Repetition Loops, Cognitive Rigidity

 

Repetition Loops, Cognitive Rigidity, and Economic Exploitation in Intimate Partnerships: A Clinical–Sociological Brief

Abstract

This brief synthesizes clinical and sociological concepts to describe a pattern in which a partner (a) fixates on an initial conversational framing and treats it as canonical across time; (b) progressively mutates recollections to fit unresolved traumatic themes; and (c) enmeshes intimacy partners in these “repetition loops,” alongside economic dependence and contradictory accusations. We outline the role of autistic cognitive rigidity and perseveration, memory distortions (source-monitoring errors, false/reconstructed memory), trauma reenactment, and economic abuse/coercive control. We conclude with assessment language, boundaries of interpretation, and practice implications. (Key constructs and sources cited throughout.)

⸻

1) Core Presentation (Conceptual)

1.1 Fixed-loop processing and cognitive inflexibility.

Autism can involve insistence on sameness and rigid thinking patterns, making the first-framed version of a discussion feel “true” and later nuance feel like contradiction or deceit. Perseverative cognition (verbal/mental looping) further amplifies this effect.     

1.2 Monotropic attention and conversational “canon.”

Monotropism—the tendency to lock attention into few, intense streams—helps explain why an initial statement becomes the organizing anchor for subsequent dialogue, and why re-framing can be experienced as destabilizing.    

1.3 Memory mutation: reconstructed, not replayed.

Human memory is reconstructive and malleable; people make source-monitoring attributions about where a memory came from and these judgments are error-prone. Thus, a partner may sincerely believe an altered retelling.    

“Memories are not fixed; they are constructed and vulnerable to suggestion.” (Paraphrasing Loftus; see sources.)  

1.4 Trauma reenactment (“repetition compulsion”).

When unresolved trauma organizes perception, current interactions are re-cast to fit older injury templates. Reenactments are often unconscious and do not lead to mastery; they tend to produce further suffering for the victim and those nearby.   

“Behavioral reenactments are rarely consciously understood to be related to earlier experiences.” (van der Kolk, ≤25 words).  

Judith Herman famously notes the tension in trauma between telling and not telling; fragmentation and contradiction can be part of trauma-shaped narratives.   

“The ordinary response to atrocities is to banish them from consciousness.” (Herman, ≤15 words).  

1.5 Double binds and economic exploitation.

Economic abuse (controlling access to money, exploiting a partner financially, or demanding provision while condemning it) is a recognized intimate-partner abuse domain, often nested within coercive control. Measurement work (Scale of Economic Abuse; SEA) operationalizes these patterns.    

Coercive control—patterns of intimidation, isolation, micromanagement of life and resources—has reshaped legal and clinical frameworks in several countries.    

“Coercive control…erodes a victim-survivor’s autonomy and agency.” (Summary of Stark’s formulation).  

⸻

2) Integrative Model for the Described Pattern

Input conditions: autistic cognitive inflexibility/perseveration + unresolved trauma themes.   

Mechanism A (encoding/attention): monotropic focus treats first-frame statements as the stable reference schema. Later nuance is appraised as disconfirming → “lying.”  

Mechanism B (memory/reconstruction): reconstructive memory + source-monitoring errors + repeated mental rehearsal → progressive mutation of “what was said,” sincerely believed.   

Mechanism C (trauma-script selection): present conflicts are selected and shaped to fit prior injury templates (repetition compulsion), recruiting partners into roles within that script.   

Mechanism D (material context): economic reliance, blurred reciprocity, and contradictory attribution (e.g., “not enough support” ⇄ “buying love”) map onto economic abuse/coercive control constructs.    

Observed outcomes:

• Escalating disputes over “what was said,” with sincerely held but shifting claims. (Memory reconstruction + perseveration.)   

• Partners experience role-capture inside someone else’s trauma loop (reenactment), often labeled abusive.  

• Financial strain and double-bind accusations consistent with economic abuse patterns.  

Important boundary: none of these constructs justify harm. They explain how harm can occur without presuming malice or “lying” in a deliberate sense.

