Why are we Kind to Strangers and Mean to Loved Ones?

By David Hennessy, Clinical Psychologist

It is a very human paradox: we can be polite and considerate with strangers, yet impatient or unkind with those we love most. However, this is not evidence of poor character or lack of care. Rather, it reflects predictable features of human attachment, emotion regulation, and interpersonal learning.

As a result, understanding these patterns allows us to respond more compassionately and effectively to ourselves and others.

Safety and attachment security

Attachment theory describes how secure relationships act as a “safe base” from which we explore and express our emotions (1). When we feel safe, we drop the social guard that protects us in less familiar settings. That safety enables closeness but also means frustration, stress, and fatigue can spill over more easily at home.

Emotional intensity and investment

Because loved ones matter deeply to us, our nervous system treats their reactions as highly significant. Research shows that emotional investment heightens sensitivity to perceived rejection or disapproval (2). Small disagreements can therefore trigger outsized responses, not from malice but from the depth of connection itself.

Self-Regulation and Limited Self-Control

Self regulation is a finite resource. Baumeister’s classic work on ego depletion demonstrates that effortful self control consumes mental energy (3). After a demanding day, this regulatory capacity is reduced, leaving us more prone to irritability or sharpness with those who are closest and safest. Later studies in emotion regulation research support the same principle (4).

Habits and Learned Patterns

Family environments shape our communication style and conflict habits. If irritability, sarcasm, or withdrawal were normalised in early life, we may unconsciously repeat those patterns as adults (5). The good news is that relational patterns can change with awareness and consistent practice.

Important Differentiation from Domestic and Family Violence

The patterns described here relate to normal emotional reactivity in otherwise respectful relationships. They are entirely different from domestic or family violence, which involves deliberate patterns of intimidation, control, fear, or harm — physical, sexual, or psychological.

If you ever feel unsafe or controlled in a relationship, or if arguments escalate to fear or threat, this is not a matter of ordinary emotional expression. It is a serious safety issue requiring specialised support.

In Australia, contact 1800RESPECT (1800 737 732) for confidential counselling 24 hours a day. If there is immediate danger, call 000.

Corrective Practices that Help

Our relationships benefit from small, intentional actions. These practices are grounded in research on emotional regulation, mindfulness, and relationship repair.

1. Pause and Regulate

When emotions rise, pausing gives our nervous system time to settle.
Even short moments of slowing the breath, noticing tension, or unclenching muscles can reduce impulsive reactions and support emotional balance (4).

This small skill, often taught in mindfulness and dialectical behaviour therapy, helps prevent escalation and encourages considered responses. Over time, it builds resilience and strengthens trust in relationships.

2. Name Emotions Out Loud

Naming emotions is a powerful regulation strategy. Simple statements such as “I feel tired” or “I’m stressed” communicate our state without blame.
This technique, supported by evidence from dialectical behaviour therapy (6), helps reduce misunderstanding and promotes empathy.

Expressing feelings clearly allows loved ones to respond with understanding instead of defensiveness.

3. Repair Ruptures Quickly

Conflict is inevitable; repair is essential.
Research from the Gottman Institute shows that couples who repair small ruptures early maintain higher satisfaction and stability (7).

Repair may look like an apology, an acknowledgement, or a gentle check-in after tension.
A 2023 study further demonstrated the Gottman Method’s effectiveness in affair recovery (8), underscoring that repair is a skill, not a weakness.

4. Practise Self-Compassion

Self-compassion improves emotion regulation and overall wellbeing.
It helps us respond to our own imperfections with kindness instead of harshness — and this gentler stance translates into kinder relationships.

Evidence from multiple randomised trials and meta-analyses supports self-compassion as a protective factor for mental health (9–13).
Recent reviews confirm that online self-compassion programs are also effective (13).

Gentle Realism

Occasional irritability toward loved ones is not a sign of failing care — it is part of being human. Awareness, regulation, and repair transform these moments into opportunities for understanding and closeness. With practice, we can recognise, better understand, and strengthen our ability to bring the same patience we offer strangers into our closest relationships.

References

1. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
2. Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (2005). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy (pp. 61–78). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252
4. Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781
5. Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive Family Process. Castalia.
6. Linehan, M. M. (2015). DBT Skills Training Handouts and Worksheets (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
7. Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (2015). The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. Harmony.
8. Greenman, P. S. (2023). A pilot study examining the effectiveness of Gottman Method Couple Therapy in affair recovery. The Family Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/10664807231210123
9. Neff, K. D., & Germer, C. K. (2013). A pilot study and randomised controlled trial of the Mindful Self Compassion program. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21923
10. Ferrari, M., Yap, K., Scott, N., Einstein, D. A., Ciarrochi, J., & Gilbert, P. (2019). Self compassion interventions and psychosocial outcomes: A meta analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2005. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332276742_Self-Compassion_Interventions_and_Psychosocial_Outcomes_a_Meta-Analysis_of_RCTs 
11. Huang, J., Lin, K., Fan, L., Qiao, S., & Wang, Y. (2021). The effects of a self compassion intervention on future oriented coping and psychological wellbeing. Mindfulness, 12, 1451–1468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-021-01614-8
12. Woodfin, V., Molde, H., Dundas, I., & Binder, P. E. (2022). A randomised control trial of a brief self compassion intervention for perfectionism, anxiety, depression, and body image. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1971.
13. Shah, S., Hogan, D. L., Palikar, I., & Toh, W. X. (2025). Online self compassion interventions: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Mindfulness. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-025-02606-8