This post will not be popular. You might even not like it. But it is necessary.
It is necessary because, although it is easier to blame others than to take responsibility, recrimination and victimization trap us in a loop in which nothing changes.
Of course, it is easier to point the finger of blame at what makes us feel bad than to ask ourselves to what extent we contribute to that discomfort and what we can do to alleviate it – beyond escaping the influence of what we consider “toxic people.” However, if we do not do so, we could condemn ourselves to stumbling over the same stone a thousand times, repeating the patterns that have facilitated or allowed this harmful dynamic.
Redefining toxic bonds
In recent years, the use of the label “toxic” to categorize difficult or destructive behavior has increased. They warn us that we must be attentive to toxic people since they can be found anywhere, from work to family.
However, as is often the case with many of the psychological phenomena that become popular, toxicity is not specific. That is, any person can be classified as toxic, it is enough for them to cause us some emotional distress, from those who are too involved in the relationship to those who are not very committed.
And while it is tempting to apply these types of labels because they “free” us from responsibility by shifting it to others, in reality it creates more problems than it solves. Firstly, because it does not take into account that in every relationship there are always two parties.
For example, research carried out at New York University found that when people have power, they display more dominant behaviors. However, they are also subject to the power given to them contextually. What does that mean? That it is necessary for those around them to validate their power.
Therefore, your boss may not be the kindest, most understanding, and most collaborative person in the world; But from there to describing him as “toxic” there is a long way to go. And part of that stretch corresponds to our responsibility and the environment.
We are unfair, tremendously unfair, when it comes to valuing others
We usually look for reasons that explain our actions and those of others. We try to discover the causes of behaviors, largely so we can predict future actions and feel more confident.
The phenomenon of assigning causes to an action is called “attribution” and we use it to make inferences about people and social environments in which we operate. However, during that process we are not impartial but often suffer from a bias: the fundamental attribution error.
Psychologists from the universities of Washington and Illinois have proven that we are blind to circumstances and rush our judgments, which pushes us to blame others without taking into account their “extenuating circumstances.” Some mitigating factors that, curiously, we do apply to justify our behaviors.
That is, when we try to explain a behavior we must consider both personal factors and the context, since no one acts completely apart from what is happening around them and the social pressures they experience. However, we tend to emphasize contextual factors to justify our behavior and minimize their influence when we try to understand the behavior of others. This leads us to think that we are “good people” while the person who bothers us is, obviously, a “toxic person.”
Why is it easier to believe that a person is toxic?
In part, because it is emotionally satisfying to blame others for our distress and find someone responsible to pour our frustrations on. In fact, we must be very attentive because a study conducted at the University of Kentucky revealed that we can become “addicted” to that feeling of grievance. These neuroscientists explained that “Provocations make aggression hedonically rewarding.”
When we are stressed, in particular, we look for alternative narratives that allow us to feel like we have been wronged or hurt in some way. This compulsion to blame others leads us to label them as “toxic” while we forget the nuances and context, establishing ourselves as plenipotentiary judges who rule, sentence and condemn at the same time.
Blaming others is also a kind of defense mechanism that our ego uses to tell itself that there is nothing wrong with us and that we have done everything right. As long as the fault lies with the other, we do not need to change anything, just move away from the “source of evil.”
Obviously, in a world rife with unequal power dynamics and abuse, labeling others as “toxic” can help us identify situations that harm us and encourage us to get out of them. But it is a short-term solution in which there is no personal growth, but rather it often causes us to settle into the role of the victim.
Recognize toxic dynamics
People don’t always behave well. There is no doubt. Sometimes they overwhelm us, stress us out, or don’t treat us with the respect we deserve. However, labeling them as “toxic” is the easy way out. It would be much more transformative in the long term to ask how we have contributed to that harmful dynamic.
A study carried out at the University of São Paulo, for example, found that people who tend to get involved in pathological romantic relationships are more impulsive. It has also been noted that those who have an insecure attachment style tend to develop emotional dependency in their relationships or, on the contrary, have difficulties expressing their feelings and connecting with others on a deep level.
Obviously, this is not about exonerating the person who hurt us or behaved badly, but settling the matter by labeling them “toxic” may not be enough because, if we do not learn and take responsibility for the dynamics we experience, we are likely to repeat them in the future since the emotional and behavioral patterns that favored them could continue to be latent within us.
We cannot forget that any relationship is made up of two people, so that one responds to the reactions of the other and vice versa. Therefore, it would be much more empowering, constructive and developing to refer to toxic dynamics, instead of toxic people.
Science has shown that when we believe that others have fixed personality traits, such as innate “toxicity,” we become defensive, less willing to listen, and are not even able to set boundaries because we believe that nothing we do will make a difference.
Instead, understanding that we also do our part in this toxic dynamic, whether due to our insecurities, fears, past traumas or the inability to set healthy limits will allow us to address what is happening from a more global perspective, capturing the true complexity of the relationship and our role in it.
From that moment on, we can decide if it is worth maintaining contact or if it is better to nip it in the bud. But what is worth doing is this introspection exercise for our next relationships, to learn, we too, to relate in a healthy way since, at the end of the day, we are all toxic at some point, even you.
References:
Tolmacz, R. et. Al. (2022) Interparental conflict and relational attitudes within romantic relationships: The mediating role of attachment orientations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships; 39(6): 10.1177.
Chester, D. S. & DeWall, C. N. (2016) The pleasure of revenge: retaliatory aggression arises from a neural imbalance toward reward. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci; 11(7):1173-82.
Bauman, C. W. & Skitka, L. J. (2010) Making Attributions for Behaviors: The Prevalence of Correspondence Bias in the General Population. Basic and Applied Social Psychology; 32(3): 269–277.
Sophia, E. C. et. Al. (2009) Pathological love: impulsivity, personality, and romantic relationship. CNS Spectr; 14(5): 268-274.
Magee, J. C; Galinsky, A. D. & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2007) Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive interactions. Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 33(2):200-12.
Dweck, C. S., & Ehrlinger, J. (2006) Implicit theories and conflict resolution. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 317–330). Wiley Publishing.
Leave a Reply