Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Social SciencePsychology · 2 months ago

Object constancy question?

So object constancy is about seeing someone as the person who could do no wrong especially if you're in a relationship with them and the relationship was mostly positive. Then when you one day get into a big argument, you think of them as the worst person in the world with only negative qualities. You do not see all the grey areas, it's black and white thinking. 

So the above is what I've learnt about object constancy. Below is my own view on how to I guess think about people.

It's not that you should see only the good in people or the opposite of this which is to ignore all good and see only the bad in people (because you're scared that they will hurt or harm you), it's that you should see them realistically. You should also take into account the patterns in their behaviour. If they constantly mistreat you in some way and you know it's because they do not care and lack empathy, then you are allowed to see them as a 'bad person' or a narcissist overall as their behaviour has proven over time.  People who mistreat you some of the time would be kind of good or kind of bad and fall somewhere between the two extremes on the narcissistic spectrum. People who are mostly good to you are the good/ empathic people. But of course, there are also people who are fake and pretend to be good when they're not and this you find out over time. 

How close would my own way of categorizing people match with object constancy?

There are no answers yet.
Be the first to answer this question.