Sarah and Mike came to therapy after three years of marriage, stuck in a pattern that felt increasingly toxic to both of them. The presenting issue seemed straightforward: Sarah felt like she was competing with Mike's parents for his loyalty and attention. When they needed to make decisions about holidays, major purchases, or even weekend plans, Mike's first instinct was always to check with his parents. When Sarah tried to discuss her feelings about this, Mike would become defensive, insisting that family was important and that Sarah was being unreasonable.
What looked like a simple boundary issue on the surface revealed something much deeper as I worked with them. Mike wasn't choosing his parents over Sarah out of spite or immaturity. He was genuinely unable to conceive of making major life decisions without parental input because, developmentally, he had never fully separated his identity from his family system. Sarah wasn't being possessive or controlling - she was responding to the real absence of primary loyalty that healthy marriages require.
In my clinical practice, I've noticed this pattern appears in many couples who seek therapy. The key insight I've gained is that these loyalty struggles stem from incomplete developmental work that leaves one partner structurally attached to their original foundation while trying to build a new one with their spouse. To understand what's really happening, I want to share insights from two developmental psychologists whose work explains this pattern perfectly.
The Developmental Foundation of Loyalty
While their names might not be familiar, psychologists Erik Erikson and Robert Kegan's insights about how we grow and change will probably feel very recognizable. Both discovered that becoming a mature adult capable of intimate partnership requires navigating specific developmental challenges. When those challenges remain incomplete, their incompleteness creates the exact loyalty struggles I see in my practice.
Erik Erikson: The Stages We Must Navigate
Erik Erikson mapped the psychological challenges people face and must master as they negotiate different life stages. Think of these stages as comprised of developmental tasks that need to be completed before you can go on to the next stage. For instance, you must learn to walk before you can run. Two of Erikson's stages are particularly relevant to marriage loyalty struggles.
Stage 5: Identity vs. Role Confusion (Adolescence/Early Adulthood)
Erikson's Stage 5, "Identity vs. Role Confusion," is where people work to develop a sense of independent and unique identity separate from simply being someone's child, a student, or whatever roles others define and expect. I meet adults who have never fully completed this stage with some regularity. They might be 35 years old but still feel like they need parental approval for major life decisions. They still define themselves primarily through family roles and expectations rather than through their own chosen values and commitments. The thought of acting without consultation of those important family others fills these people with anxiety.
Mike struggled significantly when I asked him to describe himself without referencing his relationships or roles. His sense of identity was so intertwined with being "a good son" and meeting family expectations that he couldn't access what he wanted independent of those family relationships, at least not without experiencing guilt, anxiety and a strong sense he was being "selfish."
Stage 6: Intimacy vs. Isolation (Young Adulthood)
Erikson's Stage 6, "Intimacy vs. Isolation," has to do with learning to be genuinely close to someone without losing your independent sense of self. Erikson discovered that you can't truly share yourself with someone else until you independently know who you are. In my practice, I sometimes see how skipping this independent identity developmental work can cause intimate partnerships to feel threatening, in large part because such partnerships are perceived as creating impossible-to-resolve loyalty competitions.
When someone like Mike remains strongly embedded in his family-of-origin identity, he literally cannot understand why someone like Sarah would feel so negatively about his family consultation habits. He cannot take Sarah's perspective because his identity structure is insufficiently individuated from his family-of-origin. For him to truly see her viewpoint would feel deeply disloyal to his family, and he naturally avoids that disloyal feeling. From Mike's perspective, Sarah is being selfish, and it is wrong to be selfish. This perspective-based understanding explains why partners often retreat to family loyalty when spouses express needs. It's not a conscious rejection of the spouse's point of view, but rather a developmental inability to hold multiple relationship perspectives at once without experiencing threatening disloyalty feelings.
Robert Kegan: How We Understand Ourselves
Psychologist Robert Kegan studied how our sense of identity develops throughout our entire lifespan, from early childhood through adulthood. His key insight: at each stage of development, people are psychologically and emotionally "embedded" in something - our sensations as babies, our impulses as toddlers, our relationships as teens and young adults, and later our values and ideologies - and this condition of being embedded in that something prevents them from being able to take perspective on that thing they are embedded in.
As Kegan sees it, the task people face at each stage of their development is always the same. They must learn to step outside what they're embedded in so that they can gain perspective on it. For instance, a toddler must learn to step outside their immediate impulses to gain control over them, a teenager must step outside their peer group's opinions to develop their own values, and a young adult must step outside their family relationships to make conscious choices about loyalty and commitment. For marriage loyalty struggles, the crucial transition happens around how we relate to relationships themselves.
