A gentle note: this library is general education about how people tend to think, feel and get along. It is not diagnosis, therapy or treatment, and it can’t know your situation. Where the evidence is thin, mixed or debated, each entry says so.
Much of what keeps people close is small and ordinary: a thank-you, real interest in someone’s good news, time together that isn’t about logistics. Positive psychology and relationship science have studied these small things carefully. Some findings are robust; some popular claims are larger than the evidence. These entries try to keep both in view.
How to read this page: entries summarize published research and name their sources. Notes marked This site’s idea are our own way of putting it into practice, not established science.
This site’s idea
Kindness and connection and the Five Pillars
Kindness and connection belong mostly to Pillar V, Notice the quiet incentives, with Pillar IV, Tune how you send and receive. In you, it means noticing what is good, treating yourself kindly and knowing what connection you need. Between you, it is the small, steady thanks, interest and rituals that keep things from quietly sliding back, and the way you respond to each other’s good news and hard days.
The Five Pillars are this site’s own way of grouping these ideas, not a research finding. Each one borrows its name from a field. Here is what the pillars on this page mean, in you and between you and others:
I. See the whole load (borrowed from ledger accounting). In you: notice everything you carry, including the invisible, mental and emotional load. Between you and others: put it on one shared, fair page so nobody has to argue about whose work “counts”.
II. Fix the setup, not the person (borrowed from systems thinking). In you: see your habits and routines as a setup you can redesign, not a character flaw. Between you and others: use clear owners, handoffs and agreements instead of blame.
III. Read your state first (borrowed from nervous-system science). In you: know how full your battery is (calm and connected, revved up, or running on empty) before you judge a moment. Between you and others: pick the timing, pause and come back; your state shapes how the other person’s words land.
IV. Tune how you send and receive (borrowed from signal theory). In you: know your own wiring, pace and how you hear things. Between you and others: translate across different wiring and tone; a mismatch is tuning, not a moral failing.
V. Notice the quiet incentives (borrowed from behavioral economics). In you: spot the defaults and shortcuts that steer your own choices. Between you and others: see how unclaimed jobs drift to one person, and how fairness and thanks keep things steady.
Gratitude
Also known as: gratitude, being thankful, gratitude journal, counting blessings, thankfulness.
In a nutshell
Gratitude is noticing and appreciating the good things in life and the people behind them. Studies of gratitude practices, like writing down things you’re thankful for, show modest benefits for mood on average.
Going deeper
Robert Emmons and Michael McCullough asked people to write weekly about things they were grateful for, hassles, or neutral events. The gratitude group reported somewhat more positive feelings and optimism. This helped launch a large field of research.
Gratitude seems to work partly by shifting attention: it counters the negativity bias by deliberately noticing what is going well. It also connects people, because gratitude is often about someone else’s kindness.
Gratitude practice isn’t a cure-all. Some people find forced gratitude feels hollow, especially during hard times, and gratitude shouldn’t be used to dismiss real problems (“you should be grateful you have a partner at all”). It works best as an invitation to notice, not a duty.
What the research says, and its limits
Emmons and McCullough published their studies in 2003. Meta-analyses since then, for example by Leah R. Dickens in 2017 and by David Davis and colleagues in 2016, have found small positive effects of gratitude interventions compared with neutral activities, and smaller or inconsistent effects compared with other positive activities.
Also known as: find remind bind, Algoe, gratitude in couples, thanking your partner, appreciation.
In a nutshell
Sara Algoe’s find-remind-bind theory suggests gratitude helps people find good relationship partners, reminds them of the value of existing relationships, and binds them closer together.
Going deeper
When someone does something kind and you feel grateful, the feeling points you toward that person: it signals they are responsive to your needs. Expressing it tells them their effort was seen, which encourages more.
Algoe and colleagues found that in couples, everyday moments of gratitude were associated with feeling more connected and satisfied the next day, for both the thanker and the thanked. She described these moments as a kind of “booster shot” for relationships.
