7 Reasons & Remedies for “Misbehaving” More with Family than Others (#1-3)
Fear with Strangers, Peer-Orientation, & Insecurity Begetting Hypersensitivity
I put out a request for ideas from readers on my Substack to see what human behaviors are of interest to analyze from a Catholic perspective. This topic was one of multiple suggestions from Sara Dietz who writes Whole and Holy. Thank you, Sara! Check out her Substack!
The specific question she posed was:
“Why do we act out the most around people we're the most comfortable with, people we love most, people we (in theory) want to be nicest to? I'm thinking friends, spouses, parents, etc. I feel like we see this behavior across age groups and relationship types.”
A disclaimer and a few general things to consider:
I say this for all my articles: this is not professional advice.
This is not entirely behavior-analytic in nature as there are elements which might be categorized as more psychological or spiritual.
The reasons I mention might not apply to everyone.
There are so many reasons why we might behave better outside of family life, so this won’t be an exhaustive list. However, I do attempt to list a good number of possible reasons with descriptions that vary in detail. I do this so that folks can skim to the ones they find most intriguing or personally relevant if they are short on time. If you feel like I short-changed one of these sub-topics (trust me, I did), let me know in the comments and I can do my best to expound.
Before getting started, a general observation about this topic is that there seems to be an inherent risk with “unconditional presence.” When we experience unconditional presence (i.e., the other person continues to be there for us despite our actions), the anticipated consequences of “acting up” might seem “worth it.” In other words, we have a tendency to take our loved ones for granted. “He (or she) will never leave me.” Of course, in a relationship of loving trust, it is not wrong to have this thought and feeling — the “risk” is worth it! A broken, beating heart is capable of healing and love, but a cold, stony heart (attachment avoidant) is capable of nothing until it opens itself up to the warm embrace of someone who says “I love you unconditionally.”
In behavior analysis, the anticipated consequences (i.e., being yelled back at, getting grounded, getting a silent treatment, etc.) might be referred to as unreliable “punishers” if the behaviors do not decrease the behaviors in question because the definition of punishment is a process by which a change (addition or subtraction) in the environment occurs after the behavior, and then the behavior DECREASES over time. If it’s not decreasing, it’s not punishment! It’s just something potentially aversive that is accepted by the person rather than being avoided or escaped. The person can then become desensitized to these usually aversive responses while accessing some other reinforcer (i.e., showing our displeasure, making our opinions known, making a sour face because it technically is not “crossing the line”).
The flipside from a more Catholic perspective would be that true reparation of relationships involves mercy, forgiveness, openness about what happened internally for both parties, giving the benefit of the doubt, and leaning on grace to live out commitments to one another. We respect the freedom of this other person who receives our unconditional love, and the other person respects our freedom to accept or reject unconditional love. It’s a two-way street. In other words, decreasing another person’s behavior or our own behavior effectively may not involve what we typically call “punishment” – it may be a hard conversation which we would rather not have, but which we willingly accept in the context of a loving, safe relationship with a person helping us be better oriented towards goodness in the future – a corrective and reparative consequence that decreases one behavior while establishing motivation to increase another behavior.
“... ‘for whom the Lord loves he reproves, as a father, the son he [favors] acknowledges.’ Endure your trials as ‘discipline’; God treats you as sons. For what ‘son’ is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are without discipline, in which all have shared, you are not sons but bastards. Besides this, we have had our earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them. Should we not [then] submit all the more to the Father of spirits and live? They disciplined us for a short time as seemed right to them, but he does so for our benefit in order that we may share his holiness. At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it.”
– (Heb 12: 5-8, 10b-11, referencing Prvb 3:12)
Functionally, these challenges and encouragements can function as punishers (from a behavior-analytic perspective), but they are also rule-setting, relationship-strengthening, grace-filled moments which establish motivation, prompt moral action, and often reinforce by praising any good which happened prior. Sadly, it is these hard conversations, opportunities to swallow our pride, and acts of self-sacrifice which we avoid, whereas we may accept them in a more public setting. We will explore why.
Could the observation above be its own reason? Sure, I could have done 8 or more … but I wanted the number 7 to be in the title for this article. It’s a Catholic thing.
(1) Fear of the Unknown with Strangers
We don’t generally fear being outright rejected by our families, such as being kicked out of the house, though some have that unfortunate fear given their unique circumstances. We do generally fear being rejected by strangers, classmates, friends, etc. because it is much easier for us to be “canceled” by people outside the family. We may even find ourselves acting better with those family members if we happen to be around others who exert that kind of power over our actions (in behavior analytic terms: audience control).
Speaking in gross generalities, we are exhausted by the end of the day (or week) putting on a mask for others. We come home and take off our masks. On the one hand, we may want to be seen authentically by the ones to whom we are closest. We let our guard down because we know the person is “married” to us (sometimes literally) and the likelihood of being rejected by expressing more emotions (or less emotions) than we do with others outside the house is perceived as a minimal risk. On the other hand, we may want to stay hidden, but our exhaustion is making it difficult to keep the charade going, especially if we anticipate aversive interactions with our family members as a result of taking off that mask.
