Object Constancy

Object Permanence

In the early 20th Century, a developmental psychologist called Jean Piaget, studied something called “Object Permanence”. The idea is that having Object Permanence means an object ‘exists’ to us even when we can’t sense that object. For example, if a toy is held in front of a child who has Object Permanence, then is removed from sight, the child still considers the toy to exist. Piaget argued that when the toy is taken away, to a child without Object Permanence it is as if the toy no longer exists.

Piaget argued that Object Permanence is developed between about 2 to 3 years of age, however, there has never been any scientific consensus on when Object Permanence is developed, other psychologists have observed what they consider to be Object Permanence in children as young as 3 months old. Piaget thought that development happens in stages, but it may be that there is a very wide, diverse range of development, with some children developing Object Permanence much earlier than others. Given that small children and babies have relatively rudimentary language, reaching any conclusion on when a child develops Object Permanence, is likely to be exceptionally difficult, or even impossible to know.

For me, I find the concept of Object Permanence is useful language for understanding another psychological concept called Object Constancy.

Please take care in reading on

I think at this point it would be a good idea to give a content warning of sorts. I originally intended to write a shorter piece about Object Constancy, but I have surprised myself at just how difficult the language around this subject can be to read. What I’ve written could, to some people, feel very close-to-the-bone. For me, as someone who struggles with her Object Constancy, as a result of trauma, this is a very important piece of writing which has fundamental implications for who I am. It goes right back to my early childhood experiences, but it also has more direct implications for my recent relationships, new relationships, and also future relationships. I don’t think I’m explicitly graphic with my writing here but I recognise it has the potential to unlock some difficult feelings for anyone reading on. I think perhaps the thing to do, if you choose to read on, is give yourself space, treat yourself with compassion (and I know this can be difficult for those of us affected by the subject), and perhaps make sure you have someone you feel safe with to talk to, or just be with. I think also perhaps give yourself a time and space to read this in, and think about nice, simple things you can do for yourself for grounding. Maybe I’m over egging this a bit but I’d rather do that than be laissez faire about the subject and people suddenly find themselves overwhelmed by the subject.

What is Object Constancy?

Object Constancy is about how we bond with another person (the ‘object’). It’s about how we ‘hold’ our emotions, feelings and thoughts about our relationships with another person, even when they are not with us.

Normally, as adults at least, most people (probably) tend to have what is considered to be healthy Object Constancy. When a person is not with another person, they are able to feel safe that the relationship exists as if that person is with them. They are able to keep the whole person and relationship in mind.

This Object Constancy may be the mechanism by which we become able to healthily cope with the absence of a caregiver, the earliest example of this tends to be our relationship with a parent. An example of this could be that we feel safe when we’re with the parent, our needs may be met, and when the parent is not around, we still feel safe. It may be simply down to the idea that it’s okay, the parent still exists, they will come back.

Perhaps it normally takes some time to get used to the idea that a parent is still there for us, even when we can’t see or hear them. When the parent is with us, we are fed, kept warm, receive affection, we begin to feel ‘seen’, to feel valid, and perhaps out of this, we form the basis of what we know as an independent ‘self’. This feeling of safety then persists when the parent is not with us.

There is also a concept in developmental psychology, that for the first few months of our lives we don’t necessarily understand there is a difference between who we are and the parent, particularly the person who we were physically part of and dependent on for around 9 months.

These first, early relationships are absolutely crucial for us, and affect who we become, and how we feel for the rest of our lives.

Poor Object Constancy

When a person has what could be considered to be poor Object Constancy, it usually means that person ‘forgets’ about how the relationship really is. Perhaps in some cases it could result in a more complete invalidation of the relationship, as if it doesn’t exist in those ‘in between’ spaces where there is no interaction.

In more extreme cases (including with myself sometimes), poor Object Constancy can result in the person with the poor Object Constancy, feeling like they don’t exist. I think it may be that a person can feel so dependent on feeling valid through actual interactions, that when those interactions don’t happen, they feel so forgotten about (when they aren’t), that it’s like not being part of reality at all.

What I’m going to focus more on here though, are the cases where rather than the relationship being out-of-mind, the relationship becomes ‘corrupted’ in the mind of the person with poor Object Constancy.

It may be that a person with poor Object Constancy, views a person (or the relationship) ‘in parts’ rather than as a whole. This is sometimes called ‘splitting’. From there, the person may focus too much on parts that in some way feel ‘wrong’, or it could be that viewing one ‘part’ of a person, without looking at the bigger picture, makes that ‘part’ in isolation, seem out-of-place. I think there may be a crossover here with neuro divergence. For example, some Autistic people (such as myself) have a tendency to see lots of detail but may miss the bigger picture. There may also be a crossover with Body Dysmorphia (also me), where a person with Body Dysmorphia may tend to look at themselves and focus on physical parts rather than how they look as a whole.

