Dr. Brent Atkinson, Couples Research Institute

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/23

Brent J. Atkinson, Ph.D., Dr. Atkinson is Professor Emeritus of Marriage and Family Therapy at Northern Illinois University. , and Director of Post-Graduate Training at the Couples Research Institute in Geneva, Illinois. He is the principal architect of Pragmatic/Experiential Therapy for Couples, an approach that translates new scientific findings about the brain into practical methods for improving relationships. Atkinson practices at the Couples Clinic in Geneva, Illinois.

Atkinson discusses integrating neurobiology and relationship science to improve couples’ interactions. He emphasizes the importance of individual skills for relationship success, noting how common issues like finances and communication can create conflicts. Atkinson highlights critical findings, such as the harm of contempt and the importance of resilience and compassion in partners. He explains reconditioning automatic responses through mindfulness and structured practices. Atkinson also touches on cultural and biological influences, addressing challenges in diverse relationship dynamics, including same-sex couples.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Dr. Brent Atkinson, a prominent expert on couples therapy. You are the principal architect of Pragmatic Experiential Therapy for Couples (PET-C), an approach that integrates neurobiology and relationship science insights to develop practical strategies to enhance relationships. In 1983, while completing your doctoral internship, you became dissatisfied with the conventional approaches to addressing the challenges people experienced in their relationships. Over the past four decades, as co-founder of the Couples Clinic and Research Institute in Geneva, Illinois, what have you found to be the main issues that couples generally face?

Dr. Brent Atkinson: A wide variety of issues can arise in relationships. The most common challenges are well-known, such as dealing with in-laws, managing finances, deciding how time should be spent, and balancing personal time versus time spent together. We work with couples facing a full range of issues.

Jacobsen: When you first experienced dissatisfaction in 1983, how did you envision integrating research and practice? Over four decades, significant advancements in research have taken place. Additionally, many researchers become increasingly interdisciplinary as they deepen their expertise. How has this trend evolved?

Atkinson: The past four decades have seen dramatic changes in my field. When I first started, the field needed a solid empirical foundation. Over the years, landmark studies have emerged. For example, John Gottman and his colleagues pioneered research that identified potential predictors of relationship success and secured federal funding to support their work. This funding enabled them to build a laboratory to observe couples’ interactions, collect physiological data such as heart rates and stress responses, and monitor behaviours. They even had couples stay in apartments fitted with video cameras in every room except the bathroom to analyze daily interactions.

They tracked participants over 15 years to see if their initial observations could predict relationship outcomes. Remarkably, they discovered that by measuring the presence or absence of certain core abilities, they could predict the fate of relationships with over 90% accuracy. This level of predictive accuracy is rare, even in medical science. For example, predicting lung cancer risk in chronic smokers does not reach this degree of precision. This groundbreaking research highlighted that some of the best studies in psychology were emerging from the field of relationships.

When I began, I was frustrated by the lack of empirical support for therapeutic methods. There were many theories, but more solid data was needed. Now, we have pinpointed a core set of abilities that research has shown to be essential. These are not optional skills—couples need to develop them to sustain healthy, long-term relationships, and we now know exactly what those abilities are.

We also know what the alternative behaviours are that do not work. This has become a fairly precise endeavour. I assist people by asking them questions and observing what is happening, specifically looking for the presence or absence of the necessary elements. 

It’s important to note that, contrary to popular belief, the most critical abilities are not “couple” but individual abilities. You cannot on your partner to help you with these crucial skills. In fact, you must execute these skills precisely when your partner makes it most difficult for you.

These essential skills are particularly important when you don’t like the way your partner is thinking or acting. Those who maintain healthy relationships tend to have a combination of toughness and tenderness that helps guide their partner. Unfortunately, most people do not possess these skills. Estimates suggest that only about one in four Americans has the full set of required abilities, which helps explain why the divorce rate remains around 50%. While it has dropped slightly in the past decade or two, many people who stay married are either content or simply making the best of their circumstances.

Jacobsen: What are these practical skills? How do they manifest for those who want a long-term relationship and know how to apply them effectively?

