How to Be Romantic When It Doesn't Come Naturally

You have probably said some version of it out loud. I am just not a romantic person.

Maybe you say it early, as a warning. Maybe you say it late, as an apology, after a birthday that did not land. Either way you are describing yourself the way you would describe being colorblind. A fixed fact. Something you were issued at birth and cannot exchange.

Relationship researchers do not study romance that way.

What they study is narrower and much more useful. They study whether people notice what their partner needs and then do something about it. They measure it by counting behavior, not by rating personality.

That difference matters, because behavior can be practiced. Some of it can be practiced badly and still work.

Here is what the evidence actually shows, and what you can do with it this week.

Is being romantic a personality trait or a skill?

Most people who go looking for an answer land on love languages. Gary Chapman's book has sold more than 20 million copies in 50 languages, and more than 30 million people have taken the quiz. The appeal is obvious. You have a type, your partner has a type, and the fix is translation.

In 2024, Emily Impett and Haeyoung Gideon Park at the University of Toronto and Amy Muise at York University took Chapman's three central claims and checked each one against the published research.

The first claim is that everyone has one primary love language. The studies do not support it. Asked to rate all five on a scale rather than pick between them, people rate all five highly, and the language someone picks in the quiz is often not the one they score highest on.

The second claim is that there are five. Studies of the underlying structure keep producing different numbers, depending on the sample.

The third claim is that couples do better when partners match. Recent work tested every possible combination of a person's stated preference against their partner's actual expressions. Expressions of all the love languages were positively associated with satisfaction regardless of what the person said they preferred, with very little evidence of matching effects.

The authors suggest a different image. Not a language you failed to learn, but a balanced diet, where people need a range of things over time rather than one nutrient in bulk.

Read that as good news.

There is no secret dialect everyone else was taught and you missed. What the evidence keeps pointing at instead, in the authors' own summary, is that successful relationships require partners to understand each other's needs and put in the effort to respond to them.

Understanding, and effort. Both of those are things you do, not things you are.

Your partner may not have noticed the things you already do

There is one finding that changes how most people think about this, and almost nobody has heard it.

In 2010, Sara Algoe, Shelly Gable and Natalya Maisel asked 67 cohabiting couples to fill in a short diary every night for two weeks. Both partners did it separately, then sealed the form in an envelope and stamped it with a tamper-resistant time stamper so nobody could compare notes or backfill. They collected 1,768 nightly reports.

Two questions were simple yes or no. Did I do something thoughtful for my partner today. Did my partner do something thoughtful for me.

People reported doing something thoughtful on 34.1% of days. They reported receiving something thoughtful on 39.5% of days.

Then the researchers lined the two sets of answers up against each other.

On the days when someone said they had done something thoughtful, their partner agreed 51.2% of the time. The other 48.8% went undetected.

Nearly half of the thoughtful things people did for the person they lived with were never noticed.

That is one study, and not a huge one. Sixty-seven couples, students and staff near a large urban west-coast campus, average age 25. It is not a law of nature.

But it reframes the accusation. When someone tells you that you are not romantic, the problem is not always that you are not trying. Sometimes the problem is that your trying is invisible.

The same study measured what happens when it does land. Gratitude on one day predicted increases in relationship connection and satisfaction the next day, and not only for the person on the receiving end. The person who did the thoughtful thing also felt more connected and more satisfied the following day. Feeling indebted did none of this. Only gratitude did.

So the practical move is not to do more. It is to make what you already do visible.

Say it at the time, plainly, without apologizing for saying it. I filled your car. I moved that meeting so you would not have to. I picked this up because you mentioned it in October. That is not fishing for credit. It is closing the gap between what you did and what registered.

The cheapest romantic gesture is how you react to good news

In 2004, Shelly Gable, Harry Reis, Emily Impett and Evan Asher published four studies on what they call capitalization. That is the plain act of telling someone about a good thing that happened to you.

They built a scale to measure how partners typically respond. It has four categories, and the wording is worth reading slowly.

• Active-constructive: “My partner usually reacts to my good fortune enthusiastically.” “My partner often asks a lot of questions and shows genuine concern about the good event.”
• Passive-constructive: “My partner says little, but I know he/she is happy for me.” “My partner is usually silently supportive of the good things that occur to me.”
• Active-destructive: “My partner reminds me that most good things have their bad aspects as well.”
• Passive-destructive: “My partner often seems disinterested.”

In a study of 59 dating couples, active-constructive responses were positively correlated with satisfaction, trust and intimacy. The other three styles were negatively correlated with them. The pattern held in a second study of 89 married couples in Rochester, New York.

Now look at the passive-constructive items again.

“My partner says little, but I know he/she is happy for me.” That is exactly how a lot of quietly loving people operate. It sat on the wrong side of the results.

The researchers flagged this themselves. They called it noteworthy, because that kind of response is warm and sincere and might have been expected to help. It did not. Only the more active, outwardly encouraging responses predicted relationship quality.

These are correlations from questionnaires, so treat it as a strong hint rather than a guarantee.

But if you are hunting for the cheapest possible thing to change, this is it. No money. No planning. No performance.

When your partner tells you something good happened, turn your phone over and ask three questions. What happened first. Who else knows. How did it feel.