Stage 3: Embedded in Relationships (The Socialized Mind)
Kegan's Stage 3, known as the Socialized Mind, concerns how people's sense of identity becomes embedded in and completely defined by their relationships. Their sense of who they are is completely defined by these relationship roles and what others think of them. In Kegan's view, at this stage of development, people are so embedded in their relationships that they can't see them from the outside. It's like being inside a house - you can't see what the house looks like from the outside; you can only experience being in the rooms.
Mike exemplifies this Socialized Mind stage perfectly. He might say "I can't disappoint my mother" and experience this not as a choice he makes, but rather as a profound sense of internal danger. As a Socialized Mind embedded in relationships, disappointing his mother would literally damage Mike's sense of self. Because Mike can't mentally step outside his relationship with his mother without being punished internally by powerful emotional feelings that cause him to want to back away from doing that, he can't gain insight into how his relationship with his mother works, or evaluate whether or not it is healthy for him to remain in this posture towards her. Mike experiences his parents' expectations as part of his identity, not as external pressures he could evaluate and choose whether to follow. He can't easily make conscious and deliberate choices about how to solve his divided loyalty situation.
Stage 4: Stepping Outside Relationships (The Self-Authoring Mind)
The next developmental transition, Kegan's Stage 4 called the Self-Authoring Mind, represents a fundamental shift in how people relate to their relationships. For the first time, they can "have" relationships without more accurately being simply defined and embedded in them.
In Kegan's Stage 4, The Self-Authoring Mind, people develop the capacity to step outside their relationships mentally and observe them from the outside. If Mike could learn to do this, it would start with him listening carefully to how Sarah views his relationship with his mother, damping down his defensive response and simply taking it in, then turning it over in his mind and allowing it to influence how he views his mother.
By taking external or "objective" perspective on what was previously only experienced subjectively, Mike could learn to see the patterns that Sarah sees and better understand the dynamics at play, both within his family of origin relationships and between himself and Sarah. Armed with this expanded perspective he might better perceive the risks involved in him continuing to always reflexively offer his primary loyalty to his family of origin, and from that greater appreciation of the risks involved, come to make conscious and deliberate choices about how he would like to interact. This is to say, Mike could become the author of his own pattern of relating with his family of origin and Sarah, rather than simply being defined by where he came from.
This is the difference between "I am my mother's son (and must do as she asks)" versus "I am a person who has a relationship with my mother, and I can choose how to be in that relationship."
Why This Matters for Loyalty
When someone is embedded in their family relationships, they literally cannot step outside and evaluate "Is this loyalty pattern serving my marriage?" Kegan shows us that asking such questions and gaining such insight into one's relationship patterns is only possible from the more objective Self-Authoring Self stance.
The critical development - moving from being embedded in relationships to being able to step outside them and then critically evaluate them - is what allows someone to consciously choose their primary loyalty. It's not about loving family less; it's about developing the capacity to see relationship patterns and make intentional choices about them.
Attachment Theory: The Familiar Framework
You've probably heard of attachment theory - it explains why some relationships feel safe while others feel risky. When we develop secure attachment with our spouse, they become our primary safe base for emotional regulation and support. However, when marital attachment remains insecure, family-of-origin relationships often continue to feel like the safer emotional harbor than the marriage itself.
Mike and Sarah loved each other deeply, but they hadn't developed secure attachment. Attachment isn't about love - it's about safety and trust, about confidence that your partner will consistently meet your emotional needs. Sarah couldn't trust that Mike would prioritize her needs when they conflicted with his family's expectations. Mike couldn't trust that Sarah would accept his family connections without making him choose sides.
I notice that when marital attachment doesn't feel secure, partners naturally drift back to earlier attachment figures. This isn't conscious choice - it's emotional survival seeking the most reliable source of safety and regulation. For Mike, his parents felt like a safer emotional harbor than navigating Sarah's disappointment and anger.
Where All Three Frameworks Meet
Here's the key insight: Erikson, Kegan, and the attachment theorists are all describing the same developmental challenge from different angles:
Erikson: Identity must come before intimacy
Kegan: You must be able to step outside relationships to make conscious loyalty choices
Attachment: Your spouse must become your primary secure attachment base
All three point to the same truth: healthy marriage requires a fundamental shift in how we organize our loyalties.
This connects perfectly to the metaphors I've used in previous posts. Like trying to build a new foundation while still structurally attached to the old one, partners who haven't completed developmental work find themselves unable to participate fully in the synchronized movement that strong marriages require.
When Development Gets Stuck
When this developmental work remains incomplete, it creates the exact vicious circles I've written about before. The more Sarah competed for Mike's loyalty, the more threatening intimacy felt to him, causing him to retreat further toward family safety. The more he retreated, the more she pursued, amplifying the very dynamic that pushed him away.