This site’s idea This supports the program’s emphasis on seeing unseen work. Thanking someone specifically (“thank you for sorting out the car insurance; I know that was tedious”) combines recognition and gratitude, and helps both people.
What the research says, and its limits
Algoe set out find-remind-bind in 2012. Algoe, Shelly Gable and Natalya Maisel (2010) found daily gratitude in couples predicted increases in relationship connection. Amie Gordon and colleagues (2012) linked feeling appreciated with greater commitment. The research is mostly correlational and diary-based, with some experimental work.
Also known as: capitalization, capitalization, active constructive responding, sharing good news, celebrating together.
In a nutshell
How people respond when you share good news matters as much as how they respond to bad news. Enthusiastic, engaged responses (active-constructive) are linked with closer relationships.
Going deeper
Shelly Gable described four ways of responding to good news. Active-constructive: enthusiastic and engaged (“That’s brilliant! Tell me how it happened!”). Passive-constructive: quiet support (“That’s nice”). Active-destructive: pointing out downsides (“That’ll mean more work”). Passive-destructive: ignoring or changing the subject (“What’s for dinner?”).
Only active-constructive responses were consistently associated with better relationships. The other three, even the mildly supportive one, left people feeling less understood.
This is easy to practice. When someone shares good news, put down what you’re doing, ask questions, and let them relive it a little. It costs little and means a lot.
What the research says, and its limits
Gable, Harry Reis, Emily Impett and Evan Asher published the key study in 2004, and Gable, Gian Gonzaga and Amy Strachman followed up in 2006. The finding has been replicated in several studies, mostly correlational, and is widely used in positive psychology programs.
Also known as: self compassion, being kind to yourself, self criticism, inner critic, Neff.
In a nutshell
Self-compassion means treating yourself with the kindness you would offer a friend when you’re struggling or make a mistake. Kristin Neff describes three parts: self-kindness, common humanity and mindfulness.
Going deeper
Self-kindness means being warm rather than harshly critical toward yourself. Common humanity means recognizing that everyone struggles and makes mistakes; you are not uniquely flawed. Mindfulness here means noticing painful feelings without ignoring or exaggerating them.
A common worry is that self-compassion will make people lazy or complacent. Research suggests the opposite: people who respond to mistakes with self-compassion are often more motivated to improve, because they aren’t paralysed by shame.
In relationships, self-compassion may help people own mistakes without becoming defensive, since admitting a mistake doesn’t feel like a verdict on their worth. It also helps people stay kind to others when stressed.
What the research says, and its limits
Neff published her definition and scale in 2003. Juliana Breines and Serena Chen (2012) found that self-compassion increased motivation to improve after a failure. Neff and Christopher Germer developed Mindful Self-Compassion training, with trials showing benefits. Some researchers, for example Peter Muris, have questioned whether the scale mixes self-compassion with low self-criticism, and debate continues about its structure.
Also known as: loneliness, lonely, isolation, social isolation, feeling alone, Cacioppo.
In a nutshell
Loneliness is the painful feeling that your relationships don’t meet your needs for connection. It is different from being alone, and it is possible to feel lonely in a crowd or in a relationship.
Going deeper
John Cacioppo described loneliness as a signal, like hunger, that prompts us to seek connection. But when it lasts, it can make people more alert to social threat, more likely to interpret others negatively, and more likely to withdraw, which can deepen the loneliness.
Loneliness within a relationship is common and painful. Two people can share a home, divide chores and still feel disconnected if conversations are all logistics. Small, regular moments of real interest and warmth can make a significant difference.
Research on reducing loneliness suggests that changing how people interpret social situations (for example, noticing when they expect rejection) can be as helpful as increasing contact.
What the research says, and its limits
Cacioppo and William Patrick published Loneliness in 2008. The UCLA Loneliness Scale, developed by Daniel Russell and colleagues in 1978 and revised later, is widely used. Julianne Holt-Lunstad and colleagues’ meta-analyses (2010 and 2015) linked social connection with longevity. In 2023 the US Surgeon General issued an advisory on loneliness and isolation. A 2011 meta-analysis by Christopher Masi and colleagues found that interventions addressing unhelpful social thinking had larger effects than other approaches.
