Are You Stuck in an Asymmetrical Relationship? Signs and Keys to Rebuild the Connection as a Couple

You send the message at 8:12 a.m. and by lunchtime you’ve checked the screen forty times. Nothing. Then, at 9:47 p.m., a cheerful “Sorry, crazy day!” arrives with no follow-up question, no apology that costs anything, and a thumbs-up emoji where a sentence should be. You reply instantly, warmly, and feel a flicker of shame at how fast your thumbs moved. Somewhere along the way you became the one who plans the weekends, remembers the birthdays, reads the mood in the room and does the emotional math at midnight. Your partner, meanwhile, seems untroubled. Calm, even. Almost unreachable.

That lopsidedness has a name in relationship science: asymmetry. One person invests more time, feeling, planning and risk; the other holds more of the power, simply because they need the relationship a little less. Plenty of couples wobble this way for a while, and plenty recover. But when the pattern hardens, it breeds resentment, anxiety and a slow shrinking of the self. Both people lose out, though not equally, and often neither can say exactly when it began. Ask anyone who has lived inside one and they’ll tell you the loneliest part isn’t the arguments; it’s the sense of being the only one still trying.

It isn’t hopeless.

This guide explains what an asymmetrical relationship is, the signs that you’re stuck in one, why couples drift there, and the practical keys to rebuild balance and connection together, or to recognize when that isn’t possible.

What is an asymmetrical relationship?

An asymmetrical relationship is one in which the partners are persistently unequal in something that matters: emotional investment, commitment, effort, power, vulnerability or the amount of care each gives and receives. It isn’t a clinical diagnosis. It’s a descriptive term for a pattern in which one person is doing most of the reaching.

It helps to separate the kinds of lopsidedness, because they feel different from the inside. There’s commitment asymmetry, where one partner wants a future together and the other keeps it vague. There’s emotional asymmetry, where one person shares feelings freely and the other deflects. There’s effort asymmetry, the uneven split of practical and mental labor. And there’s power asymmetry, where one person’s preferences usually win because the other fears conflict or loss.

Not all imbalance is a problem. Healthy couples are rarely symmetrical minute to minute. One partner may carry more during an illness, a layoff, a newborn month or a grief. One may be naturally more expressive. Fairness in a long relationship usually looks like a ledger that balances over months and years, with each partner giving more at different moments and both feeling it’s mutual. The trouble starts when the tilt is chronic, unacknowledged and always points the same way.

Take Camille and Dev, an illustrative couple. Camille organizes their social life, manages the shared calendar, initiates every serious conversation and absorbs most of the awkwardness when plans fall apart. Dev is warm and funny when he’s present, and he truly believes things are fine. Neither is a villain. Camille is tired in a way sleep doesn’t fix, and Dev is blindsided when she finally says so.

Notice that asymmetry isn’t always visible to the person on the favorable side. People who benefit from the arrangement often experience it as normal, even harmonious: “We never fight.” Silence can mean peace, or it can mean one person stopped asking.

It also isn’t always about gender, age or income, though those can shape it. Asymmetry appears in same-sex couples, long marriages, new relationships, long-distance ones and relationships between friends or family. The structure is human, not gendered, even when research samples lean toward one kind of couple.

The useful question to start with is blunt but kind: Who is doing more of the reaching, and does either of us want that to change?

Why does the person who cares less hold the power?

Because power in relationships follows dependence. The partner who needs the relationship less, who has more options or less to lose, can set the terms, while the one who needs it more adjusts to keep it. Sociologists call this the principle of least interest.

The sociologist Willard Waller introduced the idea in his 1938 book The Family: A Dynamic Interpretation, based on his observation of dating couples at a university. He argued that whoever is least interested in the continuation of the relationship is able to dictate the conditions of the association. Threats to leave don’t have to be spoken; the mere possibility shapes behavior. The more interested partner starts to anticipate, appease and edit themselves.

Later, the social psychologists John Thibaut and Harold Kelley placed the same insight inside interdependence theory in their 1959 book The Social Psychology of Groups. A person’s dependence on a relationship, they proposed, rests on how satisfying it is compared with what they expect (the comparison level) and how it stacks up against the best available alternative (the comparison level for alternatives). Whoever has the better alternatives, including the alternative of being alone, depends less and so holds more leverage. Researchers sometimes call the less dependent partner the weak link in the interdependence sense, though it can feel like the opposite: the person with the least to lose often feels the freest.

Think of a seesaw. If one person sits farther from the center, with more at stake, a small move by the other sends them flying. If both sit near the middle, they can rock gently together. Asymmetry is about distance from the center.

It’s easy to misread this as manipulation. Often it isn’t. A partner who cares a little less may not be scheming; they may simply be less afraid. They can say no, or forget to reply, without panic. Meanwhile the more invested partner, motivated by fear of loss, pours in effort that further reinforces the imbalance. The less interested person gets accustomed to receiving, and the more interested person gets accustomed to giving.

Two points are worth holding together. First, the principle describes a tendency, not destiny: couples can and do redistribute power by changing dependence, such as by building the more invested partner’s independent life or by raising the other’s investment. Second, awareness is half the fix. When you can say, “I’ve become so dependent on this relationship that I no longer ask for what I need,” you’ve named the lever.

And the lever works in both directions. A person with power who recognizes it can choose to use it kindly, which is a different relationship altogether.

What are the signs you’re stuck in an asymmetrical relationship?

Look for a pattern, not a single bad week. The clearest sign is a persistent feeling that you’re giving more, asking more and worrying more than your partner, combined with a reluctance to say so. Several of these usually travel together.

• You do the reaching: you start most conversations, plans, repairs and “we need to talk” moments, and when you stop, things go quiet.
• You edit yourself: you rehearse how to raise an issue, soften your needs, or skip topics that might cause a fight.
• Their needs set the agenda: plans bend around their mood, schedule and preferences, while yours get called “flexible.”
• Uneven vulnerability: you share fears and feelings; they stay guarded, joke it off or change the subject.
• Emotional labor lopsidedness: you manage the logistics, the family relationships, the gifts and the emotional temperature of the house.
• Unclear future: you want clarity, commitment or a shared plan, and you get “let’s see” or “why does it matter?”
• Anxious monitoring: you check their status, read their tone, and feel your mood swing with theirs.

The person with less investment has their own tells. They may feel pressured and “nagged,” fall back on “I’m just not that emotional,” go silent when conflict arises, or feel guilty without knowing why. They might sense the imbalance but not know how to correct it without disrupting everything.

How does it feel in the body? Many people describe a low hum of tension, a stomach drop when the phone buzzes, and a particular fatigue that arrives on Sunday evenings. Some notice they’ve gotten smaller: fewer friends, fewer hobbies, fewer opinions. A common thought is, “If I just did a bit more, they’d finally show up.”

A short self-check. In the last month, who suggested a date, who apologized first, who asked about the other’s day, who tried to fix a conflict? If the answer is nearly always you, and you’ve felt it, that’s data. Another test: could you stop reaching for two weeks without it being noticed? If the thought makes you nervous, notice why.

One caution. Signs of asymmetry overlap with other things: depression, stress, burnout, differences in communication style or culture, or neurodivergence that changes how people express care. A partner who says little may be overwhelmed, not uninterested. So treat the signs as a reason to talk, not as proof of character.

But if you recognize four or five and you’ve been feeling them for months, take that seriously. Your feelings are information.

Why do couples drift into lopsided patterns?

Usually through habits that start small and reinforce themselves. Attachment styles, a classic communication loop and early role choices all play a part, and each makes the next step easier. Nobody signs up for it.

Start with attachment. The psychologists Mario Mikulincer and Phillip Shaver, in their 2007 book Attachment in Adulthood, describe how adults differ along two dimensions: attachment anxiety (fear of abandonment, need for reassurance) and attachment avoidance (discomfort with closeness and dependence). When an anxious person pairs with an avoidant one, the result can be a self-sustaining dance. The anxious partner moves closer, seeking reassurance; the avoidant partner feels crowded and pulls back; the withdrawal heightens anxiety, which increases the pursuit. Each one’s way of coping is the other’s trigger. That doesn’t mean every lopsided couple is anxious-avoidant, but the pairing is a common route to asymmetry.

The same dance shows up in communication research. The psychologist Andrew Christensen and a colleague described the demand-withdraw pattern in a 1990 study of married couples: one partner presses for discussion, change or closeness, while the other avoids or shuts down. Which role each plays depends partly on who wants change in a given issue, and across studies, women have more often been the demanders and men the withdrawers, though the roles can flip and the research samples have leaned heavily toward heterosexual marriages. The more a couple relies on this loop, the lower their satisfaction tends to be. It’s a trap because each partner’s response makes sense to them: pursuing feels like caring, and withdrawing feels like avoiding a fight.

