I'm not really suggesting that everything will be fine if the character focuses on the symptom. (We may be having a semantic issue here.)
Scenario: You and I argue because I have given our life savings to someone you don't trust. (The matter being that you and I have different understandings of what is required to trust people.) So there is a lot of tension in the house, and the actual argument we have is, "I think this huckster is a sociopath, and would just as soon steal our money and leave us to die."
Now the things have been give a defining metric: will he leave us to die?
So, the next day, I invite us all out on a picnic. I go swimming and pretend to be drowning. The huckster saves me! He's passed the test. You no longer believe he will leave us to die.
The next day, he comes back: I need more money from you to unlock the Nigerian bank account. Only another $550. And you get uncomfortable again. You want to know (again) if you can trust this guy. So you say, "hold on, I just have to get my plugged-in toaster out of the filled bathtub... why don't you come with me." He says, "Are you crazy? Unplug it!"
Phew, passed another test. Your tension goes down.
But this goes on and on. It's unending! But you never noticed, because he kept passing your tests!
And now, you've got to deal with unending and not trust. So you stop the payments.
So, things weren't fine for the duration of that, they were merely tolerable. But the inequity prevents them from ever being fine.