Arguments about money are the top predictor of divorce.
Using this word is a sign of one of the worst attachment styles for a relationship.
Using this word is a sign of one of the worst attachment styles for a relationship.
A person who is avoidantly attached to their partner dislikes using the word ‘we’ when discussing the relationship, research finds.
Instead, avoidantly attached individuals use the word ‘I’ more often.
Attachment styles analyse how people respond to threats and problems in their personal relationships.
Around one-quarter of people form avoidant attachments with others.
Avoidant attachments are where one person (or both) in a relationship won’t commit because they want to avoid getting too attached to the other.
Avoidantly attached people dislike a partner who is too “clingy”.
Dr Will Dunlop, the study’s first author, said:
“The pronouns individuals use when narrating their previous experiences from within their romantic lives provide a clue as to their corresponding attachment styles.”
The study included data from 1,400 observations spread across seven different studies.
The results showed that people who avoided using the pronoun ‘we’ were more likely to be avoidantly attached.
Dr Dunlop said:
“Anxious and avoidant attachment styles capture individual differences in the ways people think, feel, and behave in romantic relationships.
Given that those with higher levels of avoidant attachment were found to demonstrate lower levels of we-talk when describing experiences from their romantic lives, considering the use of we words (e.g., us, ours) in the disclosure of previous romantic experiences may offer indication of one’s avoidant tendencies.
This is a relatively novel and indirect way of gauging avoidant attachment, as individuals are typically unaware of the pronouns they use.”
An avoidant attachment style can spring from having caregivers who were over-intrusive, i.e. who are always managing the child’s life and trying to do everything for them.
Avoidance is also the result of unresponsive parenting, which is the opposite of over-intrusive parenting.
Unresponsive parents show little warmth, are emotionally distance, may intentionally avoid their children and have few expectations of their child’s behaviour.
Both types of parenting — too much and too little — are linked to an avoidant attachment style as an adult.
The study was published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science (Dunlop et al., 2019).
It increases relationship satisfaction and marriage solidity.
It increases relationship satisfaction and marriage solidity.
One of the simplest ways to improve your relationship is to enjoy more hugs and cuddles, research finds.
Couples who experience higher levels of non-sexual touch are more satisfied with their relationships.
Men, in particular, felt more satisfied with their relationships when they were shown more routine affection.
For women, affection through touch was still important, but low levels were linked to relationship dissatisfaction.
Ms Samantha Wagner, the study’s first author, said:
“There’s something specific about touch satisfaction that interplays with relationship satisfaction but not dissatisfaction for wives.”
The study included 184 couples who were interviewed about their relationship and how much affection they routinely showed towards each other.
The results revealed that more affection was linked to better relationships.
On top of this, couple’s satisfaction with non-sexual touch was also linked to having a more solid marriage.
Ms Wagner said:
“Interestingly, there’s some evidence that holding your partner’s hand while you’re arguing de-escalates the argument and makes it more productive.”
However, Ms Wagner warned that not everyone appreciates being touched.
Touch can mean different things to different people and in the wrong context can constitute abuse.
People with autism, for example, can find touch overwhelming.
Still, most people find touch comforting, especially in times of stress, said Ms Wagner:
“Feel free to give some extra snugs on the couch.
There’s plenty of evidence that suggests touch as a way to decrease stress.”
The pandemic has meant that many people cannot be as close to their loved ones as they would wish.
Healthcare workers, for example, may be quarantining themselves from their families.
Ms Wagner said:
“I think we should all hold the loved ones we can a little closer and be thoughtful of the struggles that others might be having because they can’t do just that.
If anything is true for me, a hug has become even more precious than it was before.”
The study was published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (Wagner et al., 2020).
People who are less stressed tend to have more friends.
People who are less stressed tend to have more friends.
People who have more friends have a higher tolerance for pain, research finds.
Friendships really do help to take the pain away, the study concludes.
Ms Katerina Johnson, the study’s first author, explained how endorphins help kill pain:
“Endorphins are part of our pain and pleasure circuitry — they’re our body’s natural painkillers and also give us feelings of pleasure.