Other pathways add up. Early relationship roles harden: the one who planned the first trip becomes the planner for life. Cultural scripts nudge some people to carry more emotional work. Life stages shift the balance, such as parenthood, career moves, illness or immigration. Past experiences matter too; someone raised to keep the peace may over-function in every relationship, and someone raised with unpredictable affection may under-trust closeness.

Money and opportunity affect dependence. A partner with fewer financial or social alternatives has less leverage, which can lock in the pattern. And digital life adds a new layer: read receipts, slow replies and curated posts make differences in responsiveness visible and easy to over-interpret.

Consider Noor and Eli, an illustrative couple. Early on, Eli worked long hours and Noor picked up the slack, gladly. Four years later, Eli still works long hours, but Noor now holds the household, the in-law relationships and the emotional temperature. No one decided that. It accumulated.

That accumulation is encouraging in a way. If patterns were built by small steps, small deliberate steps can start to unwind them.

Why is it so hard to leave or change the pattern?

Because the more you invest, the harder it feels to walk away, and the fewer options you believe you have. Hope, sunk costs and the occasional warm moment keep the pattern in place. Staying isn’t weakness; it’s the predictable result of how commitment works.

The psychologist Caryl Rusbult‘s investment model, published in 1980, proposes that commitment depends on three things: satisfaction, the quality of alternatives, and investment size, meaning what you’ve put in that you’d lose by leaving (time, shared friends, money, a home, children, identity). The model has a painful implication for lopsided couples. The more invested partner often has the highest investment and the lowest sense of alternatives, so their commitment stays high even as satisfaction drops. The less invested partner, with better alternatives and lower investment, has more freedom. The structure keeps the imbalance going.

Add intermittent rewards. When a partner is inconsistent, warm one week and distant the next, the warm moments hit harder. Psychologists have long known that unpredictable rewards produce persistent seeking, which is why slot machines work and why a late, affectionate message can erase days of hurt. You keep waiting for the good version to return.

There’s also the story you tell yourself. “He’s just not good with feelings.” “She’s under so much pressure.” “If I’m patient, he’ll come around.” Sometimes those stories are true. Sometimes they function as anesthetic, helping you tolerate what you’d otherwise have to act on.

Shame holds people in place too. Admitting you’re the one who cares more can feel like admitting defeat. So can telling friends, who may have liked your partner and may not see what you see. And practical entanglements, such as a lease, children, shared finances or immigration status, raise the stakes.

It helps to ask three questions honestly. What am I afraid will happen if I speak up? What am I afraid will happen if I leave? What am I getting from staying that I’m not willing to say aloud? Sometimes the answer is love and hope. Sometimes it’s fear of being alone, and sometimes it’s the thrill of winning someone who’s hard to win.

None of this is a character flaw. It’s how human attachment works under uneven conditions. Seeing it clearly gives you choices you didn’t have when you were simply inside it.

Is it normal for one person to care more, and when does it become a problem?

Yes, to some degree. Almost every couple has moments, even years, in which one person is more invested. It becomes a problem when the gap is large, lasting, one-directional and unacknowledged, or when it produces anxiety, resentment, conflict or loss of self-respect.

The research on asymmetrical commitment is a good illustration of both the concern and the caution. The researchers Scott Stanley and Galena Rhoades and their colleagues have studied relationships in which one partner is substantially more committed than the other. In a national longitudinal sample of unmarried couples, the less committed partners reported lower adjustment, more conflict and more aggression, and, interestingly, the more committed partners also reported lower adjustment and more conflict than people in evenly committed relationships, even after accounting for their own high commitment. In that study, relationships in which the woman was the less committed partner were more likely to end within two years (54 percent) than those in which the man was the less committed partner (29 percent) or those without asymmetry (34 percent).

Now the caveat. A 2023 set of three studies with nearly 7,000 couples, covering months, days and years, found that couple-level asymmetry in commitment did not predict satisfaction or breakup once individuals’ own commitment levels were taken into account. What mattered more was a person’s own commitment and whether it was declining. So the evidence is mixed. The risk may lie less in the gap itself than in the low commitment or falling commitment of one partner, and in how each person experiences the imbalance.

What does that mean for you? Perhaps this: a difference in feeling isn’t automatically doom, but a partner’s low or dwindling commitment is a real problem, and being the more invested partner in a lopsided arrangement can carry its own costs. Pay attention to direction and trend. Is your partner’s investment growing, steady or fading? Is yours?

