalation of love tests creates a vicious cycle. As the tester feels more insecure, they may raise the stakes with increasingly difficult tests, believing that only extreme actions can provide the reassurance they need. The partner who is willing to pass all the tests initially might find that the demands become more extreme or unreasonable over time. The pressure of constantly needing to meet these escalating challenges can cause:

Performance Anxiety: Much like in professional or high-stakes environments, the partner may start to feel anxiety about “failing” the relationship. This anxiety can cloud their judgment, leading to poor decision-making or emotional reactivity, which in turn might trigger the very failure they fear.
Emotional Dissonance: As the partner increasingly recognizes the futility of their efforts, they may experience emotional dissonance. They might still love their partner and want to maintain the relationship, but at the same time, they begin to realize that they are trapped in an unachievable dynamic.

In psychological terms, this dynamic mirrors the “double-bind” theory (Bateson et al., 1956), where the partner is caught in a situation with conflicting demands: they must prove their love but are never allowed to succeed, leading to feelings of confusion, frustration, and eventual emotional breakdown.

Anguish of Conditional Love:

The most devastating aspect of this dynamic is the growing realization that the love being offered by the testing partner may feel conditional. The partner seeking to pass the tests may come to feel that they are only valued when they are “proving” their love, and that their intrinsic worth as a person is disregarded. This conditionality undermines their self-esteem and leads to:

Fear of Abandonment: Even though they sense that failure is inevitable, they may cling to the relationship out of fear of being alone or abandoned. This fear can be particularly acute in individuals with anxious attachment styles, as they are highly sensitive to rejection and separation.
Resentment: Over time, the testing dynamic can foster deep resentment. The partner may begin to feel angry or bitter about constantly being evaluated, even if they outwardly comply with the tests. This resentment can further erode the relationship, as it becomes difficult to maintain genuine affection under such pressure.

Mutual Blame and Breakdown:

As both partners navigate this escalating cycle, blame becomes diffuse. The person being tested may start to resent their partner for imposing impossible standards, while simultaneously blaming themselves for not meeting those standards. This dual burden of guilt and frustration can lead to emotional burnout, making it difficult for either partner to communicate openly or resolve the underlying issues.

Emotion-focused therapy (EFT) (Greenberg & Johnson, 1988) would suggest that both partners are stuck in negative interaction patterns: the tester is driven by deep-seated insecurity, while the partner being tested is caught in a cycle of trying to soothe their partner’s fears without ever being able to fully succeed. Without intervention, this dynamic can lead to emotional exhaustion and relational breakdown.

The anguish of a partner willing to pass all tests but sensing inevitable failure is a profound emotional burden. This partner often experiences self-blame, guilt, and helplessness as they invest deeply in the relationship but are met with ever-increasing expectations. The realization that their “good work” may never be enough creates an existential despair, where both they and their loved one become entangled in a destructive cycle of insecurity and unmet needs. Without open communication or therapeutic intervention, this dynamic is likely to lead to emotional burnout and relationship collapse.