3 Signs You're An ‘Overgiver' In Your Relationship, By A Psychologist
Being an 'overgiver' means your default setting is to give more than what's healthy, sustainable or reciprocated. And it's not just your time or help; you likely offer others emotional energy, presence, concern, forgiveness and endless second chances, often at the cost of your own boundaries.
A 2014 study highlights just how central effort is to romantic fulfillment. Researchers drew on data from 795 married couples. They discovered that each partner's perceptions of their own effort and that of their partner correlated directly with their marital quality, and even with their susceptibility to divorce.
Surprisingly, one partner's effort wasn't merely self-contained; it directly affected the other's satisfaction levels.
This proves something that overgivers often sense but don't always voice: effort works both ways. And when you're the sole person investing in the relationship, it not only drains you but also throws off the balance necessary for a healthy relationship.
So, how do you know if you're stuck in this cycle? Here are three subtle yet potent ways you might be giving more than is healthy, and what to do about it.
1. You Feel Resentful In Relationships
A 2022 study concluded that individuals tend to sacrifice for their romantic partner even in the absence of anticipated reciprocity. In a laboratory study involving 72 participants, researchers employed a cold pressor task, in which participants immersed their hand in nearly freezing water, and discovered that individuals tolerated much greater pain for their partner than for a friend or under other circumstances.
This indicates sacrifice in love does not have to be transactional. Many individuals make sacrifices even if nothing is offered in return. But when these efforts are consistently one-sided, or when they go unnoticed, the emotional expense can cumulatively escalate and later transform love into bitterness.
When individuals view themselves as the givers in a relationship, they tend to act out of love, hoping that their effort will be returned. They might think, 'If I love you enough, perhaps you will love me just as much.' This belief pushes them to go out of their way to ensure their partner's happiness.
But in the process, they end up sacrificing too much. When that effort goes unreturned or unacknowledged, it creates resentment and makes the relationship emotionally unsustainable.
No matter how much they may give, if it never feels mutual, they end up emotionally drained and yet keep showing up. So ask yourself, 'Am I overgiving out of love, or out of a need to be loved back?'
If the sincere response leans towards the latter, stop. That type of giving usually stems from a fear of being abandoned, of not being good enough or needing to prove your love.
One of the best ways to end that cycle is to slow down and monitor your patterns of giving. Every time you feel compelled to help, soothe or fix something, ask:
Observe yourself for a week and see how you feel before and after giving. Pay attention to whether you feel appreciated, drained or forgotten. This sort of self-reflection grounds you in your own values and needs, rather than their reactions.
While reciprocity is essential in relationships, it places undue pressure on both partners when either sacrifices too much.
2. You Feel Guilty When You Express Your Needs
Overgivers tend to minimize their own needs. They say yes when they need to say no, and put other people's feelings ahead of their own. They may struggle to believe they deserve love, thinking their value is based on how helpful, cooperative or selfless they can be.
Many overgivers believe love is something they must earn and not something they can receive simply by being themselves.
A 2016 study published in the Journal of Personality found that 'conditional positive regard,' meaning giving love only when people meet certain expectations, is associated with lower relationship satisfaction.
The researchers found that when love was conditional and not given freely, it undermined people's basic need for autonomy, leading to worse relationship outcomes. Participants felt that they were not truly accepted for who they are, and to be worthy of love, they believed they had to earn it.
For overgivers, this often manifests as feeling guilty for having needs. It might feel like you always have to carry the weight of the relationship on your shoulders. You may feel like expressing your needs — such as asking for space or feeling tired and needing rest — will make you seem selfish or unworthy of love.
So, before you suppress such a need, pause and ask, 'Does this actually hurt anyone or go against my values?' If not, acknowledge the guilt but act anyway, expressing what you really need. This is called taking 'opposite action.' Each time you do this, you prove to yourself that your needs are valid and that you can choose yourself, no matter how challenging it feels initially.
