The Psychology of Control in Relationships — Why People Grasp for It
Last reviewed by the Men Women Psychology editorial team.
The evidence
What the research actually shows
Much controlling behavior can be understood through attachment. Mikulincer and Shaver (2007) describe how people high in attachment anxiety, fearing abandonment, may resort to hyperactivating strategies — monitoring, demanding closeness, or trying to manage a partner's behavior — to keep the attachment figure near. The control is less about dominance than about quieting an internal alarm about being left.
Murray, Holmes and Collins (2006) add a self-worth dimension through their risk regulation model: people who doubt they are truly valued tend to feel exposed in relationships, and may try to reduce that exposure by gaining control over outcomes. When someone expects rejection, gripping tighter can feel safer than trusting — even though it usually backfires.
Skowron and Friedlander's (1998) work on differentiation of self offers a third lens. People lower in differentiation struggle to stay emotionally separate within closeness; another's autonomy can feel threatening, prompting attempts to merge or to control. Higher differentiation — being close while remaining a distinct self — is associated with healthier, less controlling relating. None of these patterns is unique to either gender.
The mechanism
Why this happens
Control is frequently a strategy for managing fear. When a relationship feels precarious — because of past betrayal, an anxious attachment style, or shaky self-worth — uncertainty becomes intolerable, and controlling a partner's time, choices, or contacts is an attempt to convert that uncertainty into something predictable. It is anxiety management dressed as protection.
It also tends to grow where someone cannot comfortably hold their own separateness. From a differentiation standpoint, a partner's independence — their friendships, opinions, time apart — can register as a threat of loss rather than a normal part of two whole people sharing a life. The urge to control narrows that gap by trying to absorb or direct the other person.
Finally, control can be a learned pattern. Someone who grew up in chaotic or unsafe conditions may have learned that vigilance and management kept them safe, and carry that strategy into adult love. What once protected them can, in a secure relationship, become the thing that undermines closeness — a solution that has outlived its problem.
In practice
What this looks like in real life
A partner checks in constantly, wants to know where the other is, and feels uneasy when plans change. From the inside it can feel like care or closeness; from the outside it can feel like surveillance, and it tends to leave the controlled partner feeling less trusted rather than more loved.
Someone reacts to their partner's nights out with friends not as a normal part of life but as a threat, and steers them away from those activities. The behavior is driven by fear of being left, yet it slowly shrinks the partner's world and strains the bond it was meant to secure.
In subtler forms, control shows up as needing to be right, managing every decision, or using disappointment to shape a partner's choices. These quieter versions can be harder to name but follow the same logic — reducing anxiety by reducing the other person's freedom.
Myth vs. evidence
What most people get wrong about this
A common misconception is that control is mainly about power or malice. While it can become harmful, research suggests it is often anxiety-driven — a frightened attempt to feel safe rather than a calculated bid to dominate. Understanding the fear underneath does not excuse harmful behavior, but it explains why simply telling someone to 'stop' rarely works.
It is also often stereotyped as a male trait. The evidence does not support that framing: controlling behavior appears across genders, though its expression can differ — it may look like jealousy and monitoring in some, or like managing, criticizing, or guilt in others. Casting it as belonging to one sex obscures how broadly it occurs.
Why it matters
What this means for relationships
Because control is usually rooted in insecurity, the more durable fix tends to be building trust and security rather than negotiating the controlling behaviors one by one. Murray's risk-regulation research suggests that feeling genuinely valued lowers the perceived risk that drives the grip — so consistent, reliable signals of commitment can do more than rules ever will.
For the controlling partner, the growth edge is learning to tolerate uncertainty and a partner's separateness — the core of healthy differentiation. Trust is, by definition, accepting that you cannot guarantee the outcome. Where control has tipped into coercion, intimidation, or fear, that is a serious boundary matter, and support from a professional is warranted.
Where it varies
The nuance
There is a meaningful line between control and healthy influence. Gottman's research on accepting influence shows that partners in strong relationships shape each other's decisions through respect and negotiation — that is collaboration, not control. The problem is not having needs or preferences; it is overriding the other person's autonomy to soothe one's own anxiety.
And these are patterns, not gendered types. Hyde's (2005) gender similarities hypothesis is a useful reminder that men and women overlap heavily here; attachment style, history, and self-worth predict controlling tendencies far better than gender does. Most people show a little of this under stress — the concern is chronic, freedom-shrinking control.
Questions people ask about this
Why do some people try to control their partners?
Research suggests it is often an attempt to manage anxiety rather than a bid for power. Attachment insecurity, fear of being left, and shaky self-worth can make uncertainty feel intolerable, so controlling a partner's choices becomes a way to feel safe — even though it tends to undermine trust.
Is controlling behavior more common in men or women?
It appears across genders. What tends to differ is expression — it may look like jealousy and monitoring in some people, or like managing decisions, criticism, or guilt in others. Framing control as belonging to one sex obscures how broadly it occurs and how varied its forms are.
What's the difference between control and healthy influence?
Healthy influence means shaping decisions together through respect and negotiation, with each person's autonomy intact. Control overrides the other person's freedom to soothe one's own anxiety. Gottman's research suggests accepting a partner's influence strengthens relationships, while controlling them tends to erode trust over time.
Can a controlling person change?
Often, yes, where the behavior is anxiety-driven and the person is willing to look at it. Building security, learning to tolerate uncertainty, and respecting a partner's separateness all tend to help, sometimes with a therapist's support. Change is harder, though, where control has hardened into a fixed pattern.
Why does being controlled push people away?
Control tends to leave a partner feeling distrusted and confined, which strains closeness rather than securing it. Ironically, the behavior meant to prevent loss often makes the relationship less satisfying for both people. Trust, by contrast, tends to invite the very loyalty that control tries and fails to force.
When does control become a serious problem?
Some structure and shared decision-making are normal. Control becomes serious when it consistently shrinks a partner's freedom, isolates them, or relies on intimidation, coercion, or fear. That shifts from an anxiety pattern into harm, and reaching out to a professional or support service is a reasonable and important step.
Research sources
These references point to the published research and established frameworks behind this page. They are provided for further reading; see our research methodology for how sources are selected.
- Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. Guilford Press.
- Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 641–666.
- Skowron, E. A., & Friedlander, M. L. (1998). The Differentiation of Self Inventory: Development and initial validation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45(3), 235–246.
- Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592.