Because they have a high Emotional Bank Account, they have trust and open communication in their marriage. Because they think Win/Win, they believe in a third alternative, a solution that is mutually beneficial and is better than what either of them originally proposed. Because they listen empathically and seek first to understand, they create within themselves and between them a comprehensive picture of the values and the concerns that need to be taken into account in making a decision. And the combination of those ingredients—the high Emotional Bank Account, thinking Win/Win, and seeking first to understand—creates the ideal environment for synergy.

Sophie was experiencing what behavioral economist Dan Ariely calls “loss aversion,” our human tendency to want to keep all options open. In a famous series of experiments profiled in the New York Times, Ariely showed just how far we’ll go to keep from closing doors. Students in the experiment played a computer game that paid real cash to look for money behind three doors on the screen. After they opened a door by clicking on it, each subsequent click earned a little money, with the sum varying each time. As players went through the 100 allotted clicks, they could switch rooms to search for higher payoffs, but each switch used up a click to open the new door. The best strategy, players learned, was to quickly check out the three rooms and settle in the one with the highest rewards. But if they stayed out of any room, its door would start shrinking visually and eventually disappear. Ignoring those disappearing doors turned out to be impossible. In fact, participants wasted so many clicks rushing back to reopen doors that their earnings dropped 15 percent. And they frenetically continued keeping all their doors open even as penalties for switching got stiffer, costing not just clicks but cash fees.

The results were clear. Power did not suppress the reciprocation of trust. It amplified it. Compared to playing with a partner of equal power, participants reciprocated trust more when their partner had greater power. They also reciprocated distrust more when their partner had greater power. That is, when the partner distrusted them— failed to give them a dollar in the first round of the game— they were less willing to give him a dollar when their turn came. And this effect was stronger when their partner had more power than when he had equal power.

Leaving out trust instigated by the less empowered would miss how behaving out of trust— with faith in other people’s capacity for fairness— can be its own source of power, even when, or especially when, it comes from people lower in the social order.

As trust builds in the relationship, it can deepen mutual understanding, this is important. Few things are as trust-building as real help. And few things frustrate trust-building as much as parties withholding help or not recognizing each other’s needs.