说明：在八月份的一期Pocket每周推送邮件中，文章“The Science Of Love In The 21st Century”提到了“Master of Love”，很不错，于是九月初设定计划通过译言网翻译，平均每天翻译两段话，昨天完成，今天花了一个小时校对一遍。先附上翻译的文字；再附上英文原文「复制时携带了我通过Diigo做的高亮标记，也算是和官网文章的区分，就不做纯文本处理了。」。多说一句，多读英文网站和图书，愈发感觉中文互联网世界的苍白无营养，原因以后再表。

===================================

爱情大师

协作译者：wu.laplace

协作地址：http://co.yeeyan.org/view/151862

在最火热的六月份，每天大约有13000对美国夫妻会说“我愿意”，承诺给予彼此终生的幸福、欢乐和爱，直到地老天荒。

当然，这种承诺没有多大作用。因为大部分的婚姻关系都破裂了，要么离婚，即使不离婚也陷入悲痛或混乱。在今年出版的《快乐的科学》一书中，心理学家Tashiro说只有30%的伴侣长期维持着健康和快乐的婚姻关系。

为了应对离婚率飙升这一社会危机，从1970年开始社会学家通过观察夫妻生活方式研究婚姻问题。由于担忧破裂的婚姻关系对儿童的影响，心理学家也将注意力转向婚姻问题，他们观察夫妻在实验室中的行动来判断判断健康和持久的婚姻关系的核心要素。是否如托尔斯泰所说，不幸的家庭各有各的不幸，还是所有失败的婚姻都有共同的诱因？

心理学家约翰·戈特曼是其中的一名研究者。在过去的四十年中，他研究了上千对夫妻以寻找维持夫妻正常关系的核心要素。最近在纽约，我有幸采访了戈特曼和他同为心理学家的妻子朱莉。这两位研究婚姻幸福问题的专家同时运行着戈特曼研究所，该研究所致力于利用他们的研究成果帮助其他夫妻建立和维护健康的婚姻关系。

约翰·戈特曼于1986年与他的华盛顿大学同事罗伯特·莱文逊创办了“爱情实验室”，并开始进行实验。戈特曼和莱文逊邀请新婚夫妻到实验室，观察他们彼此之间的交流方式。在一个研究项目中，他们在受试者身上安装传感器，然后询问他们与婚姻关系有关的话题，例如他们是如何认识的，他们一起经历过的冲突是什么，回忆一下在一起的美好经历等。传感器可以记录受试者的血液流动状况、心率和出汗情况。然后研究人员送受试者回家，并在之后的六年时间与他们保持联系，以观察受试者们是否依旧生活在一起。

实验结束后，戈特曼将受试者分为两组：幸福者与不幸者。幸福者在六年之后依旧幸福得在一起。不幸者要么离婚要么陷入长期的痛苦婚姻之中。通过比较分析了他们之前收集的实验数据，戈特曼发现了两组受试者之间的明显的差异：在被采访时不幸者表面看起来很镇定，可仪器测得的生理性信号却有新的发现。他们的心跳加快，出汗量增多，血流速度也加快。戈特曼在后续的跟踪中发现，受试者的在实验中的生理波动越大，他们的婚姻关系恶化也越快。

为什么这些生理性信号能够预测婚姻关系的恶化？答案是“不幸型”夫妻体现出了对抗性。坐在伴侣身边说话，就像面对着一只剑齿虎。即使谈论两人关系中愉快的一面，他们也做好了攻击或被攻击的准备。这导致了他们的心跳加速，又进一步促进了对抗的升级。例如，当要求夫妻中的一方谈论他们这一天过得怎样时，被触发的丈夫可能会对他的妻子说，“为什么不是你先开始谈谈你的一天，这应该不会花费你太多时间吧。”

与之形成鲜明对比的是，幸福型夫妻表现出很低的生理性波动。他们在一起会感觉很镇定，表现得温暖和充满深情，即使发生了冲突也如此。这不是因为幸福型夫妻本身有更好的生理结构，而是他们营造了一种互相信任和亲密的生活氛围，从而让双方在心理和生理上都感觉很舒适。

