10 Tension Signals Between Two People

Tension between two people rarely announces itself with a clear declaration. It arrives in the silences that last a beat too long, in the way someone’s voice tightens when they say your name, in the invisible wall that seems to appear in the middle of a conversation that should be ordinary. You can feel it before you can name it — that particular atmospheric quality of being in a room with someone and knowing, on some level below conscious thought, that something between you has shifted.

The signs of interpersonal tension are simultaneously unmistakable and easy to rationalize away. We tell ourselves it is just stress, just a bad day, just the weight of circumstances pressing on two people who are otherwise fine. And sometimes that is true. But often, what reads as situational is actually relational — a pattern embedded in the dynamic between two people that will not resolve on its own because it has not yet been seen clearly enough to address.

Psychology offers a remarkably precise vocabulary for what happens when tension builds between people — whether in romantic partnerships, close friendships, family relationships, or professional dynamics. Researchers like John Gottman, Sue Johnson, Albert Mehrabian, and Paul Ekman have spent decades studying how human beings signal conflict, disconnection, and unspoken feeling through behavioral, verbal, and nonverbal channels. Their work reveals that tension is not simply an emotional state — it is a communicative event, expressed through dozens of subtle and not-so-subtle signals that the people involved are often only partially aware they are producing.

This article examines ten of the most psychologically significant tension signals, what they reveal about the relational dynamic generating them, and what — practically — can be done when you recognize them. None of this is a substitute for the guidance of a qualified therapist. But it is, hopefully, the kind of honest illumination that makes recognition possible — which is always the first step toward repair.

Signal 1: Conversations Become Transactional and Lose Depth

One of the earliest and most reliable signals of tension between two people is the progressive shallowing of their conversations. What was once expansive and genuinely curious becomes logistical — exchanges of information about schedules, tasks, and practical necessities that sustain the surface structure of the relationship while the connective tissue beneath it quietly dissolves.

John Gottman’s foundational research on couples at the Gottman Institute — developed through decades of observational studies — identifies emotional bids as the core currency of relational connection: small, often implicit offers of contact, interest, or vulnerability that invite the other person to engage. Healthy relationships involve frequent bidding and consistent “turning toward” — acknowledging and responding to the other person’s bids. When tension is present, people begin turning away from or against each other’s bids without conscious awareness — not through hostility but through a kind of withdrawal of relational generosity that makes deeper conversation feel unsafe or pointless.

The conversations that remain are not merely less interesting. They are a symptom of a more fundamental change: the shrinking of the relational space in which genuine self-disclosure, vulnerability, and authentic feeling are welcome. Psychologist Sidney Jourard’s research on self-disclosure established that mutual transparency is both a product of trust and a generator of it — so when self-disclosure contracts, the relational trust that sustained it both reflects and reinforces that contraction.

The particular quality of these surface conversations is worth noticing. They often feel oddly polite — over-managed in a way that genuine comfort never is. There is a carefulness to them that reflects the management of something neither person is quite ready to name.

Practical takeaway: If you notice that your conversations with someone have become consistently logistical, try introducing one non-functional question — about how they are actually doing, about something they care about, about a shared memory. The response will tell you something important about whether the shallowing reflects circumstantial busyness or a more significant relational withdrawal.

Signal 2: Micro-Expressions of Contempt, Disgust, or Dismissal Appear

The face tells the truth faster than words. Paul Ekman’s foundational research on facial expression — particularly his development of the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) — identified seven universal emotions expressed through consistent facial muscle patterns across cultures: anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, surprise, and contempt. When tension exists between two people, micro-expressions of these emotions appear involuntarily, lasting fractions of a second before the person consciously manages their expression back to neutral.

Of all the emotional signals the face can produce, contempt is the most relationally significant. Gottman identified it as the single strongest predictor of relationship dissolution — more predictive than criticism, defensiveness, or stonewalling. Contempt is expressed through the unilateral raising of one corner of the lip, sometimes combined with eye-rolling — the body’s expression of fundamental disrespect, of placing oneself above the other. Where criticism says “you did something wrong,” contempt says “you are beneath me.” That distinction matters enormously for what it communicates about the relational dynamic and what it requires to address.