Perhaps Object Constancy is not only concerned with relationships between two people, but also the relationship that a person has with themself. Though I think I may write about this more elsewhere, so for now, I’m going to write about relationships between people.

Good healthy interactions may happen between two people, but then when those people part company temporarily, after a while the person with poor Object Constancy can start to recreate what the relationship is, based on what it isn’t (or only fragments of the relationship), in their head. The person with poor Object Constancy may ‘filter’ the relationship through their own fears (often a trauma response not even relating to that specific relationship).

Poor Object Constancy is frequently talked about in relation to people with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). Though it’s important to note that having BPD does not necessarily mean also having poor Object Constancy, or that having poor Object Constancy means a person has BPD. BPD is a collection of traits, and crucially those traits need to be considered to be Problematic, Persistent, and Pervasive (and over the past 5 years). I can think of a couple of specific BPD traits that are probably more directly relevant to Object Constancy, the main one being fear of rejection (or fear of being abandoned).

Whether a person has BPD or not, intense fear of rejection is likely to be a very important factor in how that person views a relationship with another, particularly when combined with other traits around identity and validity as a person.

If a person has such intense fear of rejection, and perhaps may rely more on receiving positive attention, particularly in person, and particularly with someone they feel perhaps more intimately attached to, then they may struggle more with Object Constancy.

Part of the issue here, may be about how that person feels when they are alone. Being alone doesn’t inherently equate to feeling lonely. Lots of people can be alone, and ‘hold’ themselves as valid.

Loneliness can encapsulate a range of feelings and emotions, but perhaps importantly here, loneliness may be largely about feeling ‘unseen’ or ‘unheard’. A person may be part of a large group, they may have a large group of friends, they may even be good at public speaking, but they may still feel like they don’t ‘fit in’, they may still feel ‘unseen’ and ‘unheard’. A person can be lonely in a crowd.

With low self esteem, loneliness, and/or struggles with identity, perhaps if someone is an ‘overthinker’, someone who is hyper analytical of who they are, and without some form of feedback from the ‘real world’ (or from those they feel truly see and hear them), it can mean that person can spend a lot of time creating a version of reality, or indeed, a version of a relationship, based only on what’s happening in their head. With trauma, this can also mean creating a version of a relationship based on trauma responses.

There may be many good things that a person could otherwise be focusing on, that are real about the relationship, but those things can become more easily swamped, and completely forgotten about under all of the ‘clutter’.

Those great, validating connections can happen between two people, but after some time away from the connection (or perhaps if some disconnection subsequently happens), the person with poor Object Constancy, is likely to turn the relationship around in their head.

Some people with poor Object Constancy may start to believe that the reason they haven’t heard from the other person is because that other person has forgotten about them. In a way, it’s like a fear that the other person has poor Object Constancy. This I think has some merit because we may judge others based on how we are.

Some people with poor Object Constancy may start to believe the reason they haven’t heard from the other person is because that other person doesn’t really like them (or as much as may have been evident from real interactions). The person with poor Object Constancy may start to focus on something they said when they were with the other person, and wonder if perhaps they were in some way ‘wrong’.

Some people with poor Object Constancy, may start to feel so afraid that something is wrong with the relationship, that they may even do things which force a confrontation. It’s not that they truly want a confrontation, but it’s an unhealthy means of feeling like they are taking control of the situation. They may spend a lot of time feeling so unsure of what is really happening, that they in effect try to resolve this by doing or saying something that makes the situation explicitly unstable. Or, the person may suddenly pop up, for example, in a text message, and tell the other person that they are ‘wrong’.

All of this is probably combined with a lack of trust in the relationship, but specifically on the part of the person with poor Object Constancy. The other person may trust them completely, and they may be completely baffled to know there’s a problem.

From there, the relationship can get very intense indeed. The other person in the relationship can start to feel confused and overwhelmed. The person with poor Object Constancy, may be aware of this too, and they may even have a long held belief about themself that they are ‘too much’ and not worthy of the relationship, or any relationship. Of course, the other person in the relationship may start to show signs of being overwhelmed, and this can then act as ‘proof’ of being too much.

The person with poor Object Constancy may find themselves spending a lot of time, feeling very conflicted about what to do. They probably have very intense positive feelings about the other person, they will want to spend time with them, but they don’t really want to feel invalid in the relationship. At the same time, there’s a dilemma as to what to do.

One option is to try to ‘sit with’ the uncomfortable feelings, and wait for the other person to get in touch again (while both wanting them to get in touch, and fearing it). This may seem to work. They spend the ‘in between’ times fretting about the relationship, then the other person shows up, and everything seems great again. What a relief! Normally for me it’s turned out that the other person was simply busy with life, and probably not that much time has passed, but when a person is experiencing this turmoil, it can feel like time has slowed down.

Then it happens all over again. This, I can tell you from experience, is exhausting.

Alternatively, the struggling person might give it a few days, start fretting, then get in touch with the other person, and tell them how they are feeling. This may go alright, the other person may be genuinely understanding and glad they were told. The problem here is that it has a tendency to keep happening. It can be a lot for the other person to keep being presented with someone they care about, telling them they feel unstable.