相关的故事

有压力的关系与隔离：生活中的战争

戈特曼想更彻底地研究幸福型夫妻是如何营造亲密的生活氛围的，而不幸型夫妻为何没有做到这些。在1990年的后续研究中，他在华盛顿大学建立了一个实验室，其中有舒服的床，并提供早餐等。他邀请了130对新婚夫妻来这儿休息一天，然后观察他们休息时的表现，比如做饭、打扫房间、听音乐、就餐、聊天等等。在这项研究中，戈特曼有了重要发现，明白了为何有的夫妻幸福而有的夫妻不幸。

在生活中，夫妻之间存在互相沟通的请求，戈特曼称之为“出牌”的举动。例如，如果喜欢鸟的丈夫看到一只金翅雀飞过院子，他可能对妻子说，“快看外面那只漂亮的鸟！” 此时的丈夫并不只是向妻子说自己的观点，而是向妻子“出牌”——希望她表达感兴趣或支持的信号——从而通过这只鸟在夫妻之间建立新的情感联系。

戈特曼指出，此时的妻子可以有两个回应方式，分别对应“回应”和“忽视”的结果。尽管用一只鸟“出牌”显得小题大做甚至有些愚蠢，但这却能充分反映夫妻之间的健康状况。丈夫认为这只鸟可以成为夫妻之间交流的话题，所以妻子如何回应就很重要了。

在实验中，那些表示“在意”的伴侣会对对方的出牌表示兴趣和支持。而那些表示“忽视”的伴侣不会回应对方，或者只是敷衍对方一下然后继续做自己的事情，比如继续看电视或读报纸。甚至有的时候，他们对出牌举动表示敌意，比如说“别来烦我，我正在读报纸。”

这些“出牌”和“回牌”行动极大影响了婚姻质量。那些六年后离婚的夫妻，只有33%的时间回应了对方的出牌行动。只有30%的“出牌”行动产生了亲密的情感互动。而六年之后依旧生活在一起的夫妻，有87%的时间回应了对方的出牌行动，高达90%的“出牌”行动满足了双方的情感互动需求。

* * *

这些夫妻互动方式可以帮助戈特曼准确预测夫妻是否会离婚，如果不离婚也能预测夫妻在一起是否会快乐，预测准确率达到94%，而且这一预测不受对方是同性恋还是异性恋，贫穷还是富有，子女多寡状况等的影响。这种评估方法之所以有效，是因为其能反映夫妻关系的精神状态：真诚、慷慨，还是轻视、批评和充满敌意。

在采访中，戈特曼解释说：“幸福型夫妻具有一种习惯性思维，他们时刻都在关注其社交环境，看是否需要表达赞美和感谢。他们坚定地培养彼此尊重和赞美的品质。而不幸型夫妻却总是留意伴侣的错误。”

戈特曼补充说，“他们不仅仅关注周围环境，也关注伴侣在做的事情，伴侣z对了给予赞美，做错了给出批评意见。”

实验发现，忽视是导致夫妻关系破裂的首要原因。倾向于批评伴侣的人忽略了对方一半以上的积极性行动，而更倾向于消极地看待对方。这些“给伴侣一个冷肩膀”的行动——不论是有意为之还是回应过于小气——都损害了婚姻关系，因为这让伴侣感觉自己很糟糕，感觉自己没价值。总之，倾向于忽视或者批评伴侣的人不仅扼杀了爱情，还削弱了伴侣应对困难的能力。吝啬是婚姻关系的丧钟

另一方面，真诚（kindness）是婚姻关系的粘合剂。其他的独立研究也表明真诚（和情绪稳定）是最重要的预测婚姻满意度和稳定性的指标。真诚可以让伴侣感到被关心，被理解，被重视，也就是感觉到被爱。“我的慷慨像大海那样无边无际”，莎士比亚戏剧中的朱丽叶唱到，“我深爱着你，我给你越多，我也获得越多，以至于无穷多”。真诚也是如此，我们付出越多，我们就获得越多，进而增强了爱情和慷慨之情。