Micro-expressions of disgust — the wrinkled nose, the slight retraction of the upper lip — can appear when someone hears the other’s opinion, sees their face, or listens to their reasoning. They may be imperceptibly brief, but they register in the nervous system of the person receiving them even when they cannot consciously identify what they detected. Ekman’s research confirmed that people can learn to recognize these micro-expressions consciously, but they respond to them emotionally even without conscious awareness — which is part of why people sometimes feel vaguely unsettled or dismissed without being able to articulate why.

Practical takeaway: Pay attention to how your own face responds when the other person speaks or enters the room — not to judge yourself, but to gather honest information about what you are feeling beneath the managed surface of the interaction. What your face does involuntarily is often more accurate than what you tell yourself you feel.

Signal 3: Body Language Signals Closed Defense or Increased Physical Distance

The body encodes relational states that the mind may not yet have fully articulated. Albert Mehrabian’s research on nonverbal communication — though its popularization as “93% of communication is nonverbal” somewhat oversimplifies his findings — established that body language and tone carry substantial weight in communicating emotional states, particularly in situations where verbal content and nonverbal signals diverge.

When tension builds between people, the autonomic nervous system — which Stephen Porges’ Polyvagal Theory describes as the foundational regulator of social engagement and defensive response — shifts out of the ventral vagal state associated with open social engagement and into states associated with defensive mobilization or shutdown. This shift is expressed in posture, distance, and gesture before it surfaces in words.

The signals include: arms crossed over the torso (a self-protective posture); torso turned away from the other person; increased physical distance in seated or standing proximity; reduced eye contact or eye contact that feels hard, flat, or scanning rather than warm; legs or feet angled toward an exit; deliberate occupation of different spaces in shared environments. These are not theatrical choices — they are the body’s honest expression of an internal state of alert or withdrawal.

What makes these signals particularly significant is their involuntary quality. People in genuine comfort with each other move toward each other, orient their bodies toward each other, and maintain physical proximity without effort or awareness. When that natural gravitational pull is absent or reversed — when being physically near someone requires conscious management rather than producing automatic ease — the body is communicating something important about the relational temperature.

Practical takeaway: In your next interaction with the person, notice whether you naturally move toward or away from them, whether your posture opens or closes, and whether physical proximity feels comfortable or managed. These body-based observations are often more honest indicators of relational tension than conscious assessment.

Signal 4: Touch Disappears or Becomes Perfunctory

Physical touch between people who care about each other is one of the most reliable indicators of relational warmth and safety — and its reduction or disappearance is one of the clearest signals that tension has entered the dynamic. This applies across relationship types: romantic partners, close friends, family members, and even professional colleagues in cultures where appropriate physical contact is normative.

Tiffany Field’s extensive research at the Touch Research Institute established that human beings have a fundamental biological need for prosocial touch — that touch activates the vagus nerve, releases oxytocin, and regulates the nervous system in ways that deepen relational trust and safety. The quality of touch is as important as its presence: warm, freely given touch communicates care and ease, while obligatory or perfunctory touch — the greeting hug that lasts a fraction of a second, the kiss that feels like a box being ticked — communicates the performance of connection rather than its substance.

When tension exists between two people, touch typically decreases in frequency and increases in formality. Physical contact that was spontaneous and easy becomes planned or deliberate. Affectionate gestures that arose naturally from genuine connection begin to feel effortful or awkward — and both people can feel that awkwardness even when neither names it. In romantic relationships particularly, this shift from spontaneous to managed touch is often one of the earliest and most emotionally significant signals that something in the relational dynamic has changed.

The absence of touch can also function as a deliberate withholding — a non-verbal expression of anger, hurt, or withdrawal that maintains the appearance of surface functioning while communicating, unmistakably, that the emotional connection has been suspended.

Practical takeaway: Reflect honestly on whether physical touch in this relationship has changed in frequency, quality, or spontaneity. Has it become less natural, more managed, or more absent? That shift is worth naming — either to yourself as an honest signal, or, where appropriate, as something to bring gently into conversation with the other person.

Signal 5: Responses Become Short, Flat, or Delayed

The rhythm and texture of someone’s verbal responses are rich in relational information. When tension is present, the quality of responses shifts in characteristic ways: answers become shorter, often restricted to the minimum required to maintain the surface of the exchange; tone becomes flat — drained of the warmth, humor, and expressiveness that characterized communication before the tension emerged; or responses develop a deliberate quality, as if each word is being carefully selected to communicate as little as possible.