Remedy:
Take stock of how you act differently around others outside your home. Some of your inaction may be prudent. Some of your actions may be courageous. Some may be both. Some of it may be indicative of acting two-faced and fooling ourselves into thinking we are really that person when we are actually not. What fears are present? What experiences of rejection have you had in the past?
A word of caution with identifying that there is a “real you” behind the mask: the “real you” is not your thoughts, feelings, attractions, fears, dislikes, or any other experiences. The “real you” is a child of God totally loved by Love Himself. The mask to which I refer is when we hide the truth about all those personal experiences from our loved ones, even when some of those experiences are indicative of something which needs healing and mercy.
(2) Peer-oriented rather than parent-oriented (or family-oriented)
A fantastic book I’m still trying to finish reading is “Hold On to Your Kids: Why Parents Need to Matter More Than Peers” by Dr. Gabor Maté and Dr. Gordon Neufeld (thank you for the recommendation Fr. Daniel Rice!). I immediately loved the emphasis the authors place on the role of attachment (affection). In the book, they claim that the major crisis of parenting today is that children have turned toward peers for the attachment, affection, warmth, and unconditional love proper to a parent-child relationship. They point out:
“absolutely missing in peer relationships are unconditional love and acceptance, the desire to nurture, the ability to extend one’s self for the sake of the other, the willingness to sacrifice for the growth and development of the other.” pg. 11
The authors also describe the different ways of attaching — advancing from immature to mature development of attachment in relationships. The issue is that some people continue to have an immature mode of attaching to others (i.e., because of proximity; because of shared interests) and struggle to practice vulnerability and openness from a safe and secure mindset (see stages 1-4 of Azcárate’s stages of psycho-spiritual development, 1979).
It also can be misleading when others are on their “best behavior” with us for similar reasons that we are on our best behavior. It can create a false sense of intimacy and closeness when what is actually present is fear that the other will reject us if they really knew us. The opposite of openness in Azcárate’s stage 4 (“Interdependence”) is not safety — it is closedness born in fear, insecurity, and maybe even a feeling of inferiority.
In a nutshell: behaving better around strangers and acquaintances does not necessarily mean you are a virtuous or psychologically healthy person.
Remedy: Borrowing partially from the book title mentioned – “hold on to your loved ones!” Work on a relationship of warmth and delight in the other person. Express your fears of rejection to a safe and trustworthy confidant. Slowly stretch yourself to be more open and honest with those around you. Stop stuffing down that affection of joy at the presence of that other person because you are afraid of losing that person or you are holding onto a grudge. Mourn when you do lose someone. Allow Jesus to hug you through that loss and cry with Him as He cried for Lazarus (Jn 11: 35-36). Open yourself up to hope and new joys. Above all, practice gratitude for other persons, starting with Jesus.
(3) Insecurity Can Lead to Hypersensitivity
We are more overly sensitive to the actions of our family because there is an expectation to feel “safe at home.” This also has to do with our psycho-spiritual development in moving from belongingness into security (Azcarate, 1979). When this security is threatened, it can threaten the affective self-worth that is developed alongside our rational security.
If I come home after a day at work where I felt ineffective, inefficient, and irrelevant,1 and my wife perhaps also feels she had a day in which she was ineffective, inefficient, and irrelevant, then there is a good chance her and I will become extra-sensitive to an ill-placed comment, a careless facial expression, or the briefest hesitation when we should have been more prompt. We experience emotional hurts from loved ones to a greater degree than we could ever feel from a stranger, yet we sometimes act more to defend ourselves from being rejected by strangers. What a peculiar thing.
Remedy:
Reflect on your own sensitivity. Write down the thoughts that come up in your mind and the feelings that arise when you experience something that annoys, disturbs, or upsets you. Where do you feel it in your body? Pay attention to these first moments and then humbly submit these little crosses in joining yourself to Christ’s sufferings. Jesus is perfecting you through the inconveniences and annoyances of home life. For more reading, see The Mindful Catholic by Dr. Gregory Bottaro (which I have read and highly recommend) and Litanies of the Heart by Dr. Gerry Crete (which I am ordering now and trust the folks who keep telling me to read it).
May God bless you for reading (or even skimming) this far.
Sincerely,
The Catholic Behavior Analyst
If you liked this article, please consider sending $1 or more to my wife, Rachel. Any donations go directly to her because she is the one who makes sacrifices for me to write. You can Venmo her at @Rachel-Clem-2
Bio & Disclaimer:
Joseph (Joey) Clem is a Catholic licensed behavior analyst in Virginia. He is a husband, father, and lifetime full member in Youth Apostles. He works primarily with children diagnosed with Autism and volunteers in youth ministry. This article does not constitute professional advice or services. All opinions and commentary of the author are his own and are not endorsed by any governing bodies, licensing or certifying boards, companies, or any third-party.
REFERENCES
Azcarate, E. M. (1979). Stages of Maturation vs. Estrangement [chart]. Revision of adding stage titles and age ranges by Joseph Clem, 2022. Youth Apostles: McLean, VA
Maté, G & Neufeld, G. (2006). Hold On to Your Kids: Why Parents Need to Matter More than Peers. Ballantine Books: New York, NY
These are also the three “I”s with which I advise parents to make problem behaviors irrelevant, inefficient, and ineffective while making replacement behaviors relevant, efficient (low effort, high payout), and effective (consistently work).