我们对“真诚”有两种态度。你可以将之视为人之本性，要么有，要么没有。你也可以将它比作肌肉，虽然某些人的肌肉更发达，但是每个人都可以通过训练而增强自己的肌肉。幸福型伴侣将真诚视为一种肌肉，他们知道要时刻锻炼以让真诚常驻。换言之，他们知道幸福的婚姻关系需要持续不断的努力经营。

戈特曼解释说“如果你的伴侣传递了情感需求的信号，虽然此时你很累、紧张或心烦意乱，但是慷慨之心让你在需要接牌时依然向你的伴侣做出情感回应。”

当然此时最简单的回应方式是忽略你的伴侣而继续玩ipad，看书或看电视等，附和一声“嗯啊”。但这些看似无关紧要的忽视对方情感需求的做法，会慢慢撕裂夫妻关系。忽视会产生了隔阂，会引发被忽略者的不满情绪。

最能锻炼真诚的时刻是发生冲突时，这也是最需要真诚的时刻。不走大脑的表达忽视和挑衅的情绪会给夫妻关系造成不可逆的伤害。

“真诚并不是不能表达愤怒情绪”，戈特曼解释道，“而是注意表达愤怒情绪的方式。你可以肆无忌惮地表达愤怒，或者选择理性的向对方解释你为什么受伤害和生气，后者才是更真诚的举动。”

戈特曼进一步阐述肆无忌惮的表达愤怒的现象，“不同类型的人会在冲突中以不同的形式表达情绪。不幸型的人会说‘你迟到了。你怎么搞的？遗传下来的坏毛病！’而幸福型的人会说‘对于你的迟到我有点难以接受，我知道这不是你的错，但是反复迟到总是让人有些不爽。’”

* * *

对每个月结成连理的成百上千对新婚夫妻，对上百万已婚夫妻，甚至对于没有结婚的人来说，这项研究的结论都很清晰：如果你想获得一个稳定和健康的婚姻关系，请多多锻炼真诚之心。

在锻炼真诚之心的时候，人们会想到很多慷慨的小举动，比如给伴侣买一个小礼物或者从背后送给伴侣一个意想不到的拥抱。生活中有很多种表达慷慨的行动，不论是一个拥抱还是一块巧克力，这些每天的互动都能锻炼了真诚之心。

锻炼真诚之心的一种方法是慷慨的面对你的伴侣的目的。从戈特曼的研究中，我们知道了不幸型夫妻倾向于负面的看待伴侣，即使伴侣本意并非如此。例如，当丈夫忘了合上马桶盖时，生气的妻子会认为丈夫是故意这么做以惹她生气。可事实可能是丈夫忘记了而已。

再比如，如果妻子又气喘吁吁来参加晚宴，而且是第二次迟到时，丈夫会认为妻子并不重视他，因为妻子没有安排足够的时间，而自己却花费很大力气预订座位并且提前下班以保证他们能够一起度过一个浪漫的夜晚。但妻子迟到的真实原因是她路上经过商店给丈夫买了一个特别的礼物。想象一下他们一起共进晚餐的情景，妻子兴奋的送出她的礼物，结果却发现丈夫脾气很糟糕，因为他误解了妻子的所做作为的动机。慷慨地领会你的伴侣的行动和目的可以缓解冲突。

“即使在两人都心灰意冷的时候，也可以做积极的事情和正确的事情。”心理学家Tashiro告诉我，“很多时候，你的伴侣想做一件正确的事情，尽管结果搞砸了。此时也要赞扬对方的目的。”

锻炼真诚之心的另外一个方法是分享快乐。戈特曼指出，不幸型夫妻的显著特点是丧失了互相分享好消息的能力。当一方分享好消息的时候，比如获得工作晋升，另一方却没有表达兴趣，比如看现在几点了，或者用不利于交谈继续下去的话回复比如“非常不错“。