In the research on stonewalling — one of Gottman’s “Four Horsemen” predictors of relationship difficulty — emotional withdrawal from communication is understood not as simple rudeness but as a defensive physiological response. Gottman’s research found that when the heart rate exceeds approximately 100 beats per minute during interpersonal conflict, people enter what he called “flooding” — a state in which productive processing and communication become physiologically difficult. Stonewalling, in this framework, is often the body’s attempt to regulate an overwhelmed system by limiting engagement.

Delayed responses — particularly in text-based communication — introduce their own layer of tension signal. When someone who typically responds promptly begins letting messages wait for hours, or responds with single words to questions that would previously have generated full engagement, the delay communicates something that the neutral content of the eventual response does not. The absence of response is itself a response.

Flat affect in verbal tone — the draining of emotional expressiveness from the voice — is also neurobiologically significant. Porges’ Polyvagal Theory identifies prosodic vocal quality (the natural melodic variation of speech) as a signal of social engagement system activation. When that melodic variation disappears and speech becomes monotone, the listener’s nervous system registers it as a safety signal withdrawn, even if the words remain neutral.

Practical takeaway: If you are receiving consistently short, flat, or delayed responses, resist the impulse to simply respond in kind. Try offering a small, specific bid for genuine engagement — a question that shows you are paying attention to the other person specifically, not just performing communication. The response will tell you whether the flatness reflects overwhelm, withdrawal, or something that can still be reached.

Signal 6: Humor Disappears or Becomes Edged With Sarcasm

Shared humor is one of the most reliable indicators of genuine relational ease — and its change in quality or disappearance is a precise signal of tension. This is not simply about people being serious when they could be playful. It is about what happens to the nature of humor when a relationship is under strain.

Genuine shared humor requires a fundamental orientation of goodwill toward the other person — a baseline of warmth from which teasing and playfulness emerge as expressions of affection rather than concealed criticism. When tension enters the dynamic, that goodwill baseline is disrupted, and humor often transforms in one of two ways: it disappears entirely, replaced by an effortful, joyless quality to interactions; or it transmutes into sarcasm or contemptuous teasing — humor that functions as indirect aggression, delivering critical messages under the cover of “just joking.”

The distinction between affectionate teasing and contemptuous humor is not always immediately obvious to an outside observer, but it is felt distinctly by the person on the receiving end. Affectionate teasing has warmth even in its mockery — the message underneath is “I see you fully and I like you anyway.” Sarcastic or contemptuous humor has an edge that communicates the opposite — “I see you, and what I see doesn’t quite measure up.”

The absence of genuine laughter between two people who previously shared it freely is itself a diagnostic signal. Laughter in genuine shared amusement is a physiological event — it is difficult to manufacture convincingly. When two people stop laughing together, or when laughter takes on a managed, performative quality, the relational warmth that spontaneous humor reflects has diminished.

Practical takeaway: Notice whether humor between you and this person has changed in quality — whether it feels genuinely warm or has acquired an edge. Notice particularly whether you find yourself using humor to say something you haven’t been willing to say directly. That indirect route is worth examining honestly.

Signal 7: Conflict Avoidance Replaces Honest Engagement

A counterintuitive but important tension signal is the conspicuous absence of conflict. Many people assume that tension generates overt conflict — arguments, confrontations, raised voices. But in many relational dynamics, tension produces the opposite: a careful, managed avoidance of any subject that might surface the unspoken difficulty.

This avoidance is different from healthy conflict management. Conflict avoidance, as described in the research of psychologist Leslie Greenberg and others working in the Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) tradition, involves the systematic suppression or sidestepping of relational difficulty — not because the difficulty has been resolved, but because both people have implicitly agreed to leave it unaddressed. The topics that might generate genuine friction are simply not raised. Opinions that might differ are not offered. Feedback that might land uncomfortably is withheld.

Sue Johnson’s EFT framework, developed from attachment theory, explains why this avoidance is so commonly mistaken for resolution. When people feel relationally unsafe — when they sense that genuine engagement might lead to further disconnection, rejection, or conflict they don’t have the tools to navigate — withdrawal into surface-level harmony becomes an adaptive response. The relationship looks fine from the outside, and sometimes even to the people inside it, precisely because the difficult things are never brought to the surface.

But unspoken tension does not dissipate through avoidance — it accumulates. The topics not raised, the feelings not expressed, the needs not articulated — these form a kind of relational residue that over time changes the fundamental quality of the connection, making genuine intimacy progressively more difficult even as the surface remains undisturbed.

