New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

This Algorithm Can Predict Relationship Trouble

By analyzing the vocal patterns of couples in therapy, an algorithm was able to predict whether a relationship would get worse or improve. Erika Beras reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Watch your tone—because it turns out it really isn’t what you say—it's how you say it. At least when it comes to couples in couples counseling. 

That’s according to a study in Proceedings of Interspeech. [Md Nasir et al., Still Together?: The Role of Acoustic Features in Predicting Marital Outcome

Researchers developed a computer algorithm to gauge relationships between spouses based on their vocal patterns. Working with hundreds of recorded conversations from marriage therapy sessions collected over two years, the algorithm was able to predict whether a relationship was going to get better or worse with an accuracy of just under eighty percent. 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


How they did it? The recordings were divided by acoustic features that used speech processing techniques to track pitch and voice warble and intensity. 

These clips from the researcher’s training video illustrate psychological states that characterize distressed relationships. This one, for example, shows “negative affect” and “reactivity” – behaviors that relationship experts believe are troublesome. 

Female: And I want you to just come home at a more reasonable time rather than you know walking in the door at 11. Male: I just don’t think you understand just how much I have to do, what my work entails. Female: Well, what is there to understand? 

The counseling sessions were also tested against behavioral analyses with codes for positives such as “acceptance” and the negatives such as “blame.” Using only that more standardized research method wasn’t as predictable as listening to the vocal expressions.  

Now, these examples are negative as the researchers focused on distressed relationship dynamics. One could imagine the algorithms may also work the same way when looking at positive vocal patterns. Because even married couples sometimes say nice things to each other. 

—Erika Beras

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe