Therapy in Focus - Understanding Object Constancy
When Love Feels “Gone” After Someone Leaves: Understanding Object Constancy
What is object constancy (or emotional permanence)?
Object constancy, sometimes called emotional permanence, is the ability to hold onto the felt sense that someone loves us even when they are not physically present or immediately reassuring us. For many people, this comes naturally. For others, when a partner leaves the room, stops responding to texts, or pulls away after a conflict, love suddenly feels absent.
Clinically, this reflects how well we can maintain a stable mental image of another person and our relationship across time and emotion. Without it, love can feel fragile and uncertain, disappearing as soon as the other person does. Researchers describe this capacity as part of our internal working model of attachment, the mental blueprint for closeness we carry from childhood into adult relationships (Pietromonaco & Barrett, 2000).
Where does the struggle come from?
Early caregiving experiences
When caregivers are inconsistent, neglectful, or frightening, children learn that closeness may not last. Studies show that childhood maltreatment and low caregiver sensitivity are strongly linked to insecure attachment and difficulty regulating distress during separation (Papalia et al., 2023; Leerkes, 2011).
Adult attachment strategies
As adults, insecure attachment styles shape how we handle absence.
• People with attachment anxiety often protest, seek constant reassurance, or interpret silence as rejection. Anxiety is closely tied to heightened rejection sensitivity, where even small delays or changes feel like proof of abandonment (Set et al., 2019).
• People with attachment avoidance often withdraw, minimize needs, or shut down emotionally to protect themselves. While this can reduce immediate distress, it also limits a steady sense of connection (Simpson & Rholes, 2017).
How this plays out day to day
“If you are not here, I cannot feel that you love me.”
Urgent need for replies, with panic if they do not come.
Interpreting silence as rejection or anger.
After conflict, difficulty remembering the positive aspects of the relationship.
What can help: CBT and experiential strategies
Experiential approaches
Using security imagery: Recalling a vivid memory of feeling cared for can downshift threat responses. Research shows that “attachment priming” exercises improve emotional regulation and lower distress (Wang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2024).
Mentalizing: Pausing to ask, “What else could my partner be thinking or feeling besides rejecting me?” strengthens perspective-taking. Treatments that enhance mentalizing reduce relational volatility and improve stability (Bateman & Fonagy, 2013).
CBT approaches
Thought check: Catch the automatic thought (“They don’t love me because they did not reply”) and test it against evidence. Replace it with a more balanced thought (“Last time they were busy, and they still cared”).
Behavioral experiments: Plan short, agreed-upon “non-contact” intervals and compare your predicted fear with the actual outcome. Over time, you gather evidence that love does not disappear with absence.
Rejection sensitivity log: Write down each time you feel rejected, then note whether it was true. Explore couples counseling to really get this down. Most people discover that their fears far outnumber reality.
Body-based regulation
Pair these tools with calming the nervous system — paced breathing, grounding, or sensory shifts — so your body and mind learn safety together.
When therapy is helpful
If separations trigger panic, high conflict, or intense emotional swings, therapy can help. Mentalization-Based Treatment (MBT) and other attachment-informed therapies have strong evidence for improving attachment security and relational stability (Carlyle et al., 2020). Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) skills can also support emotional regulation in these moments.
A one-page plan you can start this week
Daily: Spend two minutes on security imagery. Call up a memory of being safe, seen, or loved and let yourself feel it fully.
Before texting or checking: Say the thought out loud, test it against evidence, and wait.
With your partner: Create a “signal and soothe” plan — a goodbye ritual, a predictable check-in time, and a clear reconnection plan after conflict.
After wobbles: Write down the trigger and ask, “What else could be true?”
Why this can change
Attachment patterns are not permanent. Internal working models can shift with new corrective experiences, especially when thoughts, emotions, and body states are engaged together. With consistent practice, it becomes easier to feel loved even when your loved one is not physically present.
Written by Ru Nataraj, LCSW, founder of Luma Via Mental Health. Ru helps clients heal attachment wounds, navigate relational stress, and reconnect with their inner steadiness through compassion-based, evidence-informed care. Learn more at lumaviamentalhealth.com.
References
Pietromonaco, P. R., & Barrett, L. F. (2000). Internal working models: What do we know about the self in relation to others? Review of General Psychology. Link
Papalia, N., et al. (2023). Childhood maltreatment and attachment insecurity. BJPsych Open. PMC
Leerkes, E. M. (2011). Maternal sensitivity and infant attachment security. Infant Behavior and Development. PMC
Set, Z., et al. (2019). Attachment anxiety and rejection sensitivity. Psychiatry Investigation. PMC
Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2017). Adult attachment, stress, and romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology. PMC
Wang, B., et al. (2022). Attachment security priming and emotional processing. Frontiers in Psychology. PMC
Li, X., et al. (2024). Secure attachment priming and self-other representations. BMC Psychology. PMC
Bateman, A., & Fonagy, P. (2013). Mentalization-Based Treatment overview. American Journal of Psychotherapy. PMC
Carlyle, D., et al. (2020). MBT versus case management in randomized controlled trial. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation. PMC