Practical takeaway: Identify one topic that you have been consistently avoiding in this relationship. Ask yourself honestly: what is the cost of continuing to avoid it? And what would a conversation about it actually require of you — not in terms of confrontation, but in terms of honesty and vulnerability?

Signal 8: Criticism Replaces Complaints — Attacks on Character Rather Than Behavior

There is a psychologically crucial distinction between a complaint and a criticism — and the shift from one to the other is one of the most reliable markers of escalating interpersonal tension.

A complaint is specific and behavioral: “You didn’t follow through on what you said you would do, and that left me in a difficult position.” It addresses an action, is bounded in time, and implies that things could be different. A criticism is global and characterological: “You are unreliable. You never follow through on anything.” It attacks identity rather than behavior, implies permanence rather than changeability, and communicates not just dissatisfaction with a specific act but a negative judgment of the person’s fundamental nature.

Gottman’s research identified criticism as the first of his Four Horsemen — the four communication patterns most predictive of relationship deterioration — precisely because it changes the target of negative feedback from specific behaviors that can be addressed to character traits that cannot. When someone feels their fundamental worth or competence is being attacked, they typically respond with defensiveness or counterattack — neither of which moves toward resolution.

The pattern of criticism also reveals something important about the person delivering it: criticism typically emerges when unexpressed needs, unaddressed hurt, and accumulated frustration have reached a point where they spill out as global negative judgments. It is not primarily a communication strategy — it is the behavioral expression of an emotional overflow that has not had adequate direct channels of expression.

Practical takeaway: Notice whether the feedback flowing between you and this person targets specific, changeable behaviors or general character. If criticism is present, try to identify the specific unmet need or unaddressed hurt that is generating it — because addressing that directly is more likely to reduce tension than managing the criticism on the surface level.

Signal 9: A Sense of Being Monitored or Evaluated, Rather Than Accepted

One of the subtler but most psychologically significant tension signals is the felt sense — in one or both people — that they are being evaluated, assessed, or watched rather than simply accepted. This shift from acceptance to evaluation changes the fundamental relational atmosphere from safety to performance.

Carl Rogers’ person-centered psychology identified unconditional positive regard — the experience of being genuinely accepted without conditions or evaluative judgment — as one of the core conditions necessary for psychological safety and authentic self-expression in any relationship. When that unconditional quality is replaced by a monitoring or evaluative stance, people instinctively manage their self-presentation rather than expressing themselves naturally. They calculate before speaking. They watch the other person’s face for signs of approval or disapproval. They feel, in some not fully articulated way, like they are always on trial.

This experience of being watched generates anxiety that is itself a form of tension — because it requires the expenditure of cognitive and emotional resources on performance management rather than genuine connection. Over time, relationships characterized by felt evaluation rather than felt acceptance produce a kind of exhaustion in both people: the one being evaluated because self-monitoring is tiring, and the evaluator — if they are honest — because sustained critical attention to another person’s adequacy is its own form of relational work.

Attachment theory, particularly the work of John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth extended into adult relationships by researchers including Philip Shaver and Mario Mikulincer, identifies felt security as the foundational condition of genuine relational engagement. When a relationship stops feeling like a secure base and starts feeling like an assessment context, the psychological impact on both people extends well beyond the specific instances of evaluation.

Practical takeaway: Ask yourself honestly: do you feel free to be genuinely yourself with this person — to express uncertainty, to make mistakes, to have unattractive feelings — without fear of judgment? And conversely, do you find yourself monitoring or assessing this person’s adequacy? Both of these experiential patterns are informative about the current relational temperature.

Signal 10: Small Things Trigger Disproportionately Large Reactions

When minor incidents — a careless comment, a forgotten task, an ambiguous tone — generate emotional reactions that are obviously disproportionate to their objective weight, that disproportionality is a reliable signal of accumulated relational tension.

This phenomenon is well understood in trauma and stress psychology. The emotional response to the immediate trigger is never purely about the immediate trigger — it is the current incident plus the accumulated weight of everything that has not yet been expressed, addressed, or resolved. The dropped coffee cup that produces an explosion of anger is not about the coffee. It is the vessel through which months of unspoken frustration, hurt, and disconnection finally find an exit.