Being interested out loud is a skill. It is also the one most available to someone who believes they have no romantic instincts.

Say the thing about them, not the thing about you

Gratitude is the other cheap move, and there is a specific way of doing it that works better.

In 2016, Sara Algoe, Laura Kurtz and Nicole Hilaire recorded 370 conversations in which one partner thanked the other for something real that had happened. Trained coders watched every video and rated two separate behaviors.

Other-praising language is about the partner. You go out of your way. You are really good at that.

Self-benefit language is about the effect on the speaker. It let me relax. It makes me happy.

Only one of them mattered. When people used more other-praising language, their partner rated them as more responsive, felt better in general, and felt more loving in particular. Self-benefit statements showed no significant association with any of those outcomes. The effects held after controlling for conversation length, relationship satisfaction and how important the event was.

This is one laboratory setup measuring single conversations, not whole relationships. But the instruction that falls out of it is unusually concrete.

Stop at thank you, that really helped me. Go on to thank you, you always notice before I have to ask.

The first is a receipt. The second is a description of them.

Do small everyday moments really beat grand gestures?

This claim gets repeated so often that it is worth checking what sits behind it.

The study people usually mean is Driver and Gottman's 2004 paper in Family Process. They brought 49 newlywed couples into an apartment laboratory for a day, filmed a 10-minute stretch of dinner, and coded every attempt one person made to start an interaction. They called those attempts bids. Responses were sorted into turning toward, turning away and turning against.

They found that playful bids and enthusiastic responses over dinner were related to the humor and affection the same couples had shown in a filmed argument, and that the model fit slightly better running from ordinary evenings to conflict than the other way around.

The authors are more careful than the people who quote them. Forty-nine couples. Observational, correlational data. They call it preliminary support and say plainly that an intervention study would be needed to establish cause.

So the honest version is this. The evidence that everyday responsiveness matters is real, and it is modest. It is not proof that one good Tuesday saves a marriage.

What it does tell you is where the practice is. A bid is your partner reading something off their phone at you. It is a sigh. It is look at this. Answering it takes four seconds and no romantic ability whatsoever.

So should you bother planning dates at all?

Yes. But not every date does the same work.

In 2021, Cheryl Harasymchuk, Dana Walker, Amy Muise and Emily Impett asked 251 people in established relationships to plan a date and predict how it would go. A subset of 150 then actually went on the date and reported back a week later.

Dates that were more exciting produced more self-expansion, which is the sense of having stretched your idea of who you are. More self-expansion went with feeling closer. Familiar, comfortable evenings, the dinner-and-a-movie shape, produced smaller and more temporary boosts.

The word exciting is doing a lot of work there, so be clear about what it does not mean.

It does not mean expensive. It does not mean a surprise. It does not mean you have to be charming for four hours.

It means new. Somewhere neither of you has been. Something neither of you is any good at.

Novelty is a logistics problem. Logistics problems have solutions, and none of the solutions require you to become a naturally romantic person.

Five things to try this week

1. Answer the small stuff

   The half-sentence about a coworker. The photo of a dog. The thing read aloud off a screen.

   You do not need a good response. You need any response that shows you heard it. This is the highest-frequency, lowest-cost habit on the list, and it is the one most likely to be quietly failing right now.

2. React out loud when something goes right

   Silent pride does not transmit. Being genuinely happy on the inside is invisible from where your partner is standing.

   Ask what happened first, who else knows, and how it felt. Three questions. That is the entire intervention.

3. Praise the person, not the favor

   Take one thing your partner did for you in the last week and thank them for it in a sentence that is about them.

   Not what it did for your schedule. What it says about who they are.

4. Make one invisible thing visible

   Pick something you already do for them that they have never mentioned. Say it out loud once, at the time, in one sentence.

   If it feels like bragging, that feeling is the reason nearly half of this stuff goes undetected.

5. Book one thing neither of you has done

   Not the good restaurant. Not the reliable Friday. Something new, on a date, in the calendar, with the reservation already made.

   The novelty is the active ingredient. The price is not.

Where we come in

Everything above is about attention, and attention is the part you already have. Most people who call themselves unromantic know their partner extremely well. The coffee order. The sore subject. The story that always gets told at parties.

In our experience the gap is almost never knowledge. It is the step between knowing someone and turning that into a plan, on a specific night, with somewhere to be and something to do.

That is the step Big Moments does for you. You tell us about your person. We build the night around them, with a time, a place and the details that make it obviously about them. Our keepsakes save something from the evening afterwards, so it becomes more than a night you both half remember.

Readers can currently try one month of Big Moments Premium free. No card is required.

Claim your free month of Big Moments PremiumJust your email. No card, no commitment.

You do not have to become a different person

Nothing in the research says you need to be charming, spontaneous or naturally expressive.

It says to answer the small things. To be visibly pleased when something goes right for them. To say the specific true thing about who they are instead of a general nice thing. To let them see what you already do. To occasionally take them somewhere neither of you has been.

None of that is a personality. All of it is a set of moves.

You can be bad at all of them and still do them, and doing them badly on purpose beats doing nothing gracefully.

You do not have to be romantic. You just have to show up.