Imagine a couple adjusting to a new work schedule. One partner arrives home late, expecting dinner to be a simple matter. The other has spent the evening rearranging plans and waiting for help. A question about food becomes an argument about consideration. Before long, they are discussing whether they can depend on each other at all.

The dinner disagreement is an illustration, but the question it raises is familiar: How does an ordinary problem become a judgment about an entire relationship? RTT offers a way to examine the uncertainty and coordination difficulties surrounding the exchange. Its scope includes dating and established partnerships; shared household responsibilities provide one concrete setting in which to explore its ideas (Solomon et al., 2016).

Understanding Relational Turbulence Theory

Denise Haunani Solomon, Leanne K. Knobloch, Jennifer A. Theiss, and Rachel M. McLaren articulated RTT in 2016, extending an earlier relational turbulence model. The earlier work concentrated on the movement from casual dating toward more serious involvement. The theory developed a more explicit explanation of how relationship conditions shape particular encounters and how those encounters contribute to an overall evaluation of the relationship (Solomon et al., 2016).

An important distinction is between an upsetting episode and relational turbulence. A disagreement can be unpleasant without making the relationship feel precarious. Turbulence refers to a more persistent appraisal of the relationship as chaotic, unsettled, or fragile. It is conceptually different from dissatisfaction: disliking the quality of a relationship and experiencing it as unpredictable are related judgments, but they ask different questions (Solomon et al., 2016; Solomon & Brisini, 2017).

This distinction changes what we examine. Counting arguments tells us little about whether partners feel secure between them, whether agreements remain dependable, or whether each new difficulty seems to threaten the relationship. The concern here is how the relationship comes to feel unsettled across encounters, rather than whether a couple ever disagrees.

Relational Uncertainty and Interdependence

RTT gives particular attention to two conditions: uncertainty about involvement and the ways partners help or hinder one another’s activities. These conditions can coexist, but they contribute different pieces to the explanation. The theory links uncertainty especially to how people interpret events and interruptions to shared routines especially to emotional intensity (Solomon et al., 2016).

Relational Uncertainty About Involvement

Relational uncertainty concerns questions about ourselves, our partner, and the relationship as a shared arrangement. Identifying the source of the uncertainty helps clarify what is actually in question (Solomon et al., 2016).

Uncertainty about ourselves concerns our feelings, desires, and commitment. We may care about someone while wondering whether the relationship fits the life we want. An invitation to move in together, for example, may make our own intentions more pressing: What am I prepared to build here?

Uncertainty about our partner concerns the other person’s feelings and intentions. Changes in contact or availability may leave us unsure how invested our partner remains. A demanding week at work and a retreat from commitment can look similar from a distance, even though they call for different responses.

Uncertainty about the relationship concerns its status, expectations, and future. Partners may agree that they love each other while understanding exclusivity, caregiving, or commitment differently. Clarification may reveal a shared understanding, a negotiable difference, or a disagreement that affection alone cannot resolve (Solomon et al., 2016).

RTT proposes that uncertainty complicates the interpretation of particular events. When the relationship provides an unclear frame of reference, people may rely on incomplete information when judging a partner’s behavior (Solomon et al., 2016). That theoretical explanation cannot establish whether a particular concern is justified. Examining interpretations should include attention to what the partner actually does.

Risk regulation theory offers a complementary perspective. Murray, Holmes, and Collins describe how confidence in a partner’s care can support willingness to depend on that person, while doubts about acceptance can encourage self-protection. This helps explain why seeking closeness may feel risky, although it is a distinct framework from RTT (Murray et al., 2006).

Interdependence and Shared Responsibilities

Interdependence means that what one partner does affects the other person’s activities and outcomes. RTT distinguishes partner interference, when a partner makes desired activities more difficult, from partner facilitation, when a partner makes them easier. The theory considers how interruptions to established routines can heighten emotional responsiveness; it includes helpful as well as obstructive interruptions, while giving particular attention to interference (Solomon et al., 2016).

In our opening example, the changed work schedule disrupts more than dinner. Someone must decide when to shop, who handles the evening responsibilities, and which plans can still be kept. Reassurance can clarify intentions, while an uneven distribution of responsibilities still requires practical attention. Caring about a partner and sharing the work are related concerns that deserve separate examination.

Some of that work is easy to overlook. Allison Daminger’s interviews with members of 35 couples distinguish four aspects of cognitive household labor: anticipating needs, identifying options, making decisions, and monitoring completion. Someone may perform a visible chore while the other person remains responsible for noticing that it needs doing, arranging it, and checking what happens afterward. The study makes this largely invisible work more intelligible; its relatively advantaged parent sample limits how broadly its patterns can be generalized (Daminger, 2019).

In a separate study of 322 mothers of young children, a greater reported share of cognitive household labor was associated with poorer mental health and relationship functioning. The study relied on mothers’ reports collected at one time, so it cannot establish causation or describe every couple’s experience (Aviv et al., 2025).

Together, these studies invite a useful extension of the dinner example. A person may be uncertain about being valued while also carrying responsibilities that the other partner barely notices. These are different questions, and both may deserve an answer. Connecting cognitive labor with RTT is an interpretation developed here; the household-labor studies did not directly test whether unequal planning work causes relational turbulence.

The transition to parenthood illustrates how much coordination may change. Estlein and colleagues followed 78 couples from pregnancy through six months after birth. Uncertainty and facets of interdependence were associated with appraisals of irritations and features of conflict. The observations support examining everyday arrangements alongside communication, while the small, predominantly White sample of heterosexual biological parents limits generalization. Parenthood does not inevitably produce turbulence (Estlein et al., 2025).

How Relationship Turbulence Develops

A late arrival can be understood as an inconvenience, an unavoidable demand, or evidence that a partner does not care. Those interpretations can accompany different emotions and responses. RTT proposes that uncertainty, appraisals, and emotional intensity shape communication within particular encounters. Thoughts and feelings also influence one another, so the explanation is not a rigid sequence in which each step happens only once (Solomon et al., 2016).

Communication becomes part of what happens next. An accusation may draw a defensive reply; silence may leave an important question unanswered. Across repeated exchanges, the particular difficulty can begin to stand for the relationship as a whole. The partners may come to expect another destabilizing encounter before the next practical problem has been discussed. This is the theory’s proposed connection between individual episodes and a global experience of turbulence (Solomon et al., 2016).

The process also allows for change. An exchange can reinforce uncertainty or provide information that alters it. A candid conversation may clarify commitment, expose an unworkable arrangement, or reveal that the partners want different things. The possibility of reciprocal influence does not guarantee a reassuring outcome (Solomon et al., 2016).

Military-related online forum accounts give a context-specific illustration of how turmoil is experienced. Monk and colleagues identified narratives involving change, distress, fighting, and feeling conflicted about a relationship. These accounts illuminate lived dilemmas, but they do not establish how common those experiences are among military couples (Monk et al., 2020).

Turbulence should also remain distinct from sentiment override. Gottman’s discussion of sentiment override concerns how general feelings toward a partner shape the interpretation of particular behavior. RTT describes a broader proposed account of uncertainty, interdependence, episodes, and an overall sense of instability. The concepts overlap in their attention to relationship judgments, but they are not interchangeable (Gottman, 1994; Solomon et al., 2016).

What the Research Supports and What Remains Uncertain

Researchers have developed questionnaires that help distinguish feeling unsettled about a relationship from simply being unhappy with it. Solomon and Brisini examined how measures of uncertainty and turbulence relate to other relationship experiences and whether they capture something distinct. Clearer measures make the theory easier to study, but a questionnaire cannot, by itself, explain what causes turbulence (Solomon & Brisini, 2017).

