A specific mental strategy appears to boost relationship problem-solving in a big way

New research published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships provides evidence that a specific mental exercise can help couples resolve conflicts more effectively than simple positive thinking. The study indicates that a self-regulation strategy known as “mental contrasting” encourages partners to engage with the internal obstacles preventing them from solving their problems.

Romantic relationships inevitably involve conflict. How couples navigate these disagreements is a strong predictor of whether the relationship will last and how satisfied the partners will feel. Effective problem-solving usually involves constructive communication and emotional responsiveness, while ineffective management is characterized by defensiveness or avoidance.

While counseling is a traditional route for improving these skills, it can be time-consuming and expensive. As a result, psychologists have sought to identify effective, self-administered strategies that couples can use on their own to navigate difficulties.

“Almost every couple faces problems sooner or later. Sadly, most couples, especially those whose satisfaction is not (yet) critically affected, are unlikely participate in couple interventions programs due to the substantial time and money investment required. That’s why we wanted to test whether a brief, scalable, and self-guided exercise can have meaningful impact on couples’ problem-solving behavior,” said study author Henrik Jöhnk, a research associate at Zeppelin University.

The researchers focused on a strategy called mental contrasting. This technique is distinct from positive thinking, or “indulging.” When people indulge, they imagine a desired future without considering the reality that stands in the way. In mental contrasting, an individual identifies a wish and the best outcome of fulfilling that wish, but then immediately reflects on the main inner obstacle—such as an emotion, habit, or belief—that prevents them from realizing that future.

Free daily newsletter

Prior studies have shown that mental contrasting helps individuals regulate their behavior by creating a strong mental link between the desired future and the obstacle that must be overcome. The researchers in this study wanted to determine if this internal cognitive process could translate into better interpersonal communication between two partners.

The study involved 105 mixed-gender couples living in Germany. The participants ranged in age from 19 to 60, with an average age of roughly 27 years. Most were in committed relationships, with an average duration of three and a half years. The study was conducted remotely using video conferencing software.

To begin the experiment, both partners in a couple independently listed topics that caused disagreements in their relationship. They then came together to agree on one specific problem they wanted to solve. Once a problem was selected, the partners separated into different virtual rooms to complete the experimental task.

The couples were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the mental contrasting condition, each partner was asked to imagine the most positive aspect of resolving their chosen problem. Following this, they were asked to identify and imagine their main inner obstacle that was holding them back from resolving it. In the indulging condition, participants also imagined the most positive aspect of the resolution, but instead of focusing on an obstacle, they were asked to imagine a second positive aspect. This condition mimicked standard positive thinking or daydreaming.

After these individual mental exercises, the partners rejoined in the same physical room and were recorded having a ten-minute discussion about their problem via Zoom. Researchers later coded these interactions, looking for specific behaviors. They measured “self-disclosure,” which is the act of revealing personal feelings, attitudes, and needs. They also measured “solution suggestions,” counting how often partners proposed specific ways to fix the problem. Two weeks after the experiment, the couples completed a follow-up survey to report on whether they had made progress in resolving the conflict.

The results showed that mental contrasting had a measurable impact on how couples interacted and how successful they were at solving their problems. Regarding the long-term outcome, couples who used mental contrasting reported greater problem resolution two weeks later compared to those who used indulging. This benefit was specifically observed for problems that the partners perceived as highly important. When the issue was of low importance, the type of mental exercise made less of a difference.

“For a brief, self-guided exercise, the effects are surprisingly strong,” Jöhnk told PsyPost. “In particular, couples who are still relatively satisfied may benefit from trying mental contrasting in order to identify new ways forward. At the same time, these effects should not be seen as comparable to those of established couple therapies, which typically involve multiple sessions over months or years. Mental contrasting is best understood as a tool and a complement—not an alternative—to existing interventions.”

The video analysis revealed that the intervention changed the behavior of men and women in distinct ways. Men in the mental contrasting condition engaged in significantly more self-disclosure than men in the indulging condition. Specifically, they were more likely to verbalize their feelings and explain the attitudes driving their behavior. In the indulging condition, men showed typical patterns of disclosing less than women. However, in the mental contrasting condition, men’s level of self-disclosure rose to match that of the women.

This suggests that reflecting on internal obstacles helped men overcome barriers to vulnerability. By recognizing that an emotion like anger or insecurity was the obstacle, they became more likely to express that emotion to their partner. This is significant because self-disclosure is a key component of intimacy and helps partners understand the root causes of a conflict.

Women responded to the intervention differently. Women in the mental contrasting condition suggested fewer solutions than those in the indulging group. This reduction in solution suggestions was particularly evident when the problem was rated as important. While offering fewer solutions might sound negative, the researchers interpret this as a positive shift toward quality over quantity.

“What surprised me most was that mental contrasting didn’t increase the number of solutions people suggested for their problems,” Jöhnk said. “Instead, it appeared to slow the process down: people (especially women in our study) were less likely to offer quick or premature fixes, which may actually support effective problem-solving.”

In many conflicts, rushing to offer solutions can be a way to bypass necessary emotional processing. By suggesting fewer solutions, the women may have been more selective and thoughtful, avoiding premature fixes that would not address the underlying issue. The data showed that in the mental contrasting condition, participants were more likely to suggest a solution immediately after engaging in self-disclosure, implying that the solutions offered were more grounded in the reality of their feelings.

The study provides evidence that focusing on obstacles, rather than ignoring them, fosters a more realistic and grounded approach to relationship maintenance. Indulging in positive fantasies can sometimes drain the energy needed for action or lead to disappointment when reality does not match the fantasy. Mental contrasting appears to mobilize individuals to tackle the hard work required for resolving serious issues.

“To resolve relationship problems, it’s not enough to just hope things will get better,” Jöhnk explained. “Our research shows that people benefit from also facing their own inner obstacles like anger, fear, or insecurity that often get in the way of constructive conversations and actual change. ”

But there are some limitations to this study. The sample consisted largely of young, educated couples who were relatively satisfied with their relationships. The dynamics of problem-solving might look very different in couples who are highly distressed or on the brink of separation. In those cases, the problems might be perceived as insurmountable, and mental contrasting might lead to disengagement rather than engagement.

Additionally, the study relied on a specific experimental setup using Zoom. While this allowed the researchers to observe couples in their own homes, the presence of a recording device and the structured nature of the task might have influenced behavior. The researchers also only analyzed verbal communication. Non-verbal cues, such as tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language, play a massive role in conflict and were not part of the behavioral coding.

“We are still at in the middle of investigating the role of mental contrasting in romantic relationships, but this line of research is now expanding, supported by funding from the German Research Foundation,” Jöhnk noted. “A next step is to examine whether and how mental contrasting may benefit highly distressed couples, whose problems are often difficult or even impossible to fully resolve. In particular, we aim to study how mental contrasting shapes the way couples think about and engage with their problems when quick solutions are unlikely.”

“Readers who are curious to learn more about mental contrasting can visit https://woopmylife.org, which offers free, evidence-based resources on mental contrasting and WOOP, a practical self-regulation strategy based on this research. For a deeper introduction, I also recommend Rethinking Positive Thinking by Gabriele Oettingen, who supervised this project and holds senior professorships at both New York University and Zeppelin University.”

The study, “Mental contrasting and problem-solving in romantic relationships: A dyadic behavioral observation study,” was authored by Henrik Jöhnk, Gabriele Oettingen, Kay Brauer, and A. Timur Sevincer.