我们都知道夫妻要相濡以沫，可研究证明夫妻共同拥抱快乐对提高夫妻质量更重要。一个人如何回应他的伴侣的好消息，对他们的婚姻关系意义重大。

在一项2006年开始的研究中，心理学家Gable和她的同事邀请新婚夫妻到她们的实验室分享他们生活中积极的事情。心理学家想通过实验来研究受试者如何回应他们的伴侣的好消息。实验表明，我们有四种回应伴侣的好消息的模式：消极的破坏性，积极的破坏性，消极的建设性和积极的建设性。

让我们来看一个例子，一个人最近收到了一个好消息，她如愿以偿的考入了医学院。她可能会这么分享自己的消息，“我考入最喜欢的医学院啦！”

如果她的伴侣以消极的破坏性方式回应，他可能会忽略她说的事情，比如回复道，“你肯定不会相信，我昨天赢得了一件T恤衫！”

如果她的伴侣以消极的建设性方式回应，他可能会不够真诚地祝贺她一下。一个典型的消极的建设性回应方式是，他一边继续用手机和朋友聊天，一般附和道，“宝贝，你真是太棒了”。

在第三种回应方式中，也就是积极的破坏性方式，她的伴侣可能会让她高兴不起来，比如说“你确定你能学好吗，而且费用怎么办，医学院的费用很高啊！”

最后一种回应方式是积极的建设性方式。如果她的伴侣用这种方式回复，他会停下自己手头的事情，然后全身心地回应她，比如说“太棒了！恭喜你！你什么时候得到这个好消息的？是他们打电话告诉你的吗？你第一学期打算学点什么？”

在这四种回应方式中，积极的建设性回应是最真诚的。而其他的回应方式都是“快乐杀手”，只有积极的建设性回应才能让对方享受她的快乐，进而通过分享快乐让双方更亲密。按照戈特曼的说法，积极的建设性回应方式是一种接受对方的出牌（分享好消息）的过程，而非忽略对方的出牌。

积极的建设性回应方式对健康的夫妻关系至关重要。在2006年的研究中，Gable和她的同事跟踪夫妻两个月，以判断他们以后是否还会在一起。心理学家发现，稳固和破裂的夫妻关系之间的唯一区别就是是否存在积极的建设性回应方式。那些对彼此的快乐表达真诚兴趣的伴侣更有可能在一起。在早期的研究中，Gable发现这种积极的建设性回应方式也有助于提高婚姻关系的质量和夫妻亲密性。

有很多原因都能引发婚姻关系破裂，但是如果你仔细研究一下，就会发现各个原因都有一个相同点，就是夫妻之间缺乏真诚。随着生活压力的逐渐累积，来自孩子、职业、朋友、亲人和其他导致心烦意乱的事情层出不穷，夫妻可能不再努力经营夫妻关系，从而让小矛盾一点点撕裂他们的关系。在大多数的婚姻中，满足感都会在结婚前几年快速下降。而对于那些不仅接纳全然的对方而且能长年累月幸福生活的夫妻来说，真诚之心和慷慨之情则是主要的前进驱动力。

================================

Masters of Love

Science says lasting relationships come down to—you guessed it—kindness and generosity.

Every day in June, the most popular wedding month of the year, about 13,000 American couples will say “I do,” committing to a lifelong relationship that will be full of friendship, joy, and love that will carry them forward to their final days on this earth.

Except, of course, it doesn’t work out that way for most people. The majority of marriages fail, either ending in divorce and separation or devolving into bitterness and dysfunction. Of all the people who get married, only three in ten remain in healthy, happy marriages, as psychologist Ty Tashiro points out in his book The Science of Happily Ever After, which was published earlier this year.

Social scientists first started studying marriages by observing them in action in the 1970s in response to a crisis: Married couples were divorcing at unprecedented rates. Worried about the impact these divorces would have on the children of the broken marriages, psychologists decided to cast their scientific net on couples, bringing them into the lab to observe them and determine what the ingredients of a healthy, lasting relationship were. Was each unhappy family unhappy in its own way, as Tolstoy claimed, or did the miserable marriages all share something toxic in common?