Daniel Goleman’s work on the amygdala hijack — the phenomenon in which emotionally charged stimuli activate the amygdala faster than the prefrontal cortex can exercise its regulatory influence — explains the neurological mechanism. When there is a background state of relational tension, the amygdala is effectively primed — its threshold for threat detection lowered by the accumulated stress of the ongoing relational difficulty. Minor provocations are therefore processed not on their own limited merits but against a background of heightened sensitivity that transforms them into major ones.

The specific nature of disproportionate reactions is also informative. What a person reacts most intensely to in a moment of relational tension is often the thing that most directly touches the core unspoken wound — the feeling of being disrespected, taken for granted, unseen, criticized, or unloved that has been building beneath the surface of the interaction. The disproportionate reaction, while uncomfortable, is therefore genuinely revealing information about where the real work of repair needs to happen.

Practical takeaway: The next time you notice yourself having a reaction that feels larger than the situation warrants, pause before responding and ask: what is this really about? That question — asked with genuine curiosity rather than self-criticism — is often the most direct route to the actual source of tension.

What to Do When You Recognize These Tension Signals

Recognizing tension signals in a relationship is not an endpoint — it is an invitation. What you do with the recognition matters far more than the recognition itself.

1. Name the experience without accusation. “I’ve noticed something feels different between us lately, and I’d like to understand it” is a fundamentally different opening than any statement that assigns blame or demands explanation. Naming your own experience — not your interpretation of the other person’s behavior — creates space for genuine conversation rather than defensive reaction.
2. Distinguish between the symptom and the source. The tension signals described in this article are expressions of an underlying relational difficulty, not the difficulty itself. Taking the signals as the issue — getting into arguments about why someone is being monosyllabic, or why they are not being affectionate enough — typically escalates rather than resolves. The goal is to reach the underlying source: the unmet need, the unspoken hurt, the unaddressed change in the relationship.
3. Attend to your own physiological state before engaging. Gottman’s research on flooding, and Porges’ work on the polyvagal system, both converge on the same practical point: productive relational engagement is physiologically dependent. Attempting to address tension when your nervous system is in a state of threat activation typically produces more heat than light. Breathing, physical regulation, and genuine calm — not performed calm — are prerequisites for conversations that can actually move.
4. Prioritize understanding over resolution. The goal of initial conversations about relational tension is not to solve everything immediately — it is to understand what the other person is experiencing and to be genuinely understood yourself. Sue Johnson’s EFT research consistently shows that the experience of feeling truly heard and understood is itself profoundly regulating — that it changes the emotional state from which both people are operating and makes genuine problem-solving possible.
5. Consider professional support. When tension has been present for a significant period, when previous conversations about it have escalated or produced no change, or when the relationship is important enough that the stakes of unresolved tension feel genuinely high — couples therapy, family therapy, or individual therapy with someone who has relational expertise is a valuable and evidence-based resource. Seeking support for a relationship is not evidence of its failure; it is evidence of its importance.

FAQs about Tension Signals Between Two People

Can tension between two people exist even if neither person is aware of it?

Yes — and this is one of the most clinically significant aspects of interpersonal tension. Much relational tension is carried at the nonverbal and physiological level before either person has consciously identified or named it. Paul Ekman’s research on micro-expressions shows that emotional states are expressed facially in fractions of a second, and Stephen Porges’ Polyvagal Theory explains how the nervous system responds to social safety or threat cues below the threshold of conscious awareness. People can be reliably detecting and responding to each other’s tension signals — feeling vaguely uncomfortable, more guarded, or less engaged — without being able to articulate why. This is why relational tension often feels like a atmospheric quality rather than a specific problem: because it is largely being communicated and received through channels that bypass conscious processing. The practical implication is that the absence of a named conflict does not mean the absence of tension — the body keeps an accurate record of what the mind has not yet acknowledged.

What is the difference between healthy conflict and interpersonal tension?

Healthy conflict is a functional part of close relationships — it is how two people with genuinely different needs, perspectives, and experiences negotiate the shared space between them. What distinguishes healthy conflict from tension is the presence of genuine engagement: both people are willing to express their experience, to hear the other’s, and to work toward resolution through honest communication. Tension, by contrast, typically involves the suppression or indirect expression of genuine feeling — the avoidance of direct conflict, the management of surface interactions while real difficulties remain unaddressed, or the discharge of accumulated feeling through indirect channels like criticism, withdrawal, and disproportionate reactions. John Gottman’s research found that functional couples are not couples who never conflict — they are couples whose conflict style includes genuine respect, effective repair attempts, and the ability to influence each other. Tension accumulates most powerfully in relationships where genuine conflict is systematically avoided.

