Why We Fall for the Wrong People: Dating Mistakes Backed by Science

May 5, 2025 The Ink Post Desk 8 min read

Love is perhaps the most beautiful, exhilarating, and mysterious of all human experiences. Yet, for many of us, it often comes wrapped in confusion, heartbreak, and regret. Why do we keep choosing the wrong partners? Why does someone who seems perfect at first leave us feeling drained and disillusioned? These questions plague millions of daters, and science offers some fascinating – and often surprising – answers.

In this in-depth exploration, we delve into the psychological, neurological, and societal factors that lead people to fall for the wrong partners. Along the way, we’ll unpack dating mistakes backed by research, and illustrate trends through engaging graphs and charts that bring the science to life.

1. Childhood Conditioning: The Blueprint for Future Love

Attachment theory, first developed by John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth, suggests that our early experiences with caregivers create templates for adult romantic relationships. These attachment styles—secure, anxious, avoidant, and disorganized—profoundly influence whom we’re drawn to and how we relate to them.

Why It Matters: If a child grows up with emotionally unavailable parents, they may subconsciously seek partners who offer the same challenge, mistaking emotional distance for intrigue.

Distribution of Attachment Styles in Adults (Based on General Population)

Secure: 56%
Anxious: 19%
Avoidant: 25%

This chart illustrates how nearly half of adults have insecure attachment styles, predisposing them to toxic relationship dynamics.

2. Familiar Pain Feels Like Love

Our brains are wired to seek out what feels familiar, even if it’s painful. People often mistake the rush of anxiety or the challenge of unpredictability for passion. Neurologically, this is tied to dopamine surges and cortisol spikes, which can simulate the “thrill” of love.

Scientific Insight: A 2005 study from the University of Michigan found that when participants viewed photos of someone they were infatuated with, the brain’s reward centers lit up similarly to when someone takes cocaine.

Brain Areas Activated During Romantic Attraction vs. Drug Use

Ventral tegmental area (VTA)
Caudate nucleus
Nucleus accumbens

Both love and addiction activate similar brain regions, leading to intense emotional highs—and devastating lows.

3. The Chemistry Trap

Chemistry is often romanticized as the ultimate indicator of compatibility. However, this instant spark can sometimes stem from subconscious emotional patterns rather than genuine alignment.

Case Study: In several longitudinal studies, couples who reported immediate “sparks” were more likely to break up within 18 months than those who developed affection gradually.

Relationship Longevity vs. Initial Intensity of Romantic Feelings

Relationship Start	Avg Duration
Intense spark	14 months
Moderate start	4.2 years

4. Misattribution of Arousal

Coined by psychologists Dutton and Aron in the 1970s, the misattribution of arousal theory suggests that physical arousal (like fear or excitement) can be misinterpreted as romantic attraction.

Experiment Recap: Men who crossed a scary suspension bridge were more likely to call an attractive female experimenter afterward than men who crossed a stable bridge.

Implication: High-adrenaline dates or tumultuous early interactions may be misread as deeper connection.

Likelihood of Attraction Based on Environmental Stimuli

Calm environment: 30% attraction
High-arousal environment: 65% attraction
Read More: This Simple Trick Makes Anyone Fall for You in Under 10 Minutes

5. The Scarcity Principle

We’re wired to value what seems scarce. When someone is emotionally unavailable or inconsistent, it often makes them more appealing, not less.

Behavioral Economics Insight: Scarcity increases perceived value. This applies to dating—if someone plays hard to get, our brains often rate them as more desirable.

Desire Level vs. Perceived Availability of Partner

Fully available: 40%
Occasionally available: 75%
Mostly unavailable: 90%

6. Projection and Idealization

Early in relationships, especially when we’re craving connection, we often project our desires and ideals onto the other person. This cognitive bias blinds us to red flags.

Psychological Principle: Confirmation bias makes us notice only what confirms our initial belief. If we decide someone is perfect, we ignore contrary data.

Timeline of Idealization vs. Reality Check in a Relationship

Time Since Start	Idealization Level	Reality Awareness
1 month	90%	10%
6 months	50%	50%
1 year	20%	80%

7. Low Self-Esteem and Relationship Choices

People with low self-esteem often select partners who confirm their negative self-beliefs. If you don’t feel worthy of love, you might choose someone who doesn’t treat you with love.

Survey Data: A meta-analysis of 60 studies found a strong correlation between low self-esteem and tolerance for unhealthy relationship behaviors.

Self-Esteem Levels vs. Relationship Satisfaction

High self-esteem: 80% satisfaction
Moderate: 55%
Low: 20%

Movies, TV shows, and books glamorize toxic behavior—think the brooding, emotionally unavailable hero who changes for love. These narratives warp expectations and glorify dysfunction.

Media Psychology: Repeated exposure to media tropes can shift our real-life partner preferences.

Romantic Expectations vs. Media Consumption (Hours/Week)

0–5 hours: Balanced expectations
5–10 hours: Idealized expectations
10+ hours: Unrealistic expectations

9. Fear of Being Alone

For many, being in a bad relationship feels better than being alone. This fear often drives people to settle for less than they deserve.

Evolutionary Psychology Insight: From a survival perspective, humans are wired to form pair bonds. Loneliness activates pain centers in the brain, making solitude feel physically distressing.

Emotional Distress Scale – Alone vs. With Wrong Partner

Status	Distress Level
Alone	70
With wrong person	55
With right person	20

10. The “Fixer” Complex

Some individuals feel driven to “save” or “fix” their partners. This pattern often stems from childhood experiences or a need to feel worthy.

Therapeutic Insight: Rescuing behavior is linked to codependency and enmeshment, often mistaken for selfless love.

Percentage of People Who Stay in Toxic Relationships Due to Fixer Mentality

General population: 35%
Individuals with codependent traits: 70%

11. Narcissistic Partners and Empath Traps

Empaths and highly sensitive people often attract narcissistic personalities. This dynamic creates an emotional rollercoaster, where the empath keeps giving, hoping for change, while the narcissist takes.

Clinical Psychology Insight: This is known as the narcissist-empath trap, where trauma bonding keeps the empath stuck despite emotional harm.

Cycle of Idealization, Devaluation, and Discard in Narcissistic Abuse

Idealization: 100%
Devaluation: 30–70%
Discard: abrupt drop to 0%

Learning to Choose Better

Falling for the wrong person isn’t a sign of weakness or failure—it’s often a result of deep, subconscious patterns. The key to breaking these cycles lies in awareness, healing, and a willingness to examine our own behaviors.

By understanding the science of attraction and relationship dynamics, we can learn to make healthier, more conscious choices in love. With each mistake, we gather valuable insights, getting one step closer to the kind of love that lifts rather than drains us.

And perhaps most importantly, we learn that the right person isn’t always the one who sets off fireworks—but the one who makes us feel safe, seen, and deeply understood.

Why We Fall for the Wrong People: Dating Mistakes Backed by Science