For romantic satisfaction, quantity of affection beats similarity

A new study suggests that the total amount of warmth shared between partners matters more than whether they express it equally. While similarity often breeds compatibility in many areas of life, researchers found that maximizing affectionate communication yields better relationship quality than simply matching a partner’s lower output. These results were recently published in the journal Communication Studies.

Relationship science often relies on two competing ideas regarding how couples succeed. One concept, known as assortative mating, suggests that people gravitate toward partners with similar traits, backgrounds, and behaviors. This principle implies that a reserved partner might feel most comfortable with an equally quiet companion.

Under that theory, a mismatch in expressiveness could lead to friction or misunderstanding. The logic holds that if one person is highly demonstrative and the other is stoic, the gap could cause dissatisfaction.

Conversely, a framework called affection exchange theory posits that expressing fondness is a fundamental human need that directly fuels bonding. This theory argues that affection acts as a resource that promotes survival and procreation capabilities.

Kory Floyd, a researcher at Washington State University, led the investigation to resolve which mechanism plays a larger role in romantic satisfaction. Floyd and his colleagues sought to determine if mismatched couples suffer from imbalance or if the sheer volume of warmth compensates for disparity.

The research team recruited 141 heterosexual couples from across the United States to participate in the study. These pairs represented a diverse range of ages, ethnic backgrounds, and socioeconomic levels. The researchers looked at the couple as a unit, rather than just surveying isolated individuals.

Each participant completed detailed surveys designed to measure their typical behaviors and feelings. They reported their “trait” affectionate communication, which refers to their general tendency to express and receive warmth. This included verbal affirmation, nonverbal gestures like holding hands, and acts of support.

Participants also rated the quality of their relationship across several specific dimensions. These metrics included feelings of trust, intimacy, passion, and overall satisfaction. The researchers then utilized complex statistical models to analyze how these factors influenced one another.

They examined “actor effects,” which measure how a person’s own behavior influences their own happiness. The analysis revealed that for both men and women, being affectionate predicted higher personal satisfaction. When an individual expressed more warmth, they generally felt better about the relationship.

The team also looked for “partner effects,” determining how one person’s actions change their partner’s experience. The study produced evidence that an individual’s expressions of warmth positively impacted their partner’s view of the relationship in about half of the categories tested.

However, the primary focus was comparing the absolute level of affection against the relative similarity of affection. The researchers created a mathematical comparison to pit the “birds of a feather” hypothesis against the “more is better” hypothesis.

The data showed that the absolute level of affectionate communication was a far stronger predictor of relationship health than the relative difference between partners. In simpler terms, a couple where one person is highly demonstrative and the other is moderate scores higher on satisfaction than a couple where both are equally reserved.

While similarity did not drag relationship scores down, it simply did not provide the same boost as high overall warmth. The results indicated that for most metrics of quality, the total volume of affection matters more than who fills the bucket.

This challenges the notion that finding a “mirror image” partner is the key to happiness. Colin Hesse, a co-author from Oregon State University, noted the distinction in the team’s press release.

Hesse stated, “The study does not discount the importance of similarity in many aspects of romantic relationships but instead highlights once again the specific importance of affectionate communication to the success and development of those relationships.”

The benefits appear to stem from the stress-relieving properties of positive touch and verbal affirmation. A high-affection environment creates a buffer against conflict and builds a reservoir of goodwill.

Hesse explained, “Generally speaking, affectionate communication is beneficial both for the partner who gives it and the partner receiving it.” This suggests that even if one partner does the heavy lifting, the union still thrives.

The findings offer reassurance to couples who worry about having different love languages or expressive styles. If one partner enjoys public displays of affection and the other prefers quiet support, the relationship is likely still healthy as long as the total affection remains high.

There were, however, specific exceptions in the data regarding feelings of love and commitment. For these two specific variables, the total amount of affection was not more influential than the similarity between partners. This nuance suggests that while satisfaction and passion are driven by volume, the core sense of commitment might operate differently.

While the study offers strong evidence for the power of affection, there are limitations to consider. The sample consisted entirely of heterosexual couples, meaning the dynamics might differ in LGBTQ+ relationships. The researchers relied on self-reported perceptions, which can sometimes be biased by a person’s current mood or memory.

Additionally, the study captures a snapshot in time rather than following couples over years. Future research could investigate how these dynamics shift over decades of marriage. It would be useful to see if the need for matched affection levels increases as a relationship matures.

Scientists might also look at specific types of affection to see if verbal or physical expressions carry different weights. For now, the message to couples is that increasing warmth is rarely a bad strategy.

Hesse concluded in the press release, “We would not prescribe specific affectionate behaviors but would in general counsel people to engage in affectionate communication.”

The study, “Affectionate Communication in Romantic Relationships: Are Relative Levels or Absolute Levels More Consequential?,” was authored by Kory Floyd, Lisa van Raalte, and Colin Hesse.