In my experience, this creates a particular kind of pain for both partners. The spouse in Sarah's position feels like they're perpetually auditioning for the role of "most important person" in their partner's life - a role that should have been automatically transferred at marriage. The partner in Mike's position feels caught between competing loyalties, unable to fully understand why prioritizing their spouse feels so threatening to their sense of self.
Often, the developmentally embedded partner tries to resolve this conflict by incorporating their spouse into their family-of-origin system rather than transferring primary loyalty to the marriage. I've observed this pattern particularly clearly in cultures that emphasize family hierarchy, where the in-law spouse may be expected to function primarily as an extension of the other partner's family-of-origin system rather than as an equal partner in a new independent marital unit. This "solution" maintains the embedded partner's family primacy while attempting to eliminate the loyalty competition - but it prevents the formation of an independent marital unit, and because of that contributes to resentment and hurt feelings which substantially weaken the marriage, sometimes to the point of divorce.
Common presentations of this unhappy relationship pattern I see in therapy include:
Decision-making that consistently excludes one's spouse or prioritizes family input
Emotional confiding that happens primarily with family rather than one's spouse
Conflict resolution that involves family members rather than working through issues as a couple with one's spouse
Holiday and tradition planning that defaults to family-of-origin preferences
Financial decisions that require family approval or input
The Path Forward: Development, Not Pathology
One of the most important things I try to help couples understand is that these problems are not arising from malice or any impulse to be cruel or withhold. Instead, they arise from one or both partner's incomplete self-development that interferes with their formation of healthy marriage attachment. These loyalty struggles represent incomplete developmental tasks, not character flaws or relationship failures.
Like the house-lifting metaphor I've used before, both partners ultimately need to move together in creating positive relationship change. However, it is sometimes the case that one partner needs to complete foundational developmental work first. This might involve:
Individual developmental work: Learning to step outside embedded family relationships and develop a self-authored identity. This often requires therapy for the embedded partner specifically focused on differentiation and identity development.
Couple work on secure attachment: Creating the safe and secure base within the marriage that allows it to become the primary emotional base for both partners. This work involves the mutual care and synchronized movement I've written about before.
Family-of-origin work: Renegotiating family relationships from a more mature, boundaried position. This doesn't mean cutting off family-of-origin! It means reordering loyalties and boundaries in service of the marriage while maintaining healthy family connections.
For Mike and Sarah, progress looked like this: Mike gradually recognized when he was operating from embedded family loyalty versus conscious choice. Sarah learned to provide the security and patience that allowed Mike to risk disappointing his parents occasionally. Together, they created new rituals for decision-making that honored both their individual autonomy and their primary commitment to each other.
Making This Real in Your Relationship
These developmental insights become practical through honest self-reflection which the following questions can help you develop:
When making important decisions, whose opinion carries the most weight with you? Is this conscious choice or embedded habit?
If your spouse and family disagreed about something important, how would you navigate that? Do you have a framework for making such decisions, or does it create anxiety and avoidance?
What would need to feel different in your marriage for your spouse to become your primary confidant and decision-making partner?
Can you step outside your family relationships and observe their patterns, or do you experience family expectations as simply "the way things are"?
These questions aren't meant to create judgment but awareness. If you recognize patterns of embedded family loyalty, remember that this represents normal developmental work that many adults need to complete. The goal isn't to eliminate family-of-origin loyalty but instead to develop your capacity to consciously balance competing loyalties, allowing your spouse to become primary while continuing to maintain and enjoy family-of-origin connections.
Clinical Hope and Direction
This developmental work is possible at any stage of marriage. Like the couple in "The Gift of the Magi" that I've referenced before, both partners may need to sacrifice something precious to build something stronger together. But while the couple in O. Henry's story sacrificed material possessions, couples navigating loyalty struggles must sacrifice something immaterial - family-of-origin primacy - to build secure attachment. What makes this safe is the same principle: synchronized movement where both partners make this loyalty shift together, creating the virtuous circle that allows primary attachment to transfer safely to the marriage.
In my practice, I've seen couples navigate this transition and emerge with both stronger marriages and healthier, more functional family-of-origin relationships. When primary loyalty shifts appropriately to the marriage, it often allows for more genuine, less conflicted relationships with extended family because the emotional burden on those relationships decreases.
The frameworks from Erikson, Kegan, and attachment theory help us understand why these struggles are so common; because they make perfect developmental sense. They're normal challenges that arise when adult partnerships form before each partner has completed all their necessary individual development.
Understanding this can transform how couples approach these struggles - from blame and frustration to curiosity and compassion for the developmental work that still needs to happen.
In my next post, I'll explore specific strategies for couples navigating this loyalty transition, including how to have conversations about family involvement without creating defensiveness or ultimatums, and practical steps for building the security that allows primary loyalty to shift safely.