Consider also the difference between a temporary and a structural gap. If your partner is overwhelmed by a work crisis or a family illness and has less to give right now, that’s a season. If the pattern predates the crisis and persists after it, that’s structure.

A few signs that a gap has crossed into trouble: you’re regularly anxious, you’ve stopped asking for things, you feel more like a manager or caretaker than a partner, your partner dismisses your concerns, or you’ve begun to doubt your own perceptions. Those deserve attention, whatever the research says about averages.

And one more honest point: sometimes the one who cares more is the one who can’t see their own part in the imbalance, such as over-functioning, pursuing relentlessly or taking responsibility that wasn’t theirs to take. Both partners usually have a role.

When does asymmetry become coercive control or emotional abuse?

When the imbalance is enforced rather than accidental: when one partner uses intimidation, isolation, surveillance, humiliation or threats to keep the other compliant. Ordinary lopsidedness leaves room for negotiation. Coercive control does not.

The sociologist Evan Stark developed the concept of coercive control in his 2007 book of that name, describing an ongoing pattern of domination in which a partner restricts the other’s freedom through tactics such as monitoring, controlling money, isolating from friends and family, degrading, and regulating everyday behavior. Physical violence may or may not be part of it. The harm lies in the loss of autonomy.

How can you tell the difference from an ordinary lopsided relationship? A few questions help. Can you disagree without fear of punishment, mockery or retaliation? Can you see friends and family freely? Do you have access to money, your phone and your documents? Does your partner respect “no”? Are you afraid of their reaction when you raise issues? Do they monitor, track or check your messages? Do they threaten to leave, hurt themselves or hurt you if you push back?

Warning signs worth taking seriously include:

Extreme jealousy and accusations. Controlling who you see and where you go. Checking your phone, location or email. Restricting your money or work. Putting you down, name-calling or humiliating you in front of others. Blaming you for their anger. Threats, intimidation or destroying your belongings. Pressure for sex or other acts you don’t want. A cycle of cruelty followed by apology, then cruelty again.

If several of these apply, it’s no longer a communication problem to be solved with better scripts. It’s a safety issue. Don’t confront your partner in ways that could escalate risk. Talk to someone you trust, to a domestic violence service in your area, to a primary care doctor (a GP in the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand) or to a licensed counselor experienced in abuse. Make a safety plan with a professional, since leaving can be the most dangerous period.

If you are in immediate danger, call emergency services: 911 in the US and Canada, 999 in the UK, 112 or 999 in Ireland, 000 in Australia and 111 in New Zealand. If you’re having thoughts of suicide or self-harm, call or text 988 in the US, 9-8-8 in Canada, 1737 in New Zealand, or call Samaritans on 116 123 in the UK and Ireland (Pieta is on 1800 247 247 in Ireland) or Lifeline on 13 11 14 in Australia.

Couples therapy is generally not recommended as a first step in relationships involving coercive control, since it can put the targeted partner at risk. Individual support and safety planning come first.

Most lopsided couples are not in this category. But it’s worth knowing where the line is, and trusting your gut if something feels frightening and not merely frustrating.

What are the keys to rebuilding balance and connection as a couple?

Name the pattern together, redistribute effort and power deliberately, and rebuild responsiveness in small daily moments. Couples who recover usually do the same few things: they stop blaming individuals, they interrupt the pursue-withdraw loop, and they practice new habits long enough for trust to follow.

1. Name the pattern without blame. Choose a calm moment and describe the loop, not the villain: “I’ve noticed I reach out a lot and you pull back, and we both end up lonely. Can we look at that together?” Framing the cycle as the enemy lowers defensiveness.
2. Make the invisible visible. Each of you lists what you do for the relationship, including emotional and mental labor, and what you wish the other did. Compare without scoring.
3. Redistribute on purpose. Give the under-functioning partner clear ownership of specific tasks and initiations, such as planning the next three dates or managing a family relationship. The over-functioning partner agrees to step back and not rescue.
4. Practice responsiveness. The researchers Harry Reis and Phillip Shaver described intimacy in 1988 as a process in which one person discloses something personal and the other responds in a way that feels understanding, validating and caring. Practice both halves: share one real feeling a day, and respond with curiosity before advice.
5. Let influence flow both ways. In a 1998 study of newlyweds, John Gottman and colleagues found that how partners handled each other’s influence, including a husband’s willingness to accept his wife’s input, helped predict stability. Ask yourself: Do I let my partner change my mind? Do they let me change theirs?
6. Build the weaker side of the seesaw. The more invested partner invests in friends, hobbies and goals that don’t depend on the relationship, which lowers anxious dependence. The less invested partner deliberately invests more time, attention and commitment, which raises their stake.

