In the vast landscape of psychological concepts, few have been as debated and contested as codependency. This term, often thrown around in therapeutic settings, self-help books, and casual conversations, has been met with both acceptance and skepticism. Many therapists, psychiatrists, and academics remain unconvinced of its validity, relegating it to the realm of pop psychology. However, dismissing codependency without delving deeper into its complexities and the evidence supporting its existence does a disservice to countless individuals who grapple with its effects daily.

Firstly, it’s essential to articulate what codependency entails. At its most basic level, codependency describes a relationship dynamic where one party becomes excessively reliant on another to fulfill their emotional and psychological needs, often at the cost of their own well-being. This relationship is not just confined to romantic partnerships; it can manifest between parents and children, siblings, and even work or close friends. The codependent individual often suppresses their desires and needs, allowing the other person’s problems, be they addiction, mental health issues, or any form of dysfunction, to take center stage in the relationship.

The roots of skepticism towards codependency can be traced back to its origins. The term first emerged in the context of Alcoholics Anonymous and was used to describe the spouses of alcoholics who enabled their partner’s addiction. This context was not rooted in academic research but arose from observed patterns in relationships affected by addiction. As the 1980s progressed, the term gained mainstream attention, with numerous self-help books addressing it and broadening its definition. For many in the academic and therapeutic communities, this rapid popularization without rigorous scientific backing was a red flag.

However, the genesis of a concept does not determine its validity. Many psychological phenomena, from the Freudian slip to the bystander effect, began as observations, only to be later supported by empirical evidence. Codependency, with its roots in real-world observations, should not be dismissed solely because it did not emerge from a laboratory or academic journal or is vaulted in the DSM bible.

In fact, over the years, empirical evidence supporting the existence of codependency has grown. Numerous studies have delved into the relationship dynamics present in families or partnerships where one individual has a substance use disorder. These studies consistently highlight behaviors in the non-addicted partner that align with codependency, such as enabling, sacrificing personal needs, and a diminished sense of self-worth. Furthermore, these behaviors are not isolated to relationships affected by addiction. They can be observed in various relationships where one party exhibits excessive dependency, and the other enables it. This is above and beyond the narcissist-codependent interaction often written about.

Another critique against codependency is the potential for overdiagnosis. The surge in self-help literature in the late 20th century led to a proliferation of individuals self-diagnosing as codependent, often conflating normal relationship challenges with codependency. It is valid to be wary of overdiagnosis; however, the solution isn’t to negate the existence of a condition but to refine its parameters. Every psychological concept, from ADHD to generalized anxiety disorder toi BPD, faces challenges of overdiagnosis. The key lies in establishing clear diagnostic criteria and differentiating between genuine cases and normal behavioral variations.

Furthermore, therapeutic interventions tailored for individuals exhibiting codependent behaviors have consistently shown positive results. These therapies, which focus on building self-esteem, setting boundaries, and fostering healthier relationship dynamics, have transformed lives. The success of these interventions points towards the reality of codependency. If it were merely a pop psychology fad, it’s unlikely that specialized therapeutic approaches would yield such tangible benefits.

Personal narratives also offer a compelling case for the existence of codependency. Thousands of individuals across the globe identify with the feelings and behaviors encapsulated by the term. They recount experiences of feeling trapped in relationships, consistently sidelining their needs for the sake of another, and grappling with a diminished sense of self. The relief and empowerment they experience upon recognizing and addressing their codependent tendencies are palpable. These stories, rich in emotion and nuance, provide insights that transcend academic debates and resonate on a deeply human level.

In the broader picture, the debate around codependency underscores the evolving nature of psychology as a field. As our understanding of the human mind and behavior expands, new concepts will emerge, and old ones will be refined. It’s essential to approach these developments with a balance of skepticism and open-mindedness. While it’s crucial to ensure that concepts have a solid empirical foundation, it’s equally important to acknowledge the lived experiences of individuals.

Codependency, despite its contested status, remains a critical concept in understanding certain relationship dynamics. While skepticism is a natural and necessary part of the scientific discourse, it’s essential to differentiate between constructive criticism and outright dismissal. The evidence, both empirical and anecdotal, paints a clear picture: codependency is real, impactful, and warrants attention. As the field of psychology continues to grow and evolve, it’s crucial to give due consideration to concepts like codependency, ensuring that individuals affected by them receive the understanding and support they deserve.

Empirical research on codependency has been conducted over the years, providing evidence for its existence as a psychological concept. Here are some examples of research studies that have explored the construct of codependency:

  1. Marks, A. D., Blore, R. L., Hine, D. W., & Dear, G. E. (2011): This study titled “Development and Validation of a Revised Measure of Codependency” aimed to develop and validate an updated codependency measure. Through their research, they found that certain facets of codependency, like external referencing and self-sacrifice, could be reliably measured, providing empirical support for the construct.
  2. Fuller, J. A., & Warner, R. M. (2000): In their study, “Family Stressors as Predictors of Codependency,” they investigated the relationship between family stressors and codependency in college students. The results provided evidence for the connection between codependent behaviors and dysfunctional family environments.
  3. Reyome, N. D., & Ward, K. S. (2007): This research titled “Self-reported History of Childhood Maltreatment and Codependency in Undergraduate Nursing Students” examined the correlation between childhood maltreatment and later development of codependent behaviors. The findings suggested that individuals with a history of childhood maltreatment were more likely to exhibit codependent behaviors in adulthood.
  4. Hughes-Hammer, C., Martsolf, D. S., & Zeller, R. A. (1998): Their study, “Depression and Codependency in Women,” sought to understand the relationship between codependency and depression in women. The research found that certain aspects of codependency, particularly those related to external referencing and self-worth, were significantly related to depressive symptoms.
  5. Knudson, T. M., & Terrell, H. K. (2012): In “Codependency, Perceived Interparental Conflict, and Substance Abuse in the Family of Origin,” the researchers found that individuals who reported higher levels of perceived interparental conflict during childhood were more likely to report codependent behaviors. This provides evidence for the environmental factors contributing to the development of codependency.
  6. O’Brien, P. E., & Gaborit, M. (1992): Their research, “Codependency: A Disorder Separate from Chemical Dependency,” aimed to distinguish codependency from chemical dependency. The study found that codependency had its own set of characteristics and could be identified separately from chemical dependency, providing support for its existence as a distinct construct.
  7. Wells, M., Glickauf-Hughes, C., & Jones, R. (1999): In the study titled “Codependency: A Grassroots Construct’s Relationship to Shame-Proneness, Low Self-Esteem, and Childhood Parentification,” the researchers found significant relationships between codependency and shame-proneness, low self-esteem, and childhood parentification. This provided empirical evidence for some of the psychological underpinnings of codependency.

These studies, among others, have provided empirical evidence supporting the construct of codependency. While the concept is still debated in some circles, there’s no denying the growing body of research that validates its existence and its impact on individuals’ psychological well-being.

Subscribe to Dr Jenner's Blog via Email

Dr Jenner creates a wealth of resources, articles and podcasts. Please subscribe to be notified.