Psychologist John Gottman was one of those researchers. For the past four decades, he has studied thousands of couples in a quest to figure out what makes relationships work. I recently had the chance to interview Gottman and his wife Julie, also a psychologist, in New York City. Together, the renowned experts on marital stability run The Gottman Institute, which is devoted to helping couples build and maintain loving, healthy relationships based on scientific studies.John Gottman began gathering his most critical findings in 1986, when he set up “The Love Lab” with his colleague Robert Levenson at the University of Washington. Gottman and Levenson brought newlyweds into the lab and watched them interact with each other. With a team of researchers, they hooked the couples up to electrodes and asked the couples to speak about their relationship, like how they met, a major conflict they were facing together, and a positive memory they had. As they spoke, the electrodes measured the subjects’ blood flow, heart rates, and how much they sweat they produced. Then the researchers sent the couples home and followed up with them six years later to see if they were still together.From the data they gathered, Gottman separated the couples into two major groups: the masters and the disasters. The masters were still happily together after six years. The disasters had either broken up or were chronically unhappy in their marriages. When the researchers analyzed the data they gathered on the couples, they saw clear differences between the masters and disasters. The disasters looked calm during the interviews, but their physiology, measured by the electrodes, told a different story. Their heart rates were quick, their sweat glands were active, and their blood flow was fast. Following thousands of couples longitudinally, Gottman found that the more physiologically active the couples were in the lab, the quicker their relationships deteriorated over time.

But what does physiology have to do with anything? The problem was that the disasters showed all the signs of arousal—of being in fight-or-flight mode—in their relationships. Having a conversation sitting next to their spouse was, to their bodies, like facing off with a saber-toothed tiger. Even when they were talking about pleasant or mundane facets of their relationships, they were prepared to attack and be attacked. This sent their heart rates soaring and made them more aggressive toward each other. For example, each member of a couple could be talking about how their days had gone, and a highly aroused husband might say to his wife, “Why don’t you start talking about your day. It won’t take you very long.”The masters, by contrast, showed low physiological arousal. They felt calm and connected together, which translated into warm and affectionate behavior, even when they fought. It’s not that the masters had, by default, a better physiological make-up than the disasters; it’s that masters had created a climate of trust and intimacy that made both of them more emotionally and thus physically comfortable.

Gottman wanted to know more about how the masters created that culture of love and intimacy, and how the disasters squashed it. In a follow-up study in 1990, he designed a lab on the University of Washington campus to look like a beautiful bed and breakfast retreat. He invited 130 newlywed couples to spend the day at this retreat and watched them as they did what couples normally do on vacation: cook, clean, listen to music, eat, chat, and hang out. And Gottman made a critical discovery in this study—one that gets at the heart of why some relationships thrive while others languish.

Throughout the day, partners would make requests for connection, what Gottman calls “bids.”

For example, say that the husband is a bird enthusiast and notices a goldfinch fly across the yard. He might say to his wife, “Look at that beautiful bird outside!” He’s not just commenting on the bird here: he’s requesting a response from his wife—a sign of interest or support—hoping they’ll connect, however momentarily, over the bird.The wife now has a choice. She can respond by either “turning toward” or “turning away” from her husband, as Gottman puts it. Though the bird-bid might seem minor and silly, it can actually reveal a lot about the health of the relationship. The husband thought the bird was important enough to bring it up in conversation and the question is whether his wife recognizes and respects that.

People who turned toward their partners in the study responded by engaging the bidder, showing interest and support in the bid. Those who didn’t—those who turned away—would not respond or respond minimally and continue doing whatever they were doing, like watching TV or reading the paper. Sometimes they would respond with overt hostility, saying something like, “Stop interrupting me, I’m reading.”

