Notes
This book gives general information about ordinary relationships. It isn't counselling, and it's no substitute for a therapist who knows you or for specialist help where there's abuse. The NHS services I mention are those for England as I found them in September 2026.
I've kept sources out of the chapters where I could so they read easily. Here they are by chapter, with the limits I'm aware of. Unless I say otherwise, I read the published summary of each paper and not the full text. I checked each paper for a retraction or correction notice in September 2026 and found none. Where a chapter isn't listed, it rests on my own reasoning. That includes chapters 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 20. The couple in the examples are invented, along with the bad week, the bath, the tea and everything said on either Sunday.
Before you start. The two questions and the helpline number are from the NHS page "Getting help for domestic violence and abuse". The two-week guide for low mood is from the NHS pages on depression.
Chapter 3. Eidelson and Epstein, "Cognition and relationship maladjustment: development of a measure of dysfunctional relationship beliefs", Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 50, 1982, pages 715 to 720. I couldn't obtain a summary of this paper. That the questionnaire has five parts, one of them on mind reading, is how it's described in the later literature and in my memory of it. Wright and Roloff, cited under chapter 12, are my source for the statement that such expectations go with less satisfying relationships. The argument that caring and knowing are different abilities is mine.
Chapter 4. Gilovich, Savitsky and Medvec, "The illusion of transparency: biased assessments of others' ability to read one's emotional states", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75, 1998, pages 332 to 346. The experiments concerned lies, disgust and emergencies, and didn't involve couples. Vorauer, Cameron, Holmes and Pearce, "Invisible overtures: fears of rejection and the signal amplification bias", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84, 2003, pages 793 to 812. There were four studies, all about romantic interest between people who weren't yet partners. Applying it to signals of need inside a relationship is my extension, and the chapter says so.
Chapter 5. Keysar and Henly, "Speakers' overestimation of their effectiveness", Psychological Science 13, 2002, pages 207 to 212. The sentences in their experiments were ambiguous by design, and the listeners weren't the speakers' partners. Kruger, Epley, Parker and Ng, "Egocentrism over e-mail: can we communicate as well as we think?", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89, 2005, pages 925 to 936. The list of hints and their meanings is mine. The test of a stranger reading a transcript is also mine.
Chapter 6. Swann and Gill, "Confidence and accuracy in person perception: do we know what we think we know about our relationship partners?", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73, 1997, pages 747 to 757. The authors add that confidence may be good for a relationship even when it isn't accurate, which is a fair point against me. Savitsky, Keysar, Epley, Carter and Swanson, "The closeness-communication bias: increased egocentrism among friends versus strangers", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47, 2011, pages 269 to 273. I couldn't obtain a summary of this paper and have relied on its title, as the chapter says. You may have read that couples get worse at reading each other over time. One study is often cited for it, by Thomas, Fletcher and Lange in 1997. I couldn't check it and haven't used it.
Chapter 8. Eyal, Steffel and Epley, "Perspective mistaking: accurately understanding the mind of another requires getting perspective, not taking perspective", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 114, 2018, pages 547 to 571. The tasks included predicting a spouse's activity preferences and consumer attitudes. Ward and Broniarczyk, "Ask and you shall (not) receive: close friends prioritize relational signaling over recipient preferences in their gift choices", Journal of Marketing Research 53, 2016, pages 1001 to 1018. Close givers strayed from the list only when the recipient would know who had given what.
Chapter 9. Maisel and Gable, "The paradox of received social support: the importance of responsiveness", Psychological Science 20, 2009, pages 928 to 932. The study was a daily diary and so can't prove cause. The separation of knowing from willing is my own argument, and so is the claim that the test measures only guessing.
Chapter 12. Wright and Roloff, "You should just know why I'm upset: expectancy violation theory and the influence of mind reading expectations (MRE) on responses to relational problems", Communication Research Reports 32, 2015, pages 10 to 19. The participants were people in dating relationships reporting on themselves, and the design was a survey at one point in time. What I say about the partner's side of the silence is my reasoning.
Chapter 16. Overall, Fletcher, Simpson and Sibley, "Regulating partners in intimate relationships: the costs and benefits of different communication strategies", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96, 2009, pages 620 to 639. The couples were discussing changes each wanted in the other, which is a harder conversation than asking for a bath. Direct approaches in that study could be positive or negative in tone, and both kinds predicted change. The rest of the chapter's guidance is mine, including the three replacements for "fine".
Chapter 17. Eyal, Steffel and Epley as above. The weekly ten minutes is a common practice among couples' counsellors as far as I know, and I haven't sourced it.
Chapter 18. Gollwitzer and Sheeran, "Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes", Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 38, 2006, pages 69 to 119. The rule and its parts haven't been tested together, and what I say to expect is my expectation and not a finding.
Chapter 19. That Relate offers relationship counselling in the UK is general knowledge. Self-referral to NHS talking therapies in England is described on the NHS website. What I say about people who read signals less readily is a general observation. I've deliberately not tied it to any diagnosis.