Also known as: friendship, friends, making friends as an adult, keeping in touch, how long to make a friend.
In a nutshell
Friendships are built through time together and kept through regular contact. One estimate suggests it takes many dozens of hours of shared time to move from acquaintance to friend, and much more to become close.
Going deeper
Jeffrey Hall studied adults who had recently moved and students starting university. He estimated that roughly 50 hours of time together were associated with moving from acquaintance to casual friend, around 90 hours to friend, and over 200 hours to close friend. The kind of time mattered too: hanging out and talking built friendships more than working together.
Adult friendships often fade not because of conflict but because of time: jobs, children and moves crowd them out. Maintaining them takes some intention: regular calls, shared rituals, turning up.
Friends also matter for couples. Having other sources of support means a partner isn’t the only person meeting every social need, which can relieve pressure on the relationship.
What the research says, and its limits
Hall published his study in 2019 in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. The hour estimates come from specific samples and should be seen as rough guides. Robin Dunbar’s research describes layers of friendship, with fewer people in closer layers. Research on friendship maintenance behaviors (such as by Debra Oswald) finds that positivity, support, openness and interaction all help keep friendships going.
Also known as: Dunbar's number, 150 friends, social circles, circles of intimacy.
In a nutshell
Robin Dunbar proposed that people can maintain roughly 150 meaningful relationships, arranged in layers of increasing closeness. The idea is popular; the exact number is debated.
Going deeper
Dunbar linked brain size in primates to group size, and predicted a human group size of around 150. He later described layers: around five intimate relationships, fifteen close friends, fifty good friends and 150 meaningful contacts, with each layer requiring less time investment.
The practical insight is that time and emotional energy are limited, so closeness requires focus. When a new baby, a new job or caring responsibilities arrive, the inner circle often shrinks.
The number itself has been challenged. A 2021 reanalysis by Patrik Lindenfors and colleagues found the statistical estimate had very wide uncertainty, making a precise number hard to defend. The idea of layers with limited capacity is more robust than the specific figure.
What the research says, and its limits
Dunbar published the original proposal in 1992 and has elaborated it since. Studies of phone records and social networks have found layered structures roughly consistent with his model. The Lindenfors reanalysis questioned the precision of 150. It is best treated as a rough and interesting heuristic.
Also known as: weak ties, acquaintances, small talk, chatting to strangers, Granovetter.
In a nutshell
Casual acquaintances (weak ties) matter more than people think. They bring new information and opportunities, and small everyday interactions with them are linked to better mood.
Going deeper
Mark Granovetter found that people often got jobs through acquaintances rather than close friends, because acquaintances move in different circles and hear about different opportunities. He called this “the strength of weak ties.”
Gillian Sandstrom and Elizabeth Dunn found that people felt happier on days they had more interactions with weak ties, like the barista, a neighbor or a classmate. Other research found that people underestimate how much they will enjoy talking to strangers.
For people who spend a lot of time at home or feel stretched thin, these small interactions can be an easy source of connection. They also take some pressure off a partner as the only source of social contact.
What the research says, and its limits
Granovetter published “The Strength of Weak Ties” in 1973. Sandstrom and Dunn published in 2014. Nicholas Epley and Juliana Schroeder (2014) found commuters enjoyed talking to strangers more than they predicted. A large 2022 LinkedIn experiment (Karthik Rajkumar and colleagues) supported the value of moderately weak ties for job mobility.
Also known as: kindness, acts of kindness, random acts of kindness, helping others, being kind.
In a nutshell
Doing kind things for others is linked with small improvements in the giver’s wellbeing. The effect is real but modest, and it depends on the kindness being freely chosen.
Going deeper
Sonja Lyubomirsky and colleagues found that people asked to do several acts of kindness in a day reported somewhat greater wellbeing than a control group. Later studies have found similar small effects.