3. You Find Yourself Overcompensating
A 2025 study published in Behavioral Sciences investigated the typical fears people have concerning romantic relationships, based on information from over 1,000 young adults. The most prevalent fear, both by gender and culture, was the fear of ineptness, or failing to meet a partner's expectations. This was followed by fears of losing one's autonomy and getting hurt or being controlled.
These insights reveal a deeper reality behind a lot of relationship conflicts: the fear of not being enough, or becoming lost in the process of trying to be enough. For overgivers, this fear doesn't always manifest as withdrawal. Instead, more frequently, it boils down to overcompensation.
Overcompensation happens when you take on more than your fair share, constantly trying harder, picking up slack and doing things for others, even when it's not asked of you.
This pattern is often driven by deep fears of being 'not enough,' 'too much,' or a burden. These often trace back to the belief that your worth depends on what you do for others, rather than who you are.
When you catch yourself overcompensating, take a long breath and ask yourself:
It's necessary to check your motives regularly. The shift into true relationship security starts with self-awareness, an honest examination of your feelings and the decision to trade self-sacrifice for balance.
Curious if you're stuck in an overgiving cycle? Take this science-backed test to explore how your relationship patterns may reflect deeper fears or unmet emotional needs: Codependency Scale
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
19 minutes ago
- CBS News
16 Chicago public schools to receive funding for community partnerships, resources
Sixteen schools across Chicago will be receiving extra funding for family support and education resources as part of the city's Sustainable Community Schools model. A sustainable community school is a school with an emphasis on wraparound services and community partnerships. "Making sure everybody in the community knows what's going on, and not just the people who go to the school," said Ariana Anderson, a sustainable community school student "The difference that SES makes is just like the mental health portion in the classroom," said Alicia Anderson. Ariana and Alicia are sustainable community school students, reporting firsthand the difference they believe the designation made at Fort Dearborn Elementary School, at 9025 S. Throop St. Earlean Briggs is a sustainable community school parent at John B. Drake Elementary School, 2710 S. Dearborn St. She said the parents at the newly designated schools will have the opportunity to be more engaged. "They have the ability to be more involved," Briggs said. "They have the ability for their students to learn how to problem-solve when it comes to conflicts." Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson announced Monday that the city is adding 16 schools to 20 it first designated as sustainable community schools back in 2018. He made the announcement at one of the 16 schools — George Washington High School on the city's Southeast Side. "It's also personal because I taught in our public schools," said Mayor Johnson. Chicago's 16 new sustainable community schools are: Samuel Davis, the principal at George Washington High School, said he is thrilled that the school is now a sustainable community school. "We're a neighborhood school, so our school is really important to the community," said Davis. Davis said the new designation means new resources for George Washington High School students, with the model centering community voices and work to address needs inside and outside the classroom. "We are able to offer, you know, like after-school matters programs where more kids can attend," said Davis. Of the 16 new community schools, three are considered overcrowded with too many students, while 10 have lower enrollment rates than they should. The designation means addressing both those issues. With the school district in the midst of a full budget crisis — facing a $734 million deficit — The existing 20 sustainable community schools require a $10 million investment. How will the district pay for this? The answer is unclear. But looking ahead at the new school year, and the resources he said students will provide students who need them, Davis said he hopes the sustainable community schools program remains a priority. "It's all about the children. It really is. Our future depends on them," said Davis. "It depends on how we treat them and how we make sure we support them." CPS issued the following statement about the Sustainable Community Schools program: "Chicago Public Schools (CPS) remains firmly committed to creating sustainable school environments, particularly in communities that have long endured economic disinvestment. The Sustainable Community Schools (SCS) model continues to serve as a foundation for equity, collaboration, and student-centered learning across the District. "The SCS model brings together educators, families, community partners, and students to create schools that are not only centers of academic excellence, but also hubs of support and opportunity. By integrating social services, culturally-relevant instruction, and strong family engagement, Sustainable Community Schools are designed to meet the unique needs of every neighborhood they serve."