Where patterns are entrenched, consider couples therapy. Sue Johnson and colleagues reviewed outcome research on emotionally focused therapy (EFT) in 1999 and reported that roughly 70 to 73 percent of couples moved from distress to recovery, with about 90 percent showing significant improvement, though the studies were small and, as with most psychotherapy research, results from specialist therapists in trials may overstate what you’d find in everyday practice. EFT targets exactly the cycle described above, helping each partner access the fears and needs beneath their pursuing or withdrawing. Integrative behavioral couple therapy also has evidence, with about 70 percent of couples showing improvement two years after treatment in one large trial.

Give changes time. Expect awkwardness, backsliding and the temptation to drop new habits when things improve. A rough marker: within two to three months of consistent effort, you should see at least some movement, such as your partner initiating more or you feeling less braced. If you’re doing all the changing again, that’s data too.

These keys work only if both people want to change. You can’t rebuild a seesaw alone.

How do you bring this up without starting a fight?

Pick a calm time, begin with your own experience and make one specific request. The goal isn’t to win an argument about who cares more, but to open a shared look at the pattern. People can hear “I miss you” far more easily than “you never try.”

Timing matters. Don’t raise it during an argument, late at night, in front of others or right after a disappointment. Ask ahead: “Can we talk about us this weekend? Nothing’s wrong; I want us to feel closer.” Expect that your partner may feel anxious about a conversation labeled “serious.”

Language shifts the temperature. The table below shows common swaps.

Aim for a short, specific first conversation. Share one or two observations, ask what your partner sees, and agree on one small experiment: a weekly check-in, a shared calendar, a task swap. Then schedule a follow-up. Big sweeping conversations tend to produce big sweeping defenses.

Listen as hard as you speak. Your partner may feel criticized, controlled or overwhelmed, and they may have complaints of their own: that they feel nagged, that they never get it right, that they need more space. Reflect what you heard before responding. “So you feel like whatever you do isn’t enough?” can take the heat out surprisingly quickly.

If they get defensive, name it and pause: “I’m not trying to blame you. Let’s take twenty minutes and come back.” If they withdraw, resist the urge to chase. Say you’d like to continue and propose a time.

Be ready for different outcomes. A partner may respond with surprise and effort, which is encouraging. They may agree and do nothing, which you can address with a timeline. Or they may minimize or dismiss, which tells you something about willingness. Watch behavior over weeks, not words in the moment.

Finally, avoid ultimatums unless you mean them. “Change or I’m gone” delivered in anger tends to backfire. A calm, honest “I need this to change, and if it doesn’t, I’ll have to rethink the relationship” is different, and only worth saying if it’s true.

How do you decide whether to stay, rebuild or leave?

Look at willingness, direction and cost. A relationship can be rebuilt when both people acknowledge the imbalance and make sustained changes. It may be time to leave when your partner won’t engage, when the pattern is getting worse, or when staying costs you your well-being or safety.

Questions that help:

• Willingness: Does my partner acknowledge the imbalance and want to change it, or deny and deflect?
• Evidence: Have things actually changed over the past few months, or only talk?
• Cost: What is this doing to my health, sleep, friendships, work and sense of self?
• Values: Is this the kind of relationship I want to model, and be in, five years from now?

Give the process a defined trial. Many therapists suggest agreeing on a window, perhaps three to six months, with concrete changes and a joint review. This respects the time that real change takes without leaving you in limbo. If you find yourself extending the deadline repeatedly with no movement, it may be time to treat the lack of change as your answer.

Take care of yourself in the meantime. Rebuild your own supports: friends, family, hobbies, work goals, perhaps individual therapy. Not as a bargaining chip, but because a life that depends entirely on one person is the structure that sustains asymmetry. Some people find that when they stop over-functioning, the relationship either rebalances or reveals that it can’t.

If you do decide to leave, plan practically: finances, housing, documents, support, and, if there’s any fear, safety. Expect grief even when you know you’re making the right choice. Loving someone who wasn’t meeting you halfway still hurts to lose.

