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
Forbes
35 minutes ago
- Forbes
Millions Of Managers Are Becoming Obsolete—By Solving The Wrong Problem
Psychological safety, problems at work, mistake, fatigue, dismissal, stress and overwork. Two months ago, Harvard Business School professor Amy C. Edmondson and associate professor Michaela J. Kerrissey wrote an eloquent article in the May-June issue of Harvard Business Review., 'What People Get Wrong About Psychological Safety.' A Massive Effort To Enhance Psychological Safety With Little Effect 'Psychological safety' was once an obscure term in psychology and management research. Professor Edmondson changed all that with her best-selling book, The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth (2017) HBRP. According to her recent article, 'Today the concept is downright popular. Countless managers, consultants, and training companies have worked hard to create psychologically safe workplaces, and thousands of articles have been devoted to the topic.' In 2017, the need for the effort was obvious: 'A 2017 Gallup poll found that only 3 in 10 employees strongly agree with the statement that their opinions count at work.' Yet today, 8 years later, those Gallup numbers have hardly budged. What went wrong? According to the 2025 article, 'As the popularity of psychological safety has grown, so too have misconceptions about it.' The authors identify six common misperceptions: 'Psychological safety means being nice; it means getting your way; it means job security; it requires a trade-off with performance; it's a policy; and it requires a top-down approach.' They explain why each misperception gets in the way and give advice on how to counter it. The Key Problem: What Is The Problem? What is the problem that this massive effort is trying to solve? One useful insight sometimes (unreliably) attributed to Albert Einstein is to rethink fundamentals. 'If I had an hour to solve a problem, I'd spend the first 55 minutes defining the problem and the last five minutes solving it." The effort on psychological safety may be doing the opposite. Thus, a closer look at the lack of progress on enhancing psychological safety points to another possible cause: a focus of the effort on the team level of the firm. As Professor Edmondson's 2017 book stated, 'My field-based research has primarily focused on groups and teams, because that's how most work gets done.' So too, the 2025 article focuses almost exclusively on leaders trying to enhance psychological safety at the team level. The team level may be where most of the work gets done, but not necessarily where most of the problems are caused. The Real Problem Behind Lack Of Psychological Safety Guess what? In many other aspects of management, the principal problem today is not at the team level, and rather in the way the whole organization is run. For the last half-century, the central problem addressed by management was how to cut costs so as to maximize shareholder value and enhance bonuses for the executives. That was the official position of the U.S. Business Roundtable for several decades. Business schools still teach it. Most of the processes, systems, and mindsets that support it are still in place in many big firms. So that is the problem that managers are required to address, whether they agree with it or not. Is it any wonder that there is a lack of psychological safety in such settings? The Shift From Cutting Costs To Creating Value For Customers The good news is that in a smaller group of public firms—perhaps 20% of public companies-- the primary dynamic of a business has shifted from cutting costs and extracting value to creating more value for customers. Value-creating enterprises emerged from the combination of two elements: first, entrepreneurs began using digital technology and AI to deliver exponentially more value than traditionally-managed firms; and second, digital technology gave customers the power to demand more value from businesses. The killer insight: value-creating enterprises not only satisfy customers: they make much more money than firms focused on making money. Workplaces devoted to creating value for customers are also likely to be more congenial as workplaces than those focused on extracting value from customers and boosting executive bonuses. Meanwhile, profit-seeking firms that still focus primarily on improving efficiency and cost-cutting are generating below-average value and are having difficulty in surviving. Two-thirds of the famous blue-chip firms in the Dow Jones Industrial Average are now performing below average (See the table below). The performance problems that these firms are facing of course aggravates even further the problem of workplace psychological safety, as workers in those firms are likely to be blamed for shortfalls in performance. Thus, many of the managers in struggling efforts to enhance psychological safety may be trying to solve the wrong problem. If they shifted the focus of their efforts to updating the goal of their firms and creating more value for their customers, their workplaces could transition from the dispiriting goal of extracting value from customers to the potentially inspiring purpose of creating value for them. And read also Why Millions Of Managers Are Becoming Obsolete—It's Not Rocket Science—Or AI Millions Of Managers Are Becoming Obsolete: Master Value Creation Now 5-Year Total Returns of firms in the Dow Jones Industrial Average as of July 2025
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Search continues for Monterey County plane crash victim; 2 found unresponsive
The United States Coast Guard said three people were inside a plane that crashed in Monterey County Saturday evening. Crews found two people unresponsive, and a search for the third is ongoing, the Coast Guard said. Just before 11 p.m., the Coast Guard Station in Monterey was alerted to a twin-engine Beechcraft that had crashed between 200-300 yards off Point Pinos. The Coast Guard said three people were on board. A boat and helicopter crew responded to the scene and located the Beechcraft. Two people were found unresponsive and a third remains missing. According to the Coast Guard, the plane took off from the San Carlos airport. Pacific Grove Police said they received calls about the plane crash just after 10 p.m. and were told it crashed near the coastline of Asilomar State Beach. One Pacific Grove resident said they heard a plane circling his neighborhood and then a loud thump about 30 seconds later. Pacific Grove Police, the Monterey Fire Department, Monterey County Sheriff's Office and San Mateo County Sheriff's Office, Cal Fire and the Coast Guard were all at the scene. The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the crash.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
3 bodies recovered from small plane crash in California: Reports
Three bodies have been recovered following a July 26 small plane crash in Pacific Grove, California, according to local reports. Television stations KION and KSBW reported that the U.S. Coast Guard recovered the bodies July 27. USA TODAY has reached out to the USCG Pacific Area and the Monterey County Sherriff's Office for confirmation. The Federal Aviation Administration said in a preliminary statement to USA TODAY that three people were on the Beechcraft BE55 it alerted as missing off the coast of the town July 26. Flight tracking data published by FlightAware shows flight N8796R leaving from San Carlos Airport at 10:11 p.m. PT heading toward the Monterey Regional Airport. The tracker indicates that the plane turned around over the seaside town and was last seen around 10:37 p.m. PT. Cal Fire told KSBW that witnesses reported hearing an aircraft engine revving, followed by a splash in the ocean. The NTSB will lead the investigation, the FAA said in its statement. This is a developing story. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: 3 bodies recovered from California small plane crash: Reports Solve the daily Crossword