New York Times
19 minutes ago
- New York Times
Tensions Flare Between Two Federal Agencies Charged With Aviation Safety
The relationship between the National Transportation Safety Board, the government entity that investigates civilian airplane accidents, and the Federal Aviation Administration, the agency responsible for aviation safety, can frequently be contentious, especially after a major national tragedy. Last week, a rift between those two main regulators of aviation safety spilled out into public view. Frustrations — and sometimes tempers — flared in uncommonly raw fashion during the board's marathon of investigative hearings into the deadly midair crash between a military helicopter and a commercial jet near Ronald Reagan National Airport in January. Board members grilled witnesses, including air traffic controllers and F.A.A. managers, over three days and 30 hours of public testimony. Jennifer Homendy, the N.T.S.B. chair, led other board members in accusing the F.A.A. of knowingly stymieing efforts to improve safety at Reagan National Airport and stonewalling parts of the board's investigation into the crash. And Ms. Homendy directly accused the agency of fostering a culture among the air traffic control operation that discouraged employees from raising legitimate safety concerns, including by wielding the threat of retaliation. 'There is and always has been a healthy tension between the two agencies,' said Jeff Guzzetti, a former accident investigator for the F.A.A. and the N.T.S.B. And while the level of public outrage on display during board hearings depends largely on the proclivities of its members, he added, 'in this particular case, it's a shift.' Ms. Homendy and the other board members were careful not to direct their ire toward Sean Duffy, the transportation secretary, or Bryan Bedford, the F.A.A. administrator. Still, the very public airing of grievances raised questions about the working relationship between the two agencies at a critical juncture. The N.T.S.B. makes safety recommendations, but it is up to the F.A.A. to put them into place. The crash at Reagan National Airport, and a series of near misses and tower outages at major airports in the months since, have dampened public confidence in the safety of flying, intensifying the need for cooperation. 'Warning signs were ignored, or just not known or identified or sought, which is quite tragic,' Ms. Homendy told reporters late Wednesday, after the first day of testimony. In a statement, the F.A.A. said officials 'have and will continue to fully support the N.T.S.B.'s investigation,' stressing that the agency had been proactive about addressing concerns and adopting the board's early recommendations. The statement added that 'if there has been any stonewalling, withholding of information or intimidation — those actions will be identified and remedied without hesitation.' The gloves had already begun to come off in the final hours of the hearing on Wednesday. Ms. Homendy lost her patience with F.A.A. managers who claimed they never knew that air traffic officials from Reagan National Airport had urged higher-ups to address the potential risks posed by a helicopter route, known as Route 4, that crossed under the descent path for airplanes landing on a supplementary runway, No. 33. The Army Black Hawk that crashed into the commercial jet on Jan. 29 was flying along Route 4, and at the time of impact, was 78 feet higher than the F.A.A.-mandated ceiling of 200 feet. A number of witnesses testified that the devices pilots relied upon to measure their altitude frequently were off by about 100 feet of helicopters' actual flying height. Air traffic controllers, knowing the risks, sought to make changes as part of a helicopter-focused working group at the airport — but were told by district managers that doing so would be seen as 'too political,' according to the transcript of an interview included in an N.T.S.B. report. 'Every sign was there that there was a safety risk, and the tower was telling you that,' Ms. Homendy told F.A.A. officials. She accused agency managers of routinely dismissing safety concerns raised by employees in the airport's air traffic control tower and of reassigning people who had previously voiced concerns after the accident. She also said they used F.A.A. bureaucracy as an excuse to avoid making needed changes. 'Are you kidding me? Sixty-seven people are dead,' she said, denouncing the F.A.A.'s process for reviewing safety recommendations. 'Fix it. Do better,' she added. By the last day of the hearings, Ms. Homendy was accusing F.A.A. officials outright of trying to stymie the N.T.S.B.'s investigation by withholding documents and data the board had been requesting for months. 