Typecasting others and self as villain or victim can hurt relationships

SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY JWR UPDATE. IT'S FREE. Just click here.

My partner of three years and I have fallen into an exhausting pattern of arguments. She regularly tells me that I do a terrible job of making her feel loved, so I feel like I constantly walk on eggshells in all of our interactions. But when I explain that I feel anxious around her due to the constant criticism, she erupts and tells me that I always make myself out to be the victim even as I'm hurting her. How do we break out of this "villain-victim" loop when we both genuinely believe we are the partner who has been wronged?

This question from a patient may strike a chord with those who have felt wounded in relationship (which, of course, is all of us). When we feel hurt by others, our brains don't simply process the pain - they become casting directors, auditioning people for the two starring roles: the blameless victim and the heartless villain. Social scientists call this "moral typecasting."

Most people will be familiar with the idea of typecasting in the entertainment industry. If you were to see actor Daniel Radcliffe on the street, your brain would shout, "Harry Potter!" As Kurt Gray, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the author of "Outraged," explained it to me: "Morality is the same way, except instead of wizards, we see someone as either just a villain or just a victim."

Gray's research reveals something else about this mental typecasting shorthand. When we cast someone as the villain, we don't just label them as "bad" - we also subconsciously view them as unable to experience suffering. Meanwhile, we see victims as unable to cause harm but also existing largely as passive actors incapable of altering outcomes. Thus, villains are the bad actors while victims are pure but powerless.

Rarely do we assign ourselves the villain role. When we're hurting in our relationships, we tend to reflexively assign ourselves the role of innocent protagonist. And we almost instinctively place the other person in the role of the antagonist responsible for all of our pain.

In this understanding, we can easily disregard and self-justify any harm we caused - even if unintentionally. In parallel, we might discount any suffering the other individual may be experiencing.

This mental casting offers the comfort of simplicity. Complex relationship dynamics get distilled into a straightforward narrative that absolves us of responsibility. But this simplicity comes at a steep price: When we can't acknowledge the other person's pain or our contribution to the problem, meaningful conversation becomes nearly impossible.

But in virtually all relationship dynamics, each person has the capacity to suffer, and each person makes contributions, even if not in equal measure.

We can't completely override our brain's tendency to engage in this typecasting reflex, and we wouldn't want to - our ability to identify potential harm helps to keep us safe. But we can become more discerning critics of our own mental productions. Here are some practical strategies to use when you are falling into simplistic villain-victim character assignments:

• Recognize the reflex to typecast

Practice noticing when you feel hurt or threatened. This awareness alone can help you pause before getting too comfortable with one-dimensional casting decisions.

• Think like an observer

Consider how a neutral observer who appreciates both characters' complexities might interpret the scene. According to a 2013 study, this kind of thought experiment can help you detach from an overly simplified narrative, perhaps helping you connect to the idea that "villains" often act from their own fear of harm and that you, as the self-cast "victim," may sometimes inflict pain unintentionally or justifiably.

• Understand the dynamics

Apply a framework that the authors of "Difficult Conversations" call "the joint contributory system," which acknowledges that any interpersonal dynamic involves contributions from each person. No compelling relationship story is driven by just one character's actions - dynamics are almost always co-created. Understanding those dynamics better empowers us to choose more wisely what to do next.

• Make it a shared project

If the other person is willing, commit to a shared project to add depth and perspective, recognizing that all people are complex. Create a space of radical curiosity where both can learn about the other's mixed motivations, vulnerabilities, strengths and humanity.

When we are willing to see beyond simplified roles, we are better able to enrich our relationships. And when we can acknowledge our capacity to hurt and be hurt, act and be acted upon, we can help transform our relationships from a predictable B movie into something far more nuanced and compelling.

(COMMENT, BELOW)

Yael Schonbrun is a practicing clinical psychologist, assistant professor at Brown University and author of the forthcoming book "Work, Parent, Thrive."

Previously:
• Why couples have problems communicating with each other
• How to make tough choices in relationships
• Therapist or coach: Understanding the difference and how to pick one