Atkinson: There are connection-related abilities that enable the fostering of deep friendships. Then, there are skills for navigating differences, which is usually usually where I begin with couples. Often, couples are so frustrated with one another that simple acts like holding hands or making eye contact can be difficult. The skills related to disagreements can be divided into two sets.

Atkinson: One category includes openness and flexibility skills. These involve choosing how to respond when disagreeing with your partner’s thoughts or actions. You can either assume your partner is wrong, unreasonable, or acting poorly, or you can suspend judgment. You might consider that you are not on the same page and that neither of you is necessarily wrong.

This tendency to judge a partner as being misguided, inferior, or out of line when they are not is known as erroneous fault-finding. Avoiding Erroneous Fault-Finding is one example of an openness and flexibility skill. Another is the ability to step back during disagreements and find something, even just partially understandable from your partner’s point of view. People who can do this are often headed in a positive direction in their relationship. These abilities are self-serving also: finding something reasonable in what your partner is saying greatly increases the chances that they will reciprocate by finding validity in your perspective.

The other set of skills pertains to a situation everyone encounters at some point: what happens when you feel that you’re being open and flexible, but your partner is not reciprocating? You’re putting in the effort, being as sweet as can be, but your partner remains closed-minded and inflexible. You’re trying your best, but it feels one-sided. Your partner may not seem to be trying at all.

So, what do you do? Unfortunately, there is much bad advice about this situation. Much of it is advice I grew up with—my father was a minister and would have told me to “take the high road,” to not “stoop to that level,” and to “be the bigger person.” However, the problem with this approach is that, among all the things researchers have found to be damaging to relationships, one of the worst is when one partner places themselves on a higher plane than the other, considering themselves more relationally adept, mature, or a better partner.

Jacobsen: So, what happens if you’re trying to be reasonable and your partner is not?

Atkinson: If you keep taking it without standing up for yourself and you’re trying to be the “bigger person,” it’s only a matter of time before you start feeling contempt toward your partner. And at that point, you become the one causing more harm than your partner, whom you’ve judged selfish or unreasonable. The second set of skills involves knowing how to stand up for yourself.  You require openness and flexibility from your partner. These standing-up skills only work if you’re willing to give openness and flexibility first. Still, it is often necessary to stand up without turning it into an attack.

In other words, you shouldn’t approach it with, “You’re such an awful person, so now I have to stand up to you.” That won’t get you anywhere. Instead, it’s more effective to have an attitude like, “I don’t blame you for wanting your way, but there are two of us, and we need to work this out.” That demonstrates a skilled way of standing up for yourself, or at least a part of that process.

Jacobsen: Do you find gender differences in how these skills are applied? For instance, do men and women in America tend to lean on different skills? Are they more effective in certain areas than others regarding handling disagreements?

Atkinson: There are differences. Regarding the skills I’m describing, there has been significant discussion about gender differences in behaviour and relationships. When it comes to conflict and handling disagreements, studies indicate that, in heterosexual relationships, women are more prone to what researchers call “harsh startups,” where they bring up a topic critically or abruptly.

Jacobsen: And what about men?

Atkinson: Men, on the other hand, are more prone to something equally problematic: they often struggle to accept influence from their female partners. While some men might appease their partners superficially, true acceptance of influence involves acknowledging, “My partner has a valid point,” rather than resisting, “I’m not going there.” This inability to genuinely accept influence can be just as damaging to the relationship as harsh startups.

Jacobsen: Are there differences in how people handle these skills?

Atkinson: Yes, there are some differences. Regarding what you mentioned, there is a write-up about my work in the Encyclopedia of Couple and Family Therapy. Early in my career, when this research was emerging, I was engaged with it. I was applying it in my life—I’m married and trying to figure out how to make things work smoothly.

We discovered that you can have perfect knowledge of what you need to do and be extremely precise in understanding but still be unable to implement it effectively. This is because when you most need these skills—when you disagree with how your partner is thinking or acting—your brain activates preprogrammed response systems, such as fight, flight, or freeze. However, there are more nuanced responses than just those, and in those moments, your rational, logical, conscious mind is often not accessible to prompt you to behave in ways that do not come instinctively.