Studies of the proposed processes show a mixed picture. In one marriage study, uncertainty was linked with taking conflict personally, thoughts about jealousy, and emotional responses. Some findings about partners helping or hindering each other differed between men and women or went against predictions (Solomon & Brisini, 2019). In another study, involving 255 married couples, the ways people interpreted events and experienced anger were associated with turbulence. Some connections also involved the other spouse’s reports. Because the researchers collected these reports at one point in time, they could not establish which experiences came first (Goodboy et al., 2023).

A review by Lağap and Güngör examined 16 studies, drawing on 14 datasets, that used a particular method to analyze reports from both partners. Most asked about experiences at one point in time, and none experimentally changed the relationship conditions being studied. Connections within a person’s own reports were more often statistically significant than connections involving the partner’s reports. Using the same person’s reports for several experiences may partly explain that pattern. The review covers a specific part of RTT research; it does not combine all studies into a single estimate of the theory’s effects (Lağap & Güngör, 2026).

The theory therefore offers a useful explanation to investigate, with continuing questions about causal direction, measurement, and generalizability. Observational support should not be treated as evidence that a particular sequence of exercises reliably reduces turbulence. The scoping review explicitly identifies the limits of drawing intervention conclusions from correlational findings (Lağap & Güngör, 2026).

When Communication Is Not Safe

Reciprocal influence does not imply equal responsibility for harmful conduct. Coercive control involves patterns that restrict another person’s freedom, including monitoring, isolation, and restrictions on resources. These patterns deserve attention in their own right and should not be recast as ordinary difficulties coordinating two lives (Lohmann et al., 2024).

A person’s fear may be a response to the partner’s actual conduct. Encouraging greater vulnerability or disclosure without considering that conduct can miss the central problem. The reflective possibilities below assume sufficient freedom and safety to participate. Where those conditions are absent, priorities may include protective boundaries, trusted support, and individualized professional assistance. Understanding an interaction does not create an obligation to remain accessible to someone who causes harm.

Responding to Turbulence in Everyday Life

The following possibilities connect RTT with adjacent relationship research. They are starting points for reflection and do not form a validated RTT intervention. Their usefulness depends on the problem, each partner’s circumstances, and their willingness and ability to respond (Solomon et al., 2016; Overall & McNulty, 2017).

Clarifying the Question Beneath the Argument

“I do not know whether we still agree about sharing the evening responsibilities” asks something different from “I do not know whether you want this relationship.” Identifying the question can guide a conversation toward the information being sought. It also leaves room for an answer that may be uncomfortable. Clarity involves both what partners say and what they subsequently do.

The conditions for speaking matter too. Perceived partner responsiveness concerns feeling understood, validated, and cared for. Ruan and colleagues found that day-to-day perceptions of responsiveness were associated with emotional expression; an experiment also found that induced perceptions of responsiveness increased expression of anxiety in its particular setting. This supports attending to the listener’s response as well as the speaker’s willingness to disclose. It does not show that emotional openness necessarily resolves turbulence (Ruan et al., 2020).

A conversation might therefore begin with an effort to understand what the concern means to the person expressing it. Acknowledging that concern does not settle every factual disagreement or oblige either partner to agree. It can make the issue clearer before they decide what to do about it.

Changing the Arrangements That Repeatedly Fail

Returning to the dinner example, the partners might specify who handles evening tasks on late-work days. They could also ask who notices what is needed, makes the plans, and keeps track of unfinished work. Sharing execution while leaving all the planning with one person may preserve the burden that prompted the disagreement. The distinction draws on cognitive-labor research; this suggested conversation is an illustration rather than a tested procedure for reducing turbulence (Daminger, 2019; Aviv et al., 2025).