⸻

3) Suggested Clinical Language (for reports, referrals, or mediation notes)

The client describes a partner who exhibits pronounced cognitive inflexibility and perseverative processing around initial conversational framings, consistent with ASD-linked insistence on sameness and rigid thinking patterns. Reported discourse shows repeated re-assertion of first-iteration statements as canonical, with subsequent introduction of nuance experienced as deceit. The partner’s recollections appear to shift over time in ways congruent with reconstructive memory phenomena (source-monitoring error) rather than intentional fabrication. Interpersonal conflicts seem organized by unresolved trauma themes, with partners recruited into reenactment roles (repetition compulsion). The client also reports economic dependence and contradictory attributions about financial provision that align with economic abuse within a coercive control framework. Differential assessment should consider autistic traits, trauma-related processes, and dyadic dynamics; however, this brief refrains from diagnosis and focuses on describing interactional patterns and risks.       

⸻

4) Practice Implications

• Stance: Assume sincerity behind contradictory recall; orient to process, not just content. (Use reflective summaries; timestamped written follow-ups.)  

• Structure: Externalize “first-frame canon” by agreeing on written recap after each conversation (reduces source-monitoring error).  

• Safety & boundaries: Screen for economic abuse/coercive control; clarify financial agreements in writing; consider separate budgeting and limits. Use validated measures (SEA/SEA-12) as appropriate.   

• Trauma-informed care: Name reenactment risk explicitly; prioritize stabilization before deep processing (Herman’s staged model; general trauma guidance).  

• Neurodiversity-affirming supports: Psychoeducation on monotropism/perseveration; collaborative routines that preserve predictability while allowing planned flexibility.   

⸻

5) Limitations

This is an interpretive synthesis for conceptual clarity, not a diagnosis. Individual assessment (developmental history, trauma history, executive function, relationship context, and financial practices) is necessary.

⸻

Selected Quotations (≤25 words each)

1. van der Kolk: “Behavioral reenactments are rarely consciously understood to be related to earlier life experiences.”  

2. Herman: “The ordinary response to atrocities is to banish them from consciousness.”  

3. DSM-aligned summary (paraphrase only; direct quoting avoided due to length). See StatPearls / Autism Speaks summaries for “insistence on sameness,” “rigid thinking.”   

4. Loftus (summary): Memory is malleable and susceptible to suggestion (see 30-year review).  

⸻

Index of Works (by Title and Author)

• Trauma and Recovery — Judith Lewis Herman, MD.

• The Compulsion to Repeat the Trauma: Re-Enactment, Revictimization, and Masochism — Bessel A. van der Kolk.

• Planting Misinformation in the Human Mind: A 30-Year Investigation of the Malleability of Memory — Elizabeth F. Loftus.

• Source Monitoring — Marcia K. Johnson; Shahin Hashtroudi; D. Stephen Lindsay.

• Attention, Monotropism and the Diagnostic Criteria for Autism — Dinah Murray; Mike Lesser; Wendy Lawson.

• Monotropism: An Interest-Based Account of Autism — Dinah Murray (and related works).

• Autism Spectrum Disorder (StatPearls overview) — Dillion; Mahato; et al. (NCBI Bookshelf).

• Special Report: Autism Spectrum Disorder and Inflexible Thinking — Psychiatric News (American Psychiatric Association).

• Assessment of Autism Spectrum Disorder — Yue Yu; Sally Ozonoff; David C. F. S. (Psychological Assessment).

• Functional Analysis and Intervention of Perseverative Speech — Emily M. Kuntz; Abby V. Santos; Craig H. Kennedy.

• Development of the Scale of Economic Abuse — Adrienne E. Adams; Cris M. Sullivan; Deborah Bybee; Megan R. Greeson.

• Scale of Economic Abuse-12 (SEA-12) — Adrienne E. Postmus; Sarah M. Plummer; E. Stylianou (measure adaptation).

• Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life — Evan Stark.

• Coercive Control (literature and legal developments) — Stark & Hester; and subsequent reviews.

⸻

Citations (inline above)

Key supporting sources for statements likely to be contested or time-sensitive include DSM-aligned ASD summaries (insistence on sameness/rigidity), monotropism papers, perseveration and inflexibility reviews, source-monitoring and memory malleability work (Johnson et al.; Loftus), trauma reenactment (van der Kolk; Herman), and economic abuse/coercive control (Adams et al.; SEA/SEA-12; Stark).