Often it’s a cycle of all of the above, and one which is primarily experienced by the person struggling, no-one else can feel just how intense it all is, and this leads to an extra feeling of loneliness. It can be particularly difficult because often the other person in the relationship is the person who might most understand or care (or that the person who is struggling may want to hear from the most). So there can be this terrible conflict of feeling the need to express feelings but also feeling really scared of doing so.

What all of this can result in, is that the other person in the relationship may start to feel unseen and unheard. They may feel that so many of their interactions are based on the version of them that the person with poor Object Constancy has in their head, rather than the reality. Interactions can happen, but they are not necessarily two way connections.

Having two people with poor Object Constancy, in a close relationship, can be especially difficult. There are so many permutations of how things might play out. Both people can be struggling with Object Constancy, but the responses may be different. One person may ‘pull’ a lot, and seek to communicate, the other person may ‘push’, or both may swap between these two positions.

If the relationship is partly sexual, then something that can happen there, is that sex can become a means of keeping the relationship going but the sex can also act, at least subconsciously, as a means of avoiding real intimate connections where those in the relationship are likely to feel vulnerable, and potentially painful emotions are felt.

The thing is, these intimate moments are also the moments that perhaps are better experienced, the moments which are more authentic, in which people can build safety and trust in the relationship, which can lead to resolving the problems with Object Constancy.

For people with a fear of being rejected, and/or abandoned though, more intimate moments means more attachment and more attachment can mean the fear of rejection feels worse. It can feel like there is more to lose, and that any heartbreak may be more devastating.

Where things go wrong

As with so much in life, possibly most things about people, start right at the beginning. It’s in our earliest relationships, and those tend to be the relationships with parents.

Perhaps Object Constancy really is simply the means by which we gain some healthy detachment (or attachment). Babies communicate in a relatively simple way, for example, crying to be fed. The parent hears this and makes a decision as to whether or not to go and attend to their child. Some parents believe that it’s not healthy to always attend to a crying child, there’s a balance to be struck. Too much attention could lead to the child learning that they can always get attention, then to later struggle when that attention doesn’t happen. Too little attention and the child may end up feeling abandoned, including later in life.

Maybe it is in this balance of attention from parents, that Object Constancy is initially formed. If the balance is healthy, then the child may get their needs met, then be content and feel safe to be left alone for longer.

Possibly the bigger issue here is when perhaps external forces, environmental factors, or even a parent acting irresponsibly, or neglectful, disrupt the child getting the attention they need.

We start off life particularly vulnerable, and there is even the concept that human society has evolved as it is due to the relative helplessness and vulnerability of children. Traditionally people have formed much wider social structures with the ‘extended family’ forming bonds, and ‘safe spaces’ to care for children.

So with this in mind, if a parent cannot always attend to their child, there would be others, who the child feels safe with, who can. This may have wider benefits in life too, around trusting others.

Safe spaces are about people. A family is, or should be, a safe space.

In human history there have been, and still are many ways in which these safe spaces can be disrupted, which in turn tend to disrupt childrens’ feelings of safety.

I can mention the obvious things here, like war, famine, and so forth, and sadly these terrible threats exist in our times for so many people. I think most of us recognise the extremely serious effects of such disruption on children, even if we haven’t experienced those things ourselves.

Even without these larger, more serious and imminent threats to society, there can still be serious disruptions to our earliest relationships.

I did write a lot more here, including about the effects of war on children, and religious practices such as marriage, but I have decided to leave this for now. It’s too much for my head right now.

I think importantly though, where things go wrong, in relation to Object Constancy, is a very complex subject, but at the root, it’s probably about the things that happen (or don’t happen), or the things people do, or say, which result in a child not being truly heard or seen when they need to be. It’s about ‘relational needs’ not being met. It’s in those times, when a parent doesn’t spend ‘quality time’ (not sure I really like this phrase though) with their child. Or, as in the case of war, when a parent never comes back at all.

I am loathed to leave this here without offering some positive words about how to at least manage having poor Object Constancy. I find it difficult to do that too. What I’ve written here is based on my own experience, and I’m still learning.

I think where I will finish, for now, is that though living with poor Object Constancy is incredibly difficult, I know that the first step to relative recovery, is to gain language for ourselves, which brings with it awareness of ourselves. Through that awareness, I think we can find more positive connections with each other. Perhaps, as I alluded to earlier, when there are two people struggling with a similar problem, those people can find a way to use that common ground to work with each other, rather than the all-too-often conflict that arises. I think there’s a lot to be said about being more aware of, and establishing and communicating boundaries. There are many answers, and I think it’s not about one answer over another either. Ultimately though, the overarching need is the need for safety and stability in relationships. Hopefully I’ll find the time to write more about some of the things that can make relationships safer, here.

Copyright © 2026 Siobhán Sarelle