Previous studies have suggested that endorphins promote social bonding in both humans and other animals.
One theory, known as ‘the brain opioid theory of social attachment’, is that social interactions trigger positive emotions when endorphin binds to opioid receptors in the brain.
This gives us that feel-good factor that we get from seeing our friends.
To test this theory, we relied on the fact that endorphin has a powerful pain-killing effect — stronger even than morphine.”
Along with a link between larger social networks and higher pain tolerance, two other interesting findings emerged.
People who were fitter had fewer friends; also those who reported higher stress tended to have smaller social networks.
Ms Johnson explained:
“It may simply be a question of time — individuals that spend more time exercising have less time to see their friends.
…[or] perhaps some people use exercise as an alternative means to get their ‘endorphin rush’ rather than socialising.
The finding relating to stress may indicate that larger social networks help people to manage stress better, or it may be that stress or its causes mean people have less time for social activity, shrinking their network.
Studies suggest that the quantity and quality of our social relationships affect our physical and mental health and may even be a factor determining how long we live.
Therefore, understanding why individuals have different social networks sizes and the possible neurobiological mechanisms involved is an important research topic.
As a species, we’ve evolved to thrive in a rich social environment but in this digital era, deficiencies in our social interactions may be one of the overlooked factors contributing to the declining health of our modern society.”
The study was published in the journal Scientific Reports (Johnson & Dunbar, 2016).
Lonely hearts ads show a sharp decline in the mention of economic factors between 1950 and 1995 when searching for a potential partner.
It is the ups and downs that matter in how our closest relationships affect our physical health.
How to spot the personality type who cheats in relationships.
How to spot the personality type who cheats in relationships.
People who are low on agreeableness and low on conscientiousness are more likely to cheat on their partner, research finds.
Disagreeable people tend to be unfriendly, cold and not tactful — rarely taking into account other people’s feelings.
People who are not conscientious are careless, badly organised and find it hard to resist temptation.
The conclusions come from a review of 51 studies conducted around the world into the personality factors that are linked to infidelity.
People who are more extraverted are also more likely to cheat on their partner, the researchers found.
It is probably because extraverted people have a wider social circle and so more opportunities to cheat.
Also, extraverts are impulsive, sensation-seekers who can easily succumb to their desires.
In contrast, people who are agreeable and conscientious are more likely to persevere with their current relationship, the study’s authors explain:
“High agreeableness and conscientiousness may imply lower motivation for infidelity because these individuals tend to have more perseverance in relationships regardless of conflicts and are also more capable of resisting seduction.”
So, the individual who is least likely to cheat on their partner is conscientious, agreeable and introverted.
The authors explain:
“Conscientiousness refers to self-control, perseverance and sense of duty.
[…]An agreeable individual is described as being altruistic, eager to help others, and also believes that others are equally helpful.”
Along with these personality factors, the ‘dark triad’ traits of narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism are also linked to infidelity.
People high on any of these traits are more likely to cheat.
Psychopaths are:
“…spontaneous, irresponsible, manipulative, and antisocial.
As a result, psychopaths are usually damaging to both themselves and others because of their tendency to engage in thrill-seeking activities involving violence and delinquency.”
Machiavellians — named after the Italian diplomat famed for his political deceits — tend to be:
“….callous, pessimistic, fraudulent, exploitative and power-oriented – traits that are usually socially disadvantageous…”
Narcissism is:
“…characterized by an excessive enhancement of the self while belittling others.
It is often accompanied by vanity, egocentricity, and overconfidence.”
The study was published in the The Malaysian Journal of Psychology (Jia et al., 2016).
The pattern can even lead to depression and anxiety.
The pattern can even lead to depression and anxiety.
Too much commitment to a relationship can be surprisingly toxic, research shows.
While relationship commitment is usually thought of as a good thing, excessive commitment can be damaging
The reason is that being too committed can lead to small things getting blown out of proportion — it can even lead to depression and anxiety.
