The Myth of Compatibility: Why the "Amount" of Affection Matters More Than Being Alike
“We’re just too different.” It’s a phrase I hear often from couples who feel they’ve drifted into the "roommate phase." One partner is naturally touchy-feely and expressive; the other is more reserved and "cool." They assume their lack of satisfaction is a result of being a bad match.
However, a recent study (Floyd, Van Raalte, & Hesse, 2026) suggests we’ve been looking at compatibility all wrong.
Quality over Congruency
The research found that relationship satisfaction isn't driven by how similar you and your partner are in your levels of warmth. Instead, it is driven by the total quantity of affection present in the relationship.
In simpler terms: It doesn't matter if you are "opposites" in personality. What matters is that you both consciously increase the amount of warmth, kindness, and affection you share. Even if you consider yourself a "less affectionate" person, increasing your baseline of warmth can significantly boost your partner's (and your own) happiness.
Breaking the "Roommate" Cycle
This is great news for couples because personality is hard to change, but behavior is flexible. You don’t need to change who you are to save your relationship; you just need to change what you do.
Small, consistent acts of warmth—a long hug, a genuine compliment, or a supportive text—add up to a "climate of affection" that overrides personality gaps.
How Therapy Helps
In our practice, we help couples move past the "we're just different" excuse. We provide the tools to help you increase the "affectionate volume" in your home, regardless of your baseline personality.
This blog post was written by Dr. Barek Sharif, a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist who specializes in working with high-achieving individuals and couples. To schedule an appointment please visit our Contact Us page.
Floyd, K., van Raalte, L., & Hesse, C. (2026). Affectionate Communication in Romantic Relationships: Are Relative Levels or Absolute Levels More Consequential? Communication Studies, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2025.2610244