'I think you're interfering in the investigation,' she charged, 'because you're basically telling us 'no' every way you can.' Aviation safety experts said it was understandable for tensions to run unusually high after the collision because of the magnitude and rarity of the tragedy — it was the first fatal crash involving a major American airline in over 15 years. But part of the N.T.S.B.'s visible agitation in the hearings could also be strategic, those experts said. The fact that the crash happened just outside the nation's capital — along with the fact that power brokers from the Trump administration and Congress are eager to respond — has created a unique opportunity for the board to influence sweeping changes. 'The intensity has increased partly because of the visibility of this particular catastrophe and the proximity to Washington,' said Alan Diehl, a former aviation safety official with the N.T.S.B. and the F.A.A. 'By doing that, the N.T.S.B. hopes to convince both the F.A.A. and Congress that we need a revolution,' he added, 'in both personnel policies within the F.A.A. as well as the funding policies.' Ms. Homendy, who spent more than 14 years on Capitol Hill before President Trump nominated her to fill one of the Democratic slots on the board, has a keen understanding of Washington dynamics, according to board watchers. She is known for being more public-facing and, at times, being more comfortable adopting an adversarial posture than some of her predecessors. But she was not alone last week in being pointedly critical of the F.A.A. J. Todd Inman, a Republican member of the N.T.S.B, also accused the agency of stonewalling the investigation. The F.A.A. withheld documents about staffing at the control tower for months, he charged, dumping thousands of pages on the board on the Friday before the hearing, only after Ms. Homendy appealed to agency and Transportation Department leaders for help. At another point, Mr. Inman lost his patience with officials' promises to do better. 'We'd like to be treated privately the same way we are publicly,' he said. Mr. Inman also accused the F.A.A. of refusing to share critical data about real-time flight tracking technology, forcing the safety board to spend $50,000 annually to evaluate it 'because the F.A.A. does not consider N.T.S.B. a trusted government partner.' F.A.A. officials in the hot seat frequently defended their agency. Nick Fuller, the F.A.A.'s acting deputy chief operations officer, responded to allegations that the agency had withheld documents and data by arguing that some of the board's requests had been unclear, and that 'in fact, we just gave you the latest and greatest' information. Mr. Fuller also pushed back on accusations from all three presiding board members that after the Jan. 29 accident, the F.A.A. had removed managers at Reagan National's control tower who had previously raised concerns about traffic, staffing or other safety pitfalls. He argued that staffing changes had not been retaliatory, but rather executed in the interest of solving the problem quickly. 'I was given a task to fix the facility risk between helicopters and fixed wing,' Mr. Fuller said, referring to airplanes, 'and it wasn't to work through a collaborative process and allow a few months — it was to get the job done immediately.' On several occasions during the hearings, Ms. Homendy sought assurances that F.A.A. employees who were called as witnesses in the investigation would not be retaliated against for their testimony — a step prompted by reports that some who had critical things to say were being harassed, she told reporters on Thursday after that day's testimony. 'Nobody can take what is clearly a safety issue and get it up through the offices that should be making the decision to ensure safety in the airspace — or somebody's ignoring them,' she told reporters. 'You raise a red flag, and two things happen: You don't get it, you don't get the safety change that you have asked for, or you're transferred out after an accident occurs.' But experts warned against assuming that the acrimony of the hearing would disrupt the two agencies' expert staff members from being able to work together. 'Overall, the process is healthy,' said John Cox, a former airline pilot who runs a safety consulting firm. 'Is there friction? Yes. Is it normal? Yes. Was last week a little more so than normal? Yes,' he added. 'Will that encourage F.A.A. to move more quickly? I hope.'
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Cal Fire crews fighting blaze near St. Helena winery, south of Lake Hennessey
Cal Fire crews were in St. Helena fighting a fire that began near a winery on Monday, Cal Fire LNU said. The fire is near the 90 block of Long Ranch Road, south of Lake Hennessey, and it began around 3:41 p.m. It had burned about 5 acres as of 4:25 p.m.