It comes about when a person invests too much of their self-esteem in their relationship.
In other words, they believe their own self-worth is controlled by how well their relationship is going.
This is bad for the person and the relationship.
Psychologists term this high ‘relationship-contingent self-esteem’ (RCSE)
Professor Raymond Knee, the study’s first author, said:
“Individuals with high levels of RCSE are very committed to their relationships, but they also find themselves at risk to become devastated when something goes wrong — even a relatively minor event.
An overwhelming amount of the wrong kind of commitment can actually undermine a relationship.”
In the key study, 198 people recorded the ups and downs of their romantic relationships in a diary for two weeks.
Professor Knee explained the results:
“What we found with this particular study was that people with higher levels of RCSE felt worse about themselves during negative moments in their relationships.
It’s as if it doesn’t matter why the negative occurrence happens or who was at fault.
The partners with stronger RCSE still feel badly about themselves.”
People whose self-esteem is invested too much in the relationship react very emotionally to problems.
Professor Knee said:
“When something happens in a relationship, these individuals don’t separate themselves from it.
They immediately feel personally connected to any negative circumstance in a relationship and become anxious, more depressed and hostile.”
The study was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Knee et al., 2008).
This toxic pattern can change as relationships mature.
This toxic pattern can change as relationships mature.
The most toxic relationship pattern is the demand/withdraw pattern, research finds.
One partner — often, but not always the woman — makes demands, trying to pressure the other to change.
The other partner — often, but not always the man — wants to avoid discussing the issue, so withdraws.
In other words, the women nags while the man gives her the silent treatment.
Naturally, both behaviours are bad for the relationship.
The pattern is dangerous because it automatically escalates and self-perpetuates.
Since the demanding partner is still dissatisfied, they increase their demands.
The increased demands make the other person retreat even more into their shell.
Dr Sarah Holley, the study’s first author, said:
“This can lead to a polarization between the two partners which can be very difficult to resolve and can take a major toll on relationship satisfaction.”
Indeed, couples who display the demand-withdraw pattern have the worst relationship satisfaction, along with lower intimacy and poor communication.
Which person makes the demands tends to be down to who wants change.
Dr Holley explained that there is…
“…strong support for the idea that the partner who desires more change … will be much more likely to occupy the demanding role, whereas the partner who desires less change — and therefore may benefit from maintaining the status quo — will be more likely to occupy the withdrawing role.”
This toxic pattern, though, can change as relationships mature.
Couples who have been together longer learn to avoid these sorts of demand-withdraw interactions.
The conclusions come from a study of 127 middle-aged and older couples who were followed over 13 years.
The results showed that more established couples learned to steer conversations away from toxic areas and towards more pleasant, or at least neutral topics.
Avoidance is sometimes seen as a problem, but in this context it may be better for couples who know each other very well to simply avoid pressure points.
Age tends to make people seek more positive experiences and reduce the importance of arguments.
Couples may also learn to deal better with certain issues, Dr Holley things:
“It may not be an either-or question.
It may be that both age and marital duration play a role in increased avoidance.”
The study was published in the Journal of Marriage and Family (Holley et al., 2013).
The way of thinking about relationship sacrifices that is linked to satisfaction.
The way of thinking about relationship sacrifices that is linked to satisfaction.
People who make sacrifices in their relationship because they want to are more satisfied, research finds.
Those who make sacrifices because they feel pressured into it are less satisfied.
The difference could help to explain why some relationships work, and others don’t.
Sometimes couples appear to be working well together, but underneath the story is different.
Dr Heather Patrick, the study’s first author, said:
“It’s important to understand what makes positive relationships positive and what might undermine positive experiences.”
The conclusions come from a study in which 266 men and women documented their own and their partner’s pro-relationship behaviours for two weeks.
Pro-relationship behaviours are any sacrifices made out of consideration for the other person.
Partners who carried out more of these selfless behaviours because they wanted to felt closer to their mate and were more committed and more satisfied.
The study was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Patrick et al., 2007).
Join the free PsyBlog mailing list. No spam, ever.