These bidding interactions had profound effects on marital well-being. Couples who had divorced after a six-year follow up had “turn-toward bids” 33 percent of the time. Only three in ten of their bids for emotional connection were met with intimacy. The couples who were still together after six years had “turn-toward bids” 87 percent of the time. Nine times out of ten, they were meeting their partner’s emotional needs.

By observing these types of interactions, Gottman can predict with up to 94 percent certainty whether couples—straight or gay, rich or poor, childless or not—will be broken up, together and unhappy, or together and happy several years later. Much of it comes down to the spirit couples bring to the relationship. Do they bring kindness and generosity; or contempt, criticism, and hostility?

“There’s a habit of mind that the masters have,” Gottman explained in an interview, “which is this: they are scanning social environment for things they can appreciate and say thank you for. They are building this culture of respect and appreciation very purposefully. Disasters are scanning the social environment for partners’ mistakes.”

“It’s not just scanning environment,” chimed in Julie Gottman. “It’s scanning thepartner for what the partner is doing right or scanning him for what he’s doing wrong and criticizing versus respecting him and expressing appreciation.”

Contempt, they have found, is the number one factor that tears couples apart. People who are focused on criticizing their partners miss a whopping 50 percent of positive things their partners are doing and they see negativity when it’s not there. People who give their partner the cold shoulder—deliberately ignoring the partner or responding minimally—damage the relationship by making their partner feel worthless and invisible, as if they’re not there, not valued. And people who treat their partners with contempt and criticize them not only kill the love in the relationship, but they also kill their partner’s ability to fight off viruses and cancers. Being mean is the death knell of relationships.

Kindness, on the other hand, glues couples together. Research independent from theirs has shown that kindness (along with emotional stability) is the most important predictor of satisfaction and stability in a marriage. Kindness makes each partner feel cared for, understood, and validated—feel loved.

“My bounty is as boundless as the sea,” says Shakespeare’s Juliet. “My love as deep; the more I give to thee, / The more I have, for both are infinite.” That’s how kindness works too: there’s a great deal of evidence showing the more someone receives or witnesses kindness, the more they will be kind themselves, which leads to upward spirals of love and generosity in a relationship.There are two ways to think about kindness. You can think about it as a fixed trait: either you have it or you don’t. Or you could think of kindness as a muscle. In some people, that muscle is naturally stronger than in others, but it can grow stronger in everyone with exercise. Masters tend to think about kindness as a muscle. They know that they have to exercise it to keep it in shape. They know, in other words, that a good relationship requires sustained hard work.

“If your partner expresses a need,” explained Julie Gottman, “and you are tired, stressed, or distracted, then the generous spirit comes in when a partner makes a bid, and you still turn toward your partner.”

In that moment, the easy response may be to turn away from your partner and focus on your iPad or your book or the television, to mumble “Uh huh” and move on with your life, but neglecting small moments of emotional connection will slowly wear away at your relationship. Neglect creates distance between partners and breeds resentment in the one who is being ignored.

The hardest time to practice kindness is, of course, during a fight—but this is also the most important time to be kind. Letting contempt and aggression spiral out of control during a conflict can inflict irrevocable damage on a relationship.“Kindness doesn’t mean that we don’t express our anger,” Julie Gottman explained, “but the kindness informs how we choose to express the anger. You can throw spears at your partner. Or you can explain why you’re hurt and angry, and that’s the kinder path.”

John Gottman elaborated on those spears: “Disasters will say things differently in a fight. Disasters will say ‘You’re late. What’s wrong with you? You’re just like your mom.’ Masters will say ‘I feel bad for picking on you about your lateness, and I know it’s not your fault, but it’s really annoying that you’re late again.’”

* * *

For the hundreds of thousands of couples getting married this month—and for the millions of couples currently together, married or not—the lesson from the research is clear: If you want to have a stable, healthy relationship, exercise kindness early and often.

When people think about practicing kindness, they often think about small acts of generosity, like buying each other little gifts or giving one another back rubs every now and then. While those are great examples of generosity, kindness can also be built into the very backbone of a relationship through the way partners interact with each other on a day-to-day basis, whether or not there are back rubs and chocolates involved.