And if you stay and rebuild, expect setbacks. Old patterns tend to return under stress, like a path worn into grass. A setback isn’t failure. It’s a cue to use what you’ve learned: name the cycle, call a pause, repair quickly.

Most of all, treat your needs as legitimate. Wanting reciprocity, consistency and a partner who moves toward you is not asking for too much.

What would it look like to be met halfway? Start from there.

FAQs about Asymmetrical Relationships

What is an asymmetrical relationship?

It is a relationship in which the partners are persistently unequal in something important, such as emotional investment, commitment, effort, power or vulnerability. One person tends to do most of the reaching, planning and worrying, while the other holds more leverage because they depend on the relationship less. It’s a descriptive term and not a diagnosis. Some imbalance is normal and temporary, such as during illness or a work crisis. The pattern becomes a concern when it is chronic, one-directional and leaves one partner anxious, resentful or diminished.

What are the signs of an unbalanced relationship?

Common signs include doing most of the initiating, editing yourself to avoid conflict, plans bending around your partner’s needs, uneven emotional openness, an unequal split of mental and practical labor, and unclear answers about the future. You may feel anxious about replies, tired in a way rest doesn’t fix, or smaller than you used to be. One or two signs may reflect stress or personality differences. A cluster that lasts for months deserves attention and a calm conversation.

Is it normal for one person to love more than the other?

To a degree, yes. Feelings rarely match perfectly, and one partner is often more invested at different times. Research on asymmetrical commitment suggests that large, lasting gaps are associated with more conflict and lower adjustment for both partners, although a 2023 set of studies found that the gap itself added little once each person’s own commitment level was considered. In practice, what matters is the direction and trend: is your partner’s investment steady or fading, and can you talk about it openly?

What is the principle of least interest?

It’s the idea, introduced by sociologist Willard Waller in 1938, that the person least interested in continuing a relationship holds the most power in it. That partner can set terms because they have less to lose, while the more invested partner adapts to keep things going. Social psychologists John Thibaut and Harold Kelley later explained this through dependence and the quality of alternatives. It describes a tendency, not a law, and couples can shift it by changing investment and independence.

Can an unbalanced relationship be fixed?

Often, if both partners acknowledge the pattern and commit to change. That usually involves naming the loop without blame, redistributing tasks and initiative, practicing responsive listening, allowing mutual influence, and, for many couples, working with a therapist. Emotionally focused therapy and integrative behavioral couple therapy both have research support for distressed couples. If one partner denies the problem or won’t change, the relationship may stay lopsided. Watch what changes over a few months rather than what is promised in a single conversation.

Why do I keep chasing someone who pulls away?

A common explanation is a pursue-withdraw cycle, which Andrew Christensen studied as the demand-withdraw pattern. The more you press for closeness, the more your partner retreats, which raises your anxiety and prompts more pursuit. Attachment patterns, such as anxious tendencies in one partner and avoidant ones in the other, can intensify the cycle. Inconsistent warmth makes it stickier by rewarding hope. Breaking it usually means changing your side of the dance, such as pausing the chase and building your own supports, while being honest with your partner.

Should I go to couples therapy for an unequal relationship?

If both of you are willing and the relationship is safe, yes, couples therapy can help break entrenched patterns. Approaches like emotionally focused therapy target the cycle of pursuit and withdrawal directly. Ask a prospective therapist about their training with couples and how they handle imbalance. If there’s coercive control, intimidation or fear of your partner, couples therapy can be risky, and individual support and safety planning should come first.

When should I leave an asymmetrical relationship?

Consider leaving if your partner refuses to acknowledge or address the imbalance, if months of effort bring no real change, if the relationship is damaging your health or sense of self, or if you feel afraid. In cases involving threats, control, isolation or violence, safety comes first, and you should talk to a domestic violence service or emergency services if danger is immediate. If you’re unsure, a time-limited trial of specific changes, with a joint review date, can bring clarity.

Bibliography

• Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 73-81.
• Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(1), 5-22.
• Johnson, S. M., Hunsley, J., Greenberg, L., & Schindler, D. (1999). Emotionally focused couples therapy: Status and challenges. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6(1), 67-79.
• Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. Guilford Press.
• Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367-389). Wiley.
• Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172-186.
• Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). Commitment: Functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attachment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(4), 243-257.
• Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press.
• Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Wiley.
• Waller, W. (1938). The family: A dynamic interpretation. Dryden Press.