How do attachment styles affect the tension signals people show?

Attachment style — the pattern of relating in close relationships shaped by early developmental experience — substantially influences both how tension is generated and how it is expressed. People with anxious attachment (characterized by hypervigilance to relational threat and strong activation of proximity-seeking behavior) tend to signal tension through increased monitoring, emotional reactivity, and bids for reassurance that can feel demanding to the other person. People with avoidant attachment (characterized by suppression of attachment needs and self-sufficiency as a defensive strategy) tend to signal tension through withdrawal, reduced communication, and physical and emotional distancing that can feel punishing to the other person. Disorganized attachment — associated with early caregiving experiences that were simultaneously threatening and sought — can produce chaotic combinations of approach and withdrawal. Understanding your own and the other person’s attachment patterns provides important context for interpreting tension signals — because the same behavior (withdrawal, for instance) can mean very different things depending on the attachment architecture from which it emerges.

Is it possible to reduce tension without having a direct conversation about it?

In some cases and to a limited extent, yes — and the mechanism is typically behavioral rather than verbal. Gottman’s research on “turning toward” suggests that small, consistent acts of relational generosity — noticing and responding to the other person’s bids for connection, expressing genuine appreciation, initiating small positive interactions — can begin to shift the emotional climate between two people even before the underlying difficulty is explicitly named. This is not avoidance, because it is not substituting for direct engagement — it is creating the conditions of relational safety that make direct engagement more possible. However, when tension has accumulated around specific unaddressed issues — hurt feelings, unmet needs, broken trust — behavioral warmth alone is typically insufficient. The underlying source of tension needs to be reached through some form of direct expression and acknowledgment for genuine resolution to occur. Professional support can be valuable in navigating when behavioral change is sufficient and when direct conversation is necessary.

Why do some relationships feel tense even when nothing obviously wrong has happened?

This experience is common and psychologically well-documented. Relational tension can develop gradually through the accumulation of small, individually minor incidents — slightly missed bids for connection, small hurts not addressed, needs not expressed, differences not negotiated — that individually seem inconsequential but collectively shift the emotional climate of the relationship. John Gottman describes this as the “positive sentiment override” turning negative: when the overall balance of positive to negative interaction tips past a threshold, even neutral behaviors are perceived through a negative filter. Additionally, people often carry relational patterns from previous significant relationships — attachment wounds, communication habits, defensive responses — that generate tension in current relationships independently of what the current person is actually doing. The felt sense of tension without obvious cause is worth taking seriously as information: something is happening in the relational dynamic that deserves honest attention, even if its source is not immediately visible.

When should tension between two people lead to seeking professional support?

Several indicators suggest that professional support would be genuinely valuable rather than a last resort. These include: tension that has persisted for more than a few weeks despite genuine attempts to address it; repeated conversations about the same difficulty that produce no meaningful change or that escalate into more significant conflict; significant functional impairment — sleep disruption, difficulty concentrating, withdrawal from other relationships or activities — being generated by the relational tension; situations involving potential safety concerns, including patterns of controlling or harmful behavior; and relationships of sufficient importance (long-term partnerships, family relationships, key professional relationships) that unresolved tension carries significant consequences. Couples therapy, family therapy, and individual therapy with a relational focus are all evidence-based resources for exactly these situations. Seeking support for a relationship is not evidence that the relationship is failing — it is evidence that both people consider it worth the investment of genuine professional attention.

Bibliography

• Gottman, J. M. (1994). What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Erlbaum.
• Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999). The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. Crown.
• Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions Revealed: Recognizing Faces and Feelings to Improve Communication and Emotional Life. Times Books.
• Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial Action Coding System. Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Johnson, S. M. (2004). The Practice of Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy. Brunner-Routledge.
• Porges, S. W. (2011). The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, and Self-Regulation. Norton.
• Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. Basic Books.
• Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. Guilford Press.
• Rogers, C. R. (1961). On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin.
• Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal Communication. Aldine-Atherton.
• Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Bantam Books.
• Greenberg, L. S. (2002). Emotion-Focused Therapy: Coaching Clients to Work Through Their Feelings. APA Press.
• Field, T. (2001). Touch. MIT Press.
• Jourard, S. M. (1971). The Transparent Self. Van Nostrand Reinhold.