Dyadic coping offers a related way to consider shared demands. It includes communicating stress, helping a partner cope, taking over responsibilities, and working together on a problem. A meta-analysis found that dyadic coping was associated with relationship satisfaction, although the predominantly cross-sectional evidence could not establish the direction of that association. These findings support considering practical cooperation alongside discussion; they do not show that dyadic coping reduces relational turbulence (Falconier et al., 2015).

The question is what can realistically be changed and by whom. An arrangement should be examined in light of the time, resources, and obligations each person brings to it. When a task cannot be removed, the partners may still need to clarify how its costs are distributed. These are matters for negotiation, with attention to whose preferences and responsibilities have been treated as negotiable.

Recognizing the Exchange and Addressing the Problem

Sue Johnson’s Hold Me Tight describes recurring patterns of protest, defensive withdrawal, mutual blame, or mutual disengagement. Her attachment perspective can help readers recognize an exchange that keeps repeating; it is a complementary clinical interpretation rather than a direct test of RTT. Gottman’s work similarly considers how attempts to repair an exchange can be lost when partners respond primarily to its negative emotional tone (Johnson, 2008; Gottman, 1994).

Recognizing a pattern should preserve the substance of the concern. Overall and McNulty’s review explains why pleasantness alone is an inadequate standard for effective conflict communication. Outcomes depend partly on the seriousness of the problem, the need for change, and partners’ capacities to respond. Directly addressing a consequential problem may matter more than making the conversation immediately comfortable (Overall & McNulty, 2017).

Supportive exchanges can still matter within an unsettled relationship. In a laboratory study involving 107 participants and their dating partners, observer-rated support was more strongly associated with emotional improvement when turbulence was high. Results for perceived supportiveness were nonsignificant, and a competing sentiment override explanation was not supported in that study. The findings offer a qualified reason to avoid assuming that turbulence makes every supportive attempt ineffective (Solomon & Priem, 2016).

A repair might include acknowledging the impact of a broken agreement and making a concrete change. A softer tone can accompany that work, but cannot substitute for it. Repair also requires participation: one person can clarify a concern or change a response, but cannot supply the other’s honesty, commitment, or sustained change. Greater understanding may support renewed cooperation, firmer limits, or a decision that the relationship cannot continue on acceptable terms.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

The dinner argument becomes more understandable when we notice both the question of dependability and the work required to keep the evening functioning. One partner may want reassurance; the other may need someone else to notice, plan, and follow through. The conversation becomes more useful when those concerns are made visible.

Understanding relational turbulence invites curiosity about an unsettled relationship while leaving room for judgment. We can examine the meaning assigned to an event and the arrangement that repeatedly produces it. Some expectations can be clarified, some responsibilities can be shared differently, and some promises must be assessed by what follows. What we do with that understanding depends on the relationship we actually have and the conditions under which we are being asked to continue it.

Associated Concepts

• Attachment Theory: A complementary perspective on security, availability, and the meaning of close bonds. Attachment patterns and relational turbulence remain conceptually distinct.
• Cognitive Appraisal Theory: Background on how the significance assigned to an event relates to emotional experience.
• Negative Sentiment Override: A related account of how general feelings toward a partner influence the interpretation of particular interactions.
• Emotional Flooding: A connection to overwhelming arousal during conflict. Flooding describes a more specific experience than the broader appraisal of a relationship as turbulent.
• Emotional Communication: A bridge between the theory and the ways partners express, interpret, and respond to feelings.
• Interpersonal Emotion Regulation: A related field examining how people influence one another’s emotions through interaction.

References

Aviv, Elizabeth; Waizman, Yael; Kim, Elizabeth; Liu, Jasmine; Rodsky, Eve; Saxbe, Darby (2025). Cognitive Household Labor: Gender Disparities and Consequences for Maternal Mental Health and Wellbeing. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 28, 5–14. DOI: 10.1007/s00737-024-01490-w.
(Return to Main Text)

Daminger, Allison (2019). The Cognitive Dimension of Household Labor. American Sociological Review, 84(4), 609–633. DOI: 10.1177/0003122419859007.
(Return to Main Text)

Estlein, Roi; Theiss, Jennifer A.; Weber, Kirsten M.; Jones, Hannah E. (2025). A Relational Turbulence Theory Perspective on Interpersonal Conflict During the Transition to Parenthood. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 15(11), 237. DOI: 10.3390/ejihpe15110237.
(Return to Main Text)

Falconier, Mariana K.; Jackson, Jeffrey B.; Hilpert, Peter; Bodenmann, Guy (2015). Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 42, 28–46. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.002.
(Return to Main Text)

Goodboy, Alan K.; Dillow, Megan R.; Knoster, Kevin C.; Howard, Heath A. (2023). Dyadic Processes of Relational Turbulence Theory. Personal Relationships, 30(3), 1000–1023. DOI: 10.1111/pere.12487.
(Return to Main Text)

Gottman, John Mordechai (1994). What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN: 9780805814026.
(Return to Main Text)

Johnson, Sue (2008). Hold Me Tight: Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love. Little, Brown and Company. First ebook edition, April 2008. ISBN: 9780316031998.
(Return to Main Text)

Lağap, Adar Cem; Güngör, Duygu (2026). Looking for Stability in Chaos: A Scoping Review of Relational Turbulence Theory from a Dyadic Perspective. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 18(1), 209–229. DOI: 10.1111/jftr.70033.
(Return to Main Text)

Lohmann, Susanne; Cowlishaw, Sean; Ney, Luke; O’Donnell, Meaghan; Felmingham, Kim (2024). The Trauma and Mental Health Impacts of Coercive Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(1), 630–647. DOI: 10.1177/15248380231162972.
(Return to Main Text)

Monk, Kale; Basinger, Erin D.; Abendschein, Bryan (2020). Relational Turbulence and Psychological Distress in Romantic Relationships in the Military. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(3), 942–964. DOI: 10.1177/0265407519883701.
(Return to Main Text)

Murray, Sandra L.; Holmes, John G.; Collins, Nancy L. (2006). Optimizing Assurance: The Risk Regulation System in Relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 641–666. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.641.
(Return to Main Text)

Overall, Nickola C.; McNulty, James K. (2017). What Type of Communication During Conflict Is Beneficial for Intimate Relationships? Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 1–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.002.
(Return to Main Text)

Ruan, Yan; Reis, Harry T.; Clark, Margaret S.; Hirsch, Jennifer L.; Bink, Brian D. (2020). Can I Tell You How I Feel? Perceived Partner Responsiveness Encourages Emotional Expression. Emotion, 20(3), 329–342. DOI: 10.1037/emo0000650.
(Return to Main Text)

Solomon, Denise Haunani; Brisini, Kellie St. Cyr (2017). Operationalizing Relational Turbulence Theory: Measurement and Construct Validation. Personal Relationships, 24(4), 768–789. DOI: 10.1111/pere.12212.
(Return to Main Text)

Solomon, Denise Haunani; Brisini, Kellie St. Cyr (2019). Relational Uncertainty and Interdependence Processes in Marriage: A Test of Relational Turbulence Theory. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(8), 2416–2436. DOI: 10.1177/0265407518788700.
(Return to Main Text)

Solomon, Denise Haunani; Knobloch, Leanne K.; Theiss, Jennifer A.; McLaren, Rachel M. (2016). Relational Turbulence Theory: Explaining Variation in Subjective Experiences and Communication within Romantic Relationships. Human Communication Research, 42(4), 507–532. DOI: 10.1111/hcre.12091.
(Return to Main Text)

Solomon, Denise Haunani; Priem, Jennifer S. (2016). Outcomes of Emotional Support in Dating Relationships: Relational Turbulence or Sentiment Override? Personal Relationships, 23(4), 698–722. DOI: 10.1111/pere.12155.
(Return to Main Text)

Last Updated: November 5, 2026