Noticing Bids for Connection
The micro-moments that predict relationship quality
Why it works
Gottman's research found that relationship quality is largely determined by how partners respond to each other's 'bids for connection' — small moments where one partner reaches toward the other for attention, affirmation, or affection. Turning toward bids builds the relationship bank account; turning away quietly depletes it.
How to do it
For one week, track your own bids for connection. When do you reach for your partner's attention? What does it look like?
Notice when your partner makes bids. They often look small: showing you something on their phone, commenting on something outside, bringing you a cup of tea.
Practice 'turning toward' — not ignoring or dismissing these moments. Put down what you're doing. Make eye contact. Respond.
Have a 10-minute conversation about this exercise: What bids do you most appreciate receiving? What bids do you think you make that go unnoticed?
This is a practice, not a performance. Perfection isn't the goal — awareness is.
Going deeper
What a 'bid' actually looks like
Bids for connection are easy to miss because they are often small and unmarked. Your partner mentions something they read this morning. They sigh in a way that invites attention. They show you a photo on their phone. They make a comment about the weather. None of these look like requests for connection in the explicit sense. All of them are.
Gottman's research on bids identified three possible responses: turning toward, turning away, and turning against. Turning toward means engaging with the bid — asking a follow-up question, looking at the photo, acknowledging the sigh, picking up on the weather comment. Turning away means not engaging — the bid is registered and not responded to. Turning against means engaging with hostility — the bid produces a negative response.
In stable couples, turning toward is the dominant response, by roughly nine to one. In unstable couples, the ratio drops substantially. The cumulative effect of turning away or against, repeated thousands of times per year, is the gradual death of bidding itself. The partner whose bids consistently do not land eventually stops bidding.
Why noticing your own bids matters first
The exercise begins with tracking your own bids before noticing your partner's. This sequence is deliberate. Most people, asked whether they bid for connection, assume they do not — they imagine they would notice if they were reaching out. Tracking your own bids for a week reveals that you reach out far more often than you realized, in many small and easily missed ways.
The discovery is humbling in a useful way. It makes the corresponding fact about your partner more available. They are also bidding more often than you have been noticing. Many of their bids have been missing the threshold of your attention because they do not look like bids.
The hard part: low-energy moments
The bids that are hardest to respond to are the ones that arrive when you are tired, distracted, or midway through something else. Your partner asks if you saw the news. You did, and you have nothing particular to say about it, and you would rather keep doing what you were doing. The path of least resistance is a brief 'yeah' that closes the bid.
The discipline of the exercise is to turn toward bids even in low-energy moments, in some small way. Not a full conversation. A real one-sentence response. A glance up. A question asked even if you do not need the answer. The bid does not require extensive response — it requires acknowledgement. The acknowledgement is the work that, repeated, maintains the underlying bidding habit on both sides.
Why bids decline silently
The decline of bidding in a long relationship is usually not announced. The partner who has been bidding gradually stops because the bids are exhausting to make without response. The partner who has been missing the bids does not notice the decline, because the absence of bids is less noticeable than the presence of them.
By the time the decline is visible — which is usually only when a major issue requires the couple to actually communicate and they discover they no longer know how — the pattern has been running for years. The recovery is possible but takes deliberate work; the bid-and-response habit has to be rebuilt rather than restored to a previous state that had been atrophying.
The deliberate bidding conversation
The exercise includes a conversation about which bids each partner most appreciates receiving and which ones often go unnoticed. This conversation is more useful than it appears. Each partner's answer reveals what they consider the texture of connection in this specific relationship. The answers are often different from what the other partner would have guessed. The differences are actionable; once you know that your partner especially values the bid of being asked about a specific kind of moment, you can offer that bid more often.
When the underlying bidding habit has died
Some couples, attempting the exercise, discover that neither of them has been bidding for a long time. The bid count is near zero on both sides. The relationship has settled into pure logistics, with no remaining infrastructure for emotional reaching.
This is a serious finding. It usually means the relationship has slid into one of the patterns that the broader Gottman literature identifies as high risk — sustained turning away, accumulated contempt, or quiet detachment. The exercise alone will not restart the bidding habit in this situation. The appropriate intervention is couples therapy, ideally with a Gottman-trained clinician who can address the underlying patterns the bidding decline reflects.
Want to go deeper? Curated professional support recommendations coming soon.
We're curating a list of vetted therapists and support resources. Check back soon.
More exercises
About these exercises
Each exercise in this library is built on a specific finding from the relationship-research literature. The Gottman Institute's longitudinal lab studies underpin the 6-second kiss, the repair-attempt script, the daily appreciations practice, and the bids-for-connection awareness exercise. Arthur Aron's self-expansion research is the basis for the 36 Questions protocol. Sue Johnson's Emotionally Focused Therapy work informs the structured weekly check-in. Gary Chapman's framework, despite the academic critique, supplies the love-language experiment as a practical tool for surfacing partner-specific differences in how care is expressed and received.
None of these exercises are gimmicks. They are protocols with measurable effects in research settings. They also are not magic. Each one requires both partners to actually do the exercise, in good faith, more than once. The exercises that ask for a thirty-day commitment are asking that because the underlying research suggests durable effects emerge from sustained practice rather than from a single attempt.
If you are unsure which exercise is the right starting point for your situation, the relationship-checkup quiz produces a four-category snapshot that maps directly to the exercise categories. Pick the exercise whose category aligns with your weakest sub-score. Commit to it for thirty days before evaluating whether it is working. If after thirty days of honest practice you are not noticing any shift, that is itself useful information — it usually means the underlying issues are larger than the exercise alone can address, and that professional couples therapy is the appropriate next step.