Turning toward bidsbid (bid for connection)A small attempt to connect — a comment, a glance, a question — that invites a partner's attention, humor, affection, or support.Glossary → is the habit of noticing your partner's small, often unspoken attempts to connect — a comment, a sigh, a "look at this" — and responding with even a little attention rather than letting the moment slip by.
A "bid" is John Gottman's term for any small gesture asking for connection, attention, affection, or shared delight 1; the construct comes from observationalcorrelationalDescribing a link between two things without proving one causes the other — the pattern could run either direction, or both could share a third cause.Glossary → research that coded every "attempt to interact" by newlyweds and concluded bids "may be the fundamental units for understanding how couples build their friendship" 2. You can turn towardturning towardResponding to a partner's attempt to connect with attention, warmth, or interest, rather than ignoring it or reacting with irritation.Glossary → a bid (engage, show a flicker of interest), turn away (miss it, stay buried in your phone), or turn against it (snap) 1. This is responsivenessresponsivenessA partner's demonstrated understanding, validation, and care — how much you feel truly seen and supported, which research treats as a core driver of intimacy.Glossary →, not compliance: you can turn toward a bid you disagree with. It is not resolving conflict well, not grand romantic gestures — it is the unglamorous micro-attention that getaways can't substitute for.
The headline finding: among newlyweds followed six years, couples still married had turned toward each other's bids about 86% of the time, versus about 33% for those who divorced 3. That gap is real but correlational, and Gottman's wider divorce-prediction claims have been fairly criticized as statistically overreaching — sometimes postdictionpostdictionFitting a statistical model to outcomes that are already known rather than testing it on new cases, which can make its apparent accuracy look much better…Glossary → fitted to known outcomes 4. What gives the idea sturdier footing is convergence: Reis's work on perceived partner responsiveness as the bedrock of intimacy 5, which prospectively forecasts affectionate touch 6; Gable's finding that responding actively and constructively to good news predicts relationship well-being 7; and Johnson's attachment-based A.R.E.A.R.E. (Accessible, Responsive, Engaged)In Emotionally Focused Therapy, the three things partners seek from each other: Accessibility (can I reach you), Responsiveness (do my feelings move you),…Glossary → framework 9. Across the transition to parenthood, lower perceived responsiveness predicted satisfaction declines 8.
Why it matters
Why it matters. Relationships are made less in dramatic moments than in the accumulation of tiny transactions — each answered bid a small deposit, each missed one a withdrawal 1. The real danger of turning away is cumulative: missed bids slowly teach a partner to stop reaching at all.
How to cultivate it
How to cultivate it. Lower the bar for what you notice, look up from the phone, defer honestly when you must ("hold that thought — two minutes"), and let curiosity do the work.
The honest caveat
The honest caveat. The 86-versus-33 figure is a genuine observational difference between groups, not proof responsiveness single-handedly saves marriages 3, and the strong "this one behavior predicts everything" claims deserve skepticism 4. The firmer ground is the convergence across independent traditions 5679; the "bids" framing and exact percentages are best held as a vivid, clinically wise lens rather than a precision instrument.