I focused on helping people understand the needed skills in my practice’s first 10 or 15 years. I was disappointed that people couldn’t implement that skills when they became more knowledgeable. I realized that more than just education ws needed. While most people do not know the full range of behaviours that can harm relationships, having information alone is insufficient. Breaking long-standing habits requires reconditioning rather than just knowledge.

Jacobsen: How does reconditioning work?

Atkinson: It’s about developing new habits and repeating them frequently to become embedded in your nervous system and start to feel automatic. 

Jacobsen: Does mindfulness play a significant role?

Atkinson: Yes. Mindfulness is a foundational practice that reliably produces positive brain changes. It can reduce nervous system agitation, help people operate less anxiously, promote healthier living, and even contribute to a longer life. We recommend that everyone visiting our office begins mindfulness training, and now good online programs are available. While in-person classes have their advantages, online options are more accessible.

We take mindfulness a step further. Over the years, I’ve encountered individuals who practice mindfulness but are still easily triggered by their partners. We use mindfulness principles but adapt them for real-life application.

Jacobsen: I’ve heard of the term state-dependent learning. Is that relevant here?

Atkinson: Yes, it is. An automatic response pattern must be active when practicing a new behaviour. People need to feel frustration to practice managing it differently. If they only practice calming mental techniques when they are not upset, they will lose access to those techniques when they become upset.

Jacobsen: How do you help people practice this?

Atkinson: We have people engage in daily exercises. Let me start with one practice that we use in our office.

In any relationship, there tends to be one person who is more of a complainer and another who acts as the defender, positioned on the opposite side of the interaction. 

We ask the person who tends to be the complainer to use their phone, which they usually have with them wherever they go. When something happens that irritates them—whether their partner says or does something, or even when they’re upset just thinking about their partner not following through on something—we have them activate the voice recorder on their phone and act as if they are leaving a pointed voicemail for their partner.

We end up with recordings that capture their immediate reaction, or “canned attitude.” We then meet with their partner separately, without the complainer present, and play the recordings at a volume where the complaint or criticism is audible. We observe the partner’s nervous system response as they listen to these recordings and help them become aware of the typical, often counterproductive, thoughts that arise. We also guide them in noticing their physiological reaction.

Jacobsen: How do you motivate them to engage in this process?

Atkinson: Motivation is a significant challenge, as most people come into couples therapy more focused on wanting their partner to change rather than themselves. However, through the therapeutic process, we help individuals understand that their partner will become responsive to them when they develop the full set of needed relationship skills. People with these abilities both encourage and require their partner to treat them well over time.

Once we have a motivated individual listening to their partner’s complaints, we slow the process down. We help them first become aware of their automatic, knee-jerk reactions. Then, we brainstorm to create a practice script of thoughts and behaviors that would be more beneficial if they could replace the unhelpful automatic ones.

Jacobsen: What kind of techniques do you use for this reconditioning?

Atkinson: One effective technique involves a type of slow breathing I recommend called resistance breathing. The person takes a deep breath and then purses their lips to create resistance as they exhale. Studies show this technique helps lower heart rate and calms the nervous system. The aim is to interrupt the automatic responses that drive someone in the wrong direction when they disagree with how their partner is behaving.

This process must be repeated frequently, well beyond the scope of a typical weekly 50—or 60-minute therapy session. Daily practice is essential to recondition the nervous system, especially when the person is feeling upset. It’s about practicing to build new, automatic responses that can replace the old, unhelpful ones.

Another practice we use involves having a person reflect on past upsets with their partner. After an argument has passed, we encourage them to use that memory as a resource because most people can easily become upset again just by recalling a previous disagreement. The person revisits the memory and practices new reactions, going through the process of developing more constructive responses. What are your thoughts or reactions to what I’m describing?

Jacobsen: This is quite interesting. It sounds more grounded in a science-based approach, which was only sometimes emphasized in the past. There’s a strong focus on physiology and the tangible fact that the adult brain is capable of soft rewiring—it happens constantly. You mention the importance of pausing before forming new habits and how mindfulness practice can support these continuous pauses necessary for long-term change. This seems to be an intermittent cognitive process, predominantly a behavioural one, where the pattern must repeatedly change.