Kindness seems to work best when it is chosen, varied and connected to real people. Kindness done under pressure or out of obligation seems to have less benefit.
In close relationships, small kindnesses (making someone a cup of tea, taking over a chore when they are tired) are also bids for connection, and part of what keeps goodwill in the account.
What the research says, and its limits
Oliver Scott Curry and colleagues’ 2018 meta-analysis found a small-to-medium effect of kindness on the giver’s wellbeing, while noting concerns about study quality. Lyubomirsky, Kennon Sheldon and David Schkade (2005) proposed that about 40 percent of happiness is under intentional control; Nicholas Brown and Julia Rohrer (2020) showed that figure was not justified by the data, so it should not be quoted as fact.
Also known as: prosocial spending, giving, generosity, money and happiness, spending on others.
In a nutshell
Studies suggest people tend to feel a little happier when they spend money on others rather than on themselves. The effect is modest and depends on context, but it appears across many countries.
Going deeper
Elizabeth Dunn, Lara Aknin and Michael Norton gave people small amounts of money to spend either on themselves or on others. Those who spent on others reported greater happiness later that day.
Cross-cultural research by Aknin and colleagues found similar patterns in many countries, including poorer ones. The effect seems stronger when the giving is freely chosen, when it connects people, and when givers can see its impact.
For couples, this relates to small gestures: treating each other, or giving together to others. It also offers a gentler lens on money conversations: spending can be a source of connection, not just a source of conflict.
What the research says, and its limits
Dunn, Aknin and Norton published in Science in 2008. Aknin and colleagues published cross-cultural evidence in 2013. Some replications have found smaller effects than the original, so the finding is best described as a modest but fairly consistent pattern.
Also known as: savoring, savouring, enjoying the moment, appreciating good times, Bryant.
In a nutshell
Savouring means deliberately noticing and extending good experiences, looking forward to them, enjoying them fully in the moment, and remembering them afterward.
Going deeper
Fred Bryant and Joseph Veroff described savouring as the positive counterpart to coping. Where coping deals with bad events, savouring amplifies good ones.
Savouring techniques include sharing good moments with others, taking a mental snapshot, slowing down, and reminiscing together. Couples who reminisce about good times often report feeling closer.
Savouring is a natural antidote to negativity bias and busy routines. It doesn’t require new experiences, just more attention to the good ones that are already happening.
What the research says, and its limits
Bryant and Veroff’s Savoring was published in 2007. Studies link savouring tendencies with greater wellbeing, and some interventions show small benefits. Research on shared reminiscence in couples, for example by Bryant and colleagues, suggests it can increase positive feelings.
Also known as: awe, wonder, nature, feeling small, vastness, Keltner.
In a nutshell
Awe is the feeling of being in the presence of something vast that challenges your understanding: a starry sky, a piece of music, a great act of kindness. Research links awe with feeling more connected and less self-focused.
Going deeper
Dacher Keltner and Jonathan Haidt defined awe as involving vastness and a need to adjust your understanding. It can come from nature, art, ideas or people.
One effect of awe is what researchers call the “small self”: feeling less focused on personal concerns and more part of something larger. Some studies suggest this makes people more generous and less caught up in day-to-day worries.
Awe doesn’t require grand trips. Looking at the sky, listening to music, or watching a child learn can all evoke it. Sharing awe with someone may deepen connection.
What the research says, and its limits
Keltner and Haidt published their conceptual paper in 2003. Paul Piff and colleagues (2015) found awe was associated with more generous behavior. Keltner’s Awe (2023) summarizes the research. The field is growing, with many studies using brief lab inductions, so real-world effects are less well known.
Also known as: rituals, routines, family rituals, traditions, goodbye and hello, rituals of connection.
In a nutshell
Rituals of connection are small, repeated moments that signal closeness: a goodbye kiss, a Sunday walk, a nightly check-in. Research on families suggests routines and rituals are linked with stability and wellbeing.