One way to practice kindness is by being generous about your partner’s intentions. From the research of the Gottmans, we know that disasters see negativity in their relationship even when it is not there. An angry wife may assume, for example, that when her husband left the toilet seat up, he was deliberately trying to annoy her. But he may have just absent-mindedly forgotten to put the seat down.

Or say a wife is running late to dinner (again), and the husband assumes that she doesn’t value him enough to show up to their date on time after he took the trouble to make a reservation and leave work early so that they could spend a romantic evening together. But it turns out that the wife was running late because she stopped by a store to pick him up a gift for their special night out. Imagine her joining him for dinner, excited to deliver her gift, only to realize that he’s in a sour mood because he misinterpreted what was motivating her behavior. The ability to interpret your partner’s actions and intentions charitably can soften the sharp edge of conflict.

“Even in relationships where people are frustrated, it’s almost always the case that there are positive things going on and people trying to do the right thing,” psychologist Ty Tashiro told me. “A lot of times, a partner is trying to do the right thing even if it’s executed poorly. So appreciate the intent.”

Another powerful kindness strategy revolves around shared joy. One of the telltale signs of the disaster couples Gottman studied was their inability to connect over each other’s good news. When one person in the relationship shared the good news of, say, a promotion at work with excitement, the other would respond with wooden disinterest by checking his watch or shutting the conversation down with a comment like, “That’s nice.”

We’ve all heard that partners should be there for each other when the going gets rough. But research shows that being there for each other when things go right is actually more important for relationship quality. How someone responds to a partner’s good news can have dramatic consequences for the relationship.In one study from 2006, psychological researcher Shelly Gable and her colleagues brought young adult couples into the lab to discuss recent positive events from their lives. They psychologists wanted to know how partners would respond to each other’s good news. They found that, in general, couples responded to each other’s good news in four different ways that they called:passive destructive, active destructive, passive constructive, and active constructive.

Let’s say that one partner had recently received the excellent news that she got into medical school. She would say something like “I got into my top choice med school!”

If her partner responded in a passive destructive manner, he would ignore the event. For example, he might say something like: “You wouldn’t believe the great news I got yesterday! I won a free t-shirt!”If her partner responded in a passive constructive way, he would acknowledge the good news, but in a half-hearted, understated way. A typical passive constructive response is saying “That’s great, babe” as he texts his buddy on his phone.

In the third kind of response, active destructive, the partner would diminish the good news his partner just got: “Are you sure you can handle all the studying? And what about the cost? Med school is so expensive!”Finally, there’s active constructive responding. If her partner responded in this way, he stopped what he was doing and engaged wholeheartedly with her: “That’s great! Congratulations! When did you find out? Did they call you? What classes will you take first semester?”Among the four response styles, active constructive responding is the kindest. While the other response styles are joy-killers, active constructive responding allows the partner to savor her joy and gives the couple an opportunity to bond over the good news. In the parlance of the Gottmans, active constructive responding is a way of “turning toward” your partners bid (sharing the good news) rather than “turning away” from it.Active constructive responding is critical for healthy relationships. In the 2006 study, Gable and her colleagues followed up with the couples two months later to see if they were still together. The psychologists found that the only difference between the couples who were together and those who broke up was active constructive responding. Those who showed genuine interest in their partner’s joys were more likely to be together. In an earlier study, Gable found that active constructive responding was also associated with higher relationship quality and more intimacy between partners.

There are many reasons why relationships fail, but if you look at what drives the deterioration of many relationships, it’s often a breakdown of kindness. As the normal stresses of a life together pile up—with children, career, friend, in-laws, and other distractions crowding out the time for romance and intimacy—couples may put less effort into their relationship and let the petty grievances they hold against one another tear them apart. In most marriages, levels of satisfaction drop dramatically within the first few years together. But among couples who not only endure, but live happily together for years and years, the spirit of kindness and generosity guides them forward.