Atkinson: Yes, it’s a step-by-step process. Although we emphasize physiology and mental processing first, before communication, ultimately, the goal is to communicate differently with your partner. From decades of experience, we’ve found that people often learn techniques that seem great in theory, like phrasing things diplomatically, but they still internally hold negative thoughts or assumptions. Real progress lies in the internal process—what you tell yourself and your assumptions.

Over the past several decades, studies have shown that heightened physiological responses are not helpful during disagreements. While they are common, the best action is to take a break, calm yourself down, and then try to continue the conversation. So, while communication with your partner is important, addressing physiology and cognition is the first step.

Jacobsen: I want this series to focus less on the negative aspects of relationships and more on what can be done proactively. Of course, acknowledging problematic patterns is important, but only as far as it helps us understand what positive actions to take. You mentioned earlier that only 25% of people have the full skill set necessary for a healthy relationship. For those who lack these skills, what are they typically doing wrong, and what can they do to improve?

Atkinson: There are a few significant pitfalls that people often fall into. Let’s start with two major ones. Some behaviours harm relationships, and it doesn’t take a relationship expert to recognize them. Physical violence, threats of violence, and infidelity (in relationships where there’s an agreement to be faithful) are clear examples. Some couples may have different agreements regarding fidelity, but violating that agreement is damaging for those who do. Other behaviours include lying and speaking negatively about your partner behind their back.

These are obvious issues; we refer to them as the “heavy hitters” because they can do significant damage with one action. However, the big news in relationship science over the past 40 years is recognizing a whole other category of destructive behaviours that are often more subtle. These include patterns that might not seem severe on the surface but have a cumulative negative impact over time.

Jacobsen: Can you elaborate on these types of behaviours?

Atkinson: Yes. Many people are surprised to learn that certain behaviours they grew up with damage relationships. 

One example I mentioned earlier is erroneous fault-finding—acting as if your partner is doing something wrong when they aren’t. It’s important to understand that approximately 69% of partner conflicts are rooted in basic personality differences. These are differences in values or priorities where there isn’t necessarily a “right” or “wrong.” Research has shown a fairly wide range of ways to have a successful relationship.

Other damaging behaviours include criticism, dismissiveness, defensiveness, acting superior, and failing to stand up for yourself when necessary—only to blame your partner for being selfish or controlling.The ability to respectfully stand up for oneself is as vital to a healthy relationship as avoiding selfishness, but that isn’t widely known.

There are two major categories here. First, there are the “heavy hitters” I mentioned earlier—things like physical violence, threats, infidelity, and lying. These can quickly ruin a relationship, and they have no grace period. For example, you can’t cheat on your partner and slowly phase out the other relationship while expecting everything to be fine. The trust is already broken.

On the other hand, there is a grace period for every day “disagreement-related offenses.” These subtle, cumulative offenses create a “death by a thousand paper cuts” effect. In struggling relationships, you often see the heavy hitters andthese everyday offenses at play.

Jacobsen: What happens once couples recognize and address these negative patterns?

Atkinson: The first step in therapy is often to help each partner become aware of how they disrespect each other and begin treating each other with more respect. We can move forward once we reach a baseline where antagonism and contempt have been reduced.

But it’s essential to remember that most of us don’t get married to avoid conflict. We get married because we want the good stuff—to feel cared for, to know we are the most special person in the world to someone, and to feel that our partner enjoys spending time with us. So, while much therapy is focused on increasing respect and reducing negative interactions, the ultimate goal is to cultivate a positive, fulfilling relationship where both partners feel loved and valued.

We want people to have fulfilling relationships. We often see that partners have different ideas about how much connection is enough. This is a subtle yet common issue. We often see one partner who feels dissatisfied and has a history of complaining that their partner isn’t available enough. Meanwhile, the other partner feels content, saying, “I’m satisfied with our connection.” This can lead to thoughts like, “My partner seems kind of needy—maybe they need more friends or something like that.” Essentially, the partners have different levels of desire. One partner wants more connection, and the other feels satisfied with the current level.