Going deeper
Barbara Fiese distinguished routines (practical, repeated tasks) from rituals (symbolic, emotionally meaningful practices). A dinner routine gets food on the table; a dinner ritual, where everyone shares one good thing, builds connection.
Gottman describes “rituals of connection” in couples: how you greet each other, how you say goodbye, how you mark special days. These small predictable moments build a sense of shared life.
Rituals are especially valuable in busy seasons, because they don’t depend on having free time. A ninety-second check-in or a goodnight message can keep connection going when other things are crowded out.
What the research says, and its limits
Fiese and colleagues published a review of family routines and rituals in 2002, finding associations with family functioning and children’s wellbeing. Gottman’s rituals of connection come from clinical observation. Research on rituals more broadly, for example by Michael Norton and Francesca Gino, suggests rituals can reduce anxiety and increase enjoyment.
Also known as: complacency, complacent, taking for granted, taken for granted, hedonic adaptation, hedonic treadmill, habituation, getting used to it, autopilot, coasting, stale relationship, in a rut.
In a nutshell
Complacency is what happens when something has worked for a long time and we stop checking on it. Part of the reason is adaptation: minds get used to whatever stays the same, including good things, so steady kindness and reliable work fade from attention.
Going deeper
Psychologists use “adaptation” (or “habituation”) for the way people return toward a baseline as circumstances become familiar. Philip Brickman and Donald Campbell called the general pattern the “hedonic treadmill” in 1971. A new home or a new relationship feels vivid at first, then ordinary.
In relationships, the cost of adaptation is that the things people depend on most, a steady partner or a reliable routine, are the ones they stop noticing. Appreciation and curiosity fade without anyone deciding to let them go. Nothing breaks on the day the attention stops, so nothing signals that it has.
Researchers who study adaptation suggest that variety and appreciation can slow it. Kennon Sheldon, Julia Boehm and Sonja Lyubomirsky proposed that people keep good things feeling fresh by varying them and by deliberately appreciating them. In couples, Arthur Aron’s self-expansion model points the same way: shared novelty, such as trying something new together, is linked with better relationship quality.
Complacency is not the same as contentment or acceptance. Contentment can look closely at what is good and enjoy it. Complacency does not look. A small, regular re-check, such as a real question and a specific thank-you each week, is a practical counter. It should stay light: a look, not a trial.
Telling yourself everything is fine can also be a way of staying safe in a relationship where someone feels afraid or controlled. That is not complacency, and it calls for support from someone trusted or a qualified professional.
What the research says, and its limits
Brickman and Campbell’s 1971 chapter introduced the hedonic treadmill. Lyubomirsky’s 2011 review, “Hedonic adaptation to positive and negative experiences,” summarizes evidence that people often adapt to positive changes quickly. Aron and colleagues (2000) found that couples who took part in novel, mildly challenging activities together reported better relationship quality than couples who did pleasant, familiar ones. Effects are modest, and this research is still developing.
Also known as: touchstones, private idioms, personal idioms, inside jokes, pet names, nicknames, couple talk, catchphrases, code words, shared language, shared stories, family words.
In a nutshell
Close people build a private vocabulary of inside jokes, pet names, stories and phrases that outsiders wouldn’t understand. Some studies link more of this shared language with greater relationship satisfaction, though the evidence is correlational.
Going deeper
Researchers call these private words and phrases “personal idioms.” Pet names, nicknames, special phrases, code words and jokes carry a whole shared history in a few words. They say “you and I have a past that belongs to us,” which is why a single phrase can calm or delight someone more than a long explanation.
“Touchstones” is a wider idea: any small, shared piece of meaning that reminds people who they are together. It can be a song, a place, an object, a story you retell, or the way you greet each other. Like rituals of connection, touchstones depend on being used. They can go stale when they are said on autopilot or quietly dropped.
Shared words are also practical. Couples and families often agree plain phrases for hard moments in advance, such as a word for “I need a pause” or a quick way to say how full your tank is. Agreed words let people give context fast, and they keep a hard moment from being read as an attack.
