What is “too emotionally high maintenance”?

I was listening to a podcast this morning where a woman talked about failed relationships with past partners because she was “too emotionally high maintenance.”

My first thought was, (in the voice of Michelle Tanner from the 1990s sit-com Full House), “How rude!”

Then I started to think about it more. Is it possible for a person to be emotionally high maintenance? And if so, what would that look like?

After some pondering, I think the answer is yes—it is possible to be “too emotionally high maintenance.” But there are two VERY different ways to conceptualize “high maintenance” in the realm of emotional functioning.

First, there are people who don’t feel capable of managing emotions on their own. These are folks who have low self-efficacy for emotion regulation or for tolerating distress. Self-efficacy is the sense that the self is capable of successfully accomplishing a task. Some researchers do talk about general self-efficacy, where people high on general self-efficacy see themselves as generally capable and those low see themselves as unable to do much of anything. However, most researchers agree that it’s possible to have high self-efficacy for one task and low for another. For example, my self-efficacy for cooking dinner is quite low but my self-efficacy for running a 5K is very high. 

What does self-efficacy have to do with being “too emotionally high maintenance”?

Let us consider a woman named Lila. Lila is highly emotionally sensitive, with frequent, intense and long-lasting feelings. We all know a Lila, right?

If Lila has low self-efficacy for knowing how to manage or withstand her feelings, she is likely to outsource. She may call her best friend to get reassurance, or she might cry to her husband so that he fixes the problem for her. If she doesn’t feel capable of employing tools to regulate her emotions, she’ll try to enlist other people to help her do it. 

If Lila’s best friend welcomes those phone calls, or her husband eagerly jumps in to regulate for her, Lila will likely feel OK. She may be taxing her relationships, and problems might arise over time if she feels incapable of handling her emotions without help, but outsourcing emotional management isn’t an immediate problem when there are willing folks to take up the task.

However.

When people say that someone is “too emotionally high maintenance,” what they are really saying is the person “requires more emotional care than any normal person is able to give.” The blame is placed solely on the emotional person.

It’s like if someone moved into a “high maintenance” house, perhaps an older house that is more of a fixer-upper, but blames the house for needing a lot of attention. Which sounds stupid, doesn’t it? [Yes, yes, home inspections often reveal “high maintenance” houses on the front end so buyers can decide if they are willing and able to take on the task of a “high maintenance” house. Relationships typically don’t have those kinds of inspection periods. And it would be weird if they did.]

The second way to conceptualize “too emotionally high maintenance” is to focus on the perspective of the person making the claim. If Lila’s mother Bettina said, “Honey, you’re too emotionally high maintenance,” it clearly conveys Bettina’s belief that Lila is the problem.

But what if Bettina is the problem?

If Bettina says such a thing to her daughter, it seems likely that Bettina also lacks skill in navigating emotions effectively and adaptively. Bettina probably has some judgments about what it means to be “normal” in the realm of emotional experience and expression. Let’s be real here—Bettina is likely thinking she is normal, and classifying Lila as abnormal.

But why must we assume that someone who is emotionally sensitive is a problem, and that emotionally sensitive person must alter their behavior to make the less sensitive person more comfortable?

When people say that someone is “too emotionally high maintenance,” what they are saying is the person “requires more emotional care than I am capable of giving.” Maybe the issue is in the capacity of the giver, not the emotionality of the emoter.

Hence my perspective that saying someone is “too emotionally high maintenance” is rude.

Why?

Because it’s suggesting that there is a “correct” amount of emotional maintenance, and blames the emotionally sensitive person.

Sure, is it the case that maybe some of the Lilas in our lives could learn some better coping skills so that they can manage their emotions on their own? Maybe, yes.

But there is no correct amount of emotional maintenance. Some people have stronger emotions than others. Some people have more frequent feelings. Some people are better at regulating than others. There’s natural variability. There isn’t a cutpoint where at or below is “good” and above that is “bad.”

The solution here is to know yourself.

If you can’t deal with a highly emotional person, OK cool. But lets not blame their emotionality. You don’t blame the “fixer-upper” house for needing a lot of love and care. You might not feel equipped to take on that kind of project, but you realize it’s you lacking self-efficacy for dealing with other people’s emotions. Own it. Saying something like, “I’m not very emotional and so I struggle to understand a highly emotional person” is taking responsibility for your own role in the emotional relationship rather than blaming the other person.

If you are the highly emotional person, also cool. Lean on others when they are willing, but don’t expect them to. Increase your own self-efficacy for emotion regulation. Own it. Say, “I’m very emotional and I’ll likely have feelings around you, but I’m learning how to handle them on my own and I won’t rely on you unless you say I can.”

In short, let’s all own what we’re capable of and what we’re not, and take responsibility instead of saying that anyone else is “too” much.

Otherwise I’m going to tell you you’re rude in a Stephanie Tanner voice.