The partner who wants more togetherness wishes their mate would be more motivated to connect more frequently. However, how they often try to inspire that connection tends to push the partner further away. For instance, globally, people often criticize their partner for not being motivated enough to connect. This approach has never been successful in human relationships. It reliably has the opposite effect: the partner may comply to avoid criticism, but this is not fulfilling for the person seeking connection—they want genuine, heartfelt engagement.

On the other hand, the partner who feels satisfied often tries to convince their mate that their expectations are too high or that they’re being too needy. This approach also backfires, making the other person feel anxious or angry.

Over the years, we’ve found that dropping judgment about the other person’s level of desire for intimacy is crucial. We’ve also studied how people who successfully spark interest in their partners do so. We begin by coaching each partner on strategies to get more of what they want without pushing the other away. Gradually, they start to move toward each other.

For some people, their brains don’t naturally put them in a state conducive to connection, especially if their partner has a robust desire for togetherness. They can go through the motions of being warm or tender but often without true satisfaction for their partner. The same brain we rewire to change reactions during disagreements can also be trained to produce the moods necessary for a healthy connection. Through daily practices, people can prime their brains to naturally put them in the mood for connection more often.  Throughout therapy, we involve both partners in these practices.

Jacobsen: What cultural factors contribute to pressures hindering long-term relationship success?

Atkinson: Cultural factors play a significant role in shaping how people approach relationships. Societal norms can create pressures to behave in ways not conducive to building strong, lasting partnerships. For example, the idea that needing connection is a weakness can lead people to suppress their desires or view their partner’s needs as excessive. Cultural expectations around independence, gender roles, and emotional expression can also push individuals into patterns that ultimately undermine their relationships. Understanding and addressing these pressures is an important part of therapy, as it helps individuals develop healthier, more authentic ways of relating to each other.

Jacobsen: Over the last 40 years, have you noticed any American cultural trends that have contributed to relationship challenges, either increasing or decreasing?

Atkinson: Absolutely. Americans are known for their hustle-and-bustle lifestyle, being in a constant “doing mode” rather than a “being mode,” as mindfulness advocates describe it. This fast-paced way of life puts people on a treadmill that can lead them to pass by their partner without truly connecting. One partner might say, “Hey, how about some downtime? How about a kiss?”. At the same time, the other is preoccupied, thinking, “The wolves are at the door—I’m trying to keep everything afloat here. I don’t have time for footsie or a kiss.” This pace of life often prevents people from slowing down, sitting with their partner, paying attention, and enjoying the little moments.

The cultural climate, not just in the U.S. but globally, has also been influenced by the level of contempt we see in everyday interactions, especially in the media. This pervasive attitude can seep into relationships and be highly destructive. Even short of outright contempt, there is a cultural assumption that someone must have done something wrong if you’re upset. This mindset overlooks the reality that there can be many equally valid perspectives depending on personality and preference, which sets people up for conflict.

Jacobsen: Are there differences based on cohorts, such as people in their twenties versus those in their thirties or forties, when they first partner up? And what about those who partner up for the second or third time?

Atkinson: Yes, these factors do come into play regarding the stability, longevity, and health of relationships. Regardless of when people partner up, there tends to be a rough patch around the seven-year mark—hence the term “seven-year itch.” Another difficult period often comes between 16 and 20 years, which can coincide with the empty-nest phase for some couples. This pattern holds true whether someone partners up in their twenties, thirties, or beyond.

However, getting married or partnering up in one’s early twenties can be particularly challenging because people often undergo significant changes. The early twenties are full of growth and personal development, which can lead to shifts in values and goals. Additionally, there’s the well-known dynamic where opposites often attract in relationships—someone who is open and expressive may be drawn to a strong, silent type. Initially, this can be exciting and appealing, but those differences can become tension sources over time. What was once intriguing can end up being what drives partners apart. So, while early attraction to opposites can be alluring, it can also become challenging over time.

The qualities that initially seem captivating can become friction points as the relationship progresses. Understanding and navigating these differences is essential for maintaining a healthy, lasting relationship.

Jacobsen: Do opposites attract, do similars attract, or is it somewhere in between?