There are cautions. A nickname or joke only works if both people feel warm about it, and a joke at someone’s expense can wound even when it is old. Words are not shared equally: people who hear language literally, people from different families or cultures, and people who are new to a group may not read a private phrase the way it was meant. Ask before assuming, and be ready to retire a touchstone that hurts.
What the research says, and its limits
Hopper, Knapp and Scott described couples’ personal idioms in 1981. Bruess and Pearson (1993) found that idiom use was associated with marital satisfaction over the life cycle, and the same researchers (1997) studied interpersonal rituals in marriage and adult friendship. These studies are correlational: they cannot show that shared language causes satisfaction, only that the two go together. Barbara Fiese’s work on family rituals and symbolic meaning points in a similar direction.
Also known as: social support, support network, having people, relationships and health, connection matters.
In a nutshell
People with strong social connections tend to do better on many measures of wellbeing. Research suggests that the quality of relationships matters as much as their number.
Going deeper
A large body of research links social connection with many measures of wellbeing, and the association is one of the most consistent in the social sciences. Feeling that there are people you can turn to seems to change how demanding life’s problems feel.
Support comes in different forms: emotional, practical, informational. It also comes from different sources: partners, family, friends, communities. Relying on just one source can put strain on that relationship.
The quality of close relationships matters too. Research suggests that tense or conflict-filled relationships may add stress rather than relieve it, which is one reason working on how we treat each other is time well spent.
What the research says, and its limits
Holt-Lunstad, Timothy Smith and Bradley Layton published their meta-analysis in 2010, covering 148 studies. The research is correlational, so it can’t fully separate cause and effect, but the association is robust. The quality of relationships has been studied in work by Holt-Lunstad and others on ambivalent relationships.
Also known as: compassion fatigue, empathy fatigue, empathic distress, caring too much, burnout from caring.
In a nutshell
Constantly feeling others’ pain can lead to exhaustion, sometimes called compassion fatigue. Research suggests that compassion, warm concern with some emotional steadiness, may be more sustainable than sharing every feeling.
Going deeper
Tania Singer and Olga Klimecki distinguished empathic distress (feeling the other person’s pain as your own, which can be overwhelming) from compassion (caring about their suffering and wanting to help, from a steadier place). In brain-imaging studies, the two engaged different networks.
People in caring roles, including parents, partners of people who are struggling, and healthcare workers, are vulnerable to empathic distress. It can lead to withdrawal, which is painful for everyone.
Compassion training, which focuses on warmth and goodwill rather than on sharing distress, appeared to increase positive feelings and helping in some studies. This suggests it is possible to care deeply without being overwhelmed.
What the research says, and its limits
Klimecki, Singer and colleagues published a series of studies from around 2013 onward; Singer and Klimecki’s 2014 review summarizes them. The term “compassion fatigue” came from healthcare research, including Charles Figley’s work in the 1990s. The research on compassion training is promising but based on relatively small samples.
Also known as: play, fun, playfulness, having fun together, games, leisure.
In a nutshell
Play isn’t just for children. Adults who make time for playful activity, alone or together, tend to report more positive emotions, and couples who have fun together often feel closer.
Going deeper
Play is activity done for its own sake: games, jokes, silliness, creative projects. It often involves novelty and shared laughter, both of which support connection.
Many adults find that play gets squeezed out by responsibilities. Yet playful moments can be small: a silly song while washing up, a quick game, a shared joke. They don’t need to be planned events.
Play also has a place in conflict: playful teasing (when both enjoy it) and shared laughter can be powerful repair attempts. Research on playfulness in adults links it with relationship satisfaction.
What the research says, and its limits
René Proyer and colleagues have developed measures of adult playfulness since the 2010s and found associations with wellbeing and relationship satisfaction. Research on shared laughter (Kurtz and Algoe, 2015) supports its role in connection. The field of adult play research is smaller than research on children’s play.