Atkinson: Yes, that’s a great question. When it comes to demographic variables such as socioeconomic status, religion, and other cultural factors, similars attract. There’s data to support that. However, opposites are often attracted when we look at deeper, more fundamental aspects—especially biological ones. Each of us has a nervous system that seeks homeostasis in unique ways, and what is calming for one person’s nervous system may be agitating for their partner’s.

Nature often prefers diversity, so when it comes to biological and neurological traits, opposites tend to attract. For example, someone might calm themselves by reaching out to others when stressed, calling a friend and saying, “You won’t believe what just happened to me.” On the other hand, another person’s first response to stress might be, “I need space. Give me a moment to process what’s going on.” These two types are often drawn to each other. But when stress hits both simultaneously, it’s a setup for conflict: one person wants closeness, while the other needs space. Neither is doing anything wrong, but their nervous systems respond differently.

Another example is how some people thrive on structure and predictability, finding it calming, while others find it suffocating, like being trapped in a straitjacket. People tend to be attracted to partners who differ in these areas, too. The more biologically rooted the differences are, the more likely people are drawn to partners who are different from themselves.

This idea has been replicated many times, but the initial study that popularized it was the “sweaty T-shirt study” conducted in Switzerland. In this study, men wore the same T-shirt for three days in August to get it good and sweaty and then sealed the shirts in Ziploc bags. Women were asked to come in, sniff the shirts, and rate them from “disgusting” to “I kind of like that; it’s manly.” The study found that women were more attracted to the scent of men whose immune system genes differed, suggesting an evolutionary preference for diversity.

While shared values and cultural background can help partners relate to one another and establish common ground, biological differences can create that initial spark and attraction. This blend of similarity and difference makes relationships intriguing and complex.

It also reflects nature’s wisdom in the idea that opposites attract; diversity in immune system genes can enhance the overall robustness of a couple’s offspring and improve their chances of thriving. While being with someone different from you has challenges, it can lead to a stronger partnership as you navigate life together.

Jacobsen: Are there patterns in communication styles, down to the choice of words or their frequency, that impact relationships? For example, do self-referential words like “I,” “me,” or “mine” affect relationships? Has this been studied?

Atkinson: Yes, different therapeutic approaches often encourage using specific words, such as “I” rather than “you,” to foster better communication. These “I statements” can help prevent blaming and promote self-responsibility in discussions. However, researchers have found that partners only sometimes use these statements in real-life, healthy relationships. While they are useful in therapy, they are not required for successful relationships. On the other hand, certain words to avoid include put-downs or phrases that convey contempt.

Jacobsen: That makes sense since words play such a fundamental role in communication. Although much communication is nonverbal, words can significantly impact, especially during intense moments. While words can be powerful, people may only focus on word choice in the heat of a moment in particularly memorable exchanges. Researchers who place cameras in couples’ homes to observe their interactions have likely cataloged language use to some extent. Still, it has yet to be the primary focus of most research. 

Atkinson: Using subjective, first-person statements is only sometimes prominent outside of a therapeutic context.

Jacobsen: So, is it more about observing emotions and nonverbal cues?

Atkinson: Yes, researchers have learned to focus on the emotions each partner experiences and how they are communicated, which is often done nonverbally. However, there are verbal correlates. For example, here’s a surprising finding: we initially assumed that partners who were easily upset would struggle in relationships. It made intuitive sense that frequent emotional upsets would be detrimental, leading to larger conflicts over time. However, we found that there are happily married or partnered couples where both people get upset often. When researchers coded their interactions, we saw that their ability to handle these emotions constructively, rather than the frequency of the emotions themselves, played a significant role in the health of their relationship.

Researchers have indeed developed elaborate coding systems for emotions. Surprisingly, anger does not correlate with poor relationship outcomes, but disgust does. You can be angry—even seething with rage—which isn’t inherently bad. You might think or say, “I’m so mad at you right now,” and that’s different from expressing disgust or contempt, such as, “You and your whole family—I should have known what to expect.” The latter statement is full of contempt and disgust.

So good old-fashioned anger isn’t necessarily damaging. Anger can inhibit a person from engaging in the productive parts of a conversation—like finding something understandable in their partner’s point of view—but it’s not inherently harmful. Researchers have found that couples where both partners were labelled “volatile” can still do well if they are good at repair. These couples may express anger but engage in reparative behaviours and approach their next conversation with less anger.

However, disgust is different. A person expressing disgust tends to use name-calling and put-downs. It’s not just the words themselves; the feeling of disgust drives these words and causes harm. The impact of that underlying contempt is most damaging to the relationship.

Jacobsen: That’s a fascinating distinction. What about research into open relationships or relationships among different sexual orientations, such as those involving gay men and lesbian couples? How do these factors influence how they can achieve healthy, long-lasting relationships? Are the core patterns the same?

Atkinson: Studies indicate that the foundational patterns needed for healthy relationships are pretty much the same across different types of partnerships. However, the challenges they face can differ. For instance, gay and lesbian couples often deal with unique stressors related to extended family acceptance and societal judgment, which may not be as prominent for heterosexual couples. Decisions about whom to come out to and how to navigate social acceptance can add complexity.

Despite these stressors, the basic skills for handling disagreements and fostering positive communication apply universally. These skills are relevant in romantic partnerships and all types of relationships, including international relations, where disputes can arise. It’s interesting to see how these abilities extend beyond couple dynamics to broader relational contexts.

To reiterate, the biggest finding—the most destructive factor researchers have identified—is contempt. When someone perceives their partner as talking down to them or conveying superiority, it can evoke deep rage and resentment. This is often the death knell for a relationship if it isn’t addressed early in therapy.

If contempt cannot be corrected, we tackle it within the first few weeks of therapy. With intervention, the relationship is likely to recover. Fortunately, we can often guide couples to rewrite their narratives about their relationships, moving toward a healthier dynamic.

That concept extends beyond romantic relationships. It’s interesting when we consider societal contexts, too. For example, “America is the greatest nation in the world” is a controversial statement. The truth of it may not only be debatable but the statement can also convey an unintended sense of superiority to the rest of the world. That mindset can create unnecessary friction, similar to how contempt damages relationships.  The idea is that contempt and superiority impacts relationships at all levels, not just marriages or partnerships.

Jacobsen: Do you have any favourite relationship quotes for a lighter closing?

Atkinson: Oh, you’ve put me on the spot! I’m drawing a blank now, but I’d be happy to think of some and email them to you later. It was a pleasure speaking with you, Scott. 

Jacobsen: Thanks so much for your time today. 

Atkinson: Thank you, and have a great day. Goodbye.

Relationship Quotes from Atkinson:

Love cannot be negotiated.  It must be inspired.

The way you respond to the worst in your partner largely determines whether you’ll get something better in the future or not.

You can’t make your partner change; you can only make it more inconvenient for them to stay the same.

Effective partners know how to stand up for themselves without putting their mates down.  

People who succeed in their relationships require that they be treated with respect while making it very easy for their partners to do so.

Attempts to persuade your partner to be reasonable when your partner hasn’t the least bit of interest in doing so will likely fuel your partner’s unreasonableness.

The unwillingness or inability to stand up for yourself and require equal regard without making a big deal of it when your partner is being selfish or controlling is just as harmful to the relationship as is your partner’s selfish or controlling behavior.

All of us want connection with our mates, but not all of us need the same type or amount.

Criticizing your partner for not putting enough time and effort into connecting with you will make them want to connection with you even less.

Biting your tongue isn’t enough (Criticism is communicated nonverbally every time you believe your partner is doing something wrong or performing in a sub-standard way).

Most people who are in distressed or depleted relationships are trying to get more responsiveness from their partners in ways that are highly predictive of partner unresponsiveness.

If you want responsiveness and caring from your partner, then you need to learn to think and act like people who almost always get responsiveness and caring from their partners (and you need to stop thinking and acting like people who rarely get the kind of responsiveness and caring they’d like to have.”

It’s not how much time is spent connecting that determines how good the relationship is — it’s the quality of the connection. High quality happens when both people are equally invested in connectedness. When one partner is more invested than the other, quality drops.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.