If your partner has ever told you to calm down in the middle of an argument, you may have wanted to ask: why do I have to stop being upset before you’ll listen?
Here is what John and Julie Gottman have shown: we can learn to argue differently without first becoming different people—and feel understood even when we disagree. John Gottman’s research included happy, stable couples who rarely argued and others who debated with considerable passion. The important distinction is between expressing strong feelings and becoming so overwhelmed that listening is difficult. The Gottmans call that overwhelmed state flooding.
When a partner asks for a break, “take one, even if you personally don’t need it,” John and Julie Gottman advise in Fight Right.
We can make things worse while trying to get closer. We press for an answer because our partner seems unwilling to talk; they may hear an attack and withdraw further. By the time the conversation stops, neither of us may feel heard. Yet we may never have discussed what each of us expects when someone is upset.
Why Do We Argue So Differently?
Tyler and Noah enjoyed exploring restaurants and galleries together. They had recently taken a cooking class for couples. But when they tried to discuss a disagreement, Tyler would raise his voice. Sometimes he was frustrated; sometimes he wanted to emphasize a point. Noah would stop answering or leave the room.
Why wouldn’t Noah stay and talk? Tyler took his partner’s withdrawal as a sign that his feelings did not matter. Noah expected anything he said to lead to more yelling.
They could disagree about dinner or about whether they could afford to have a child through surrogacy. Why did such different conversations end the same way?
In Tyler’s family, people argued frequently and made up quickly afterward. Noah’s parents rarely fought, but when they did, they said hurtful things and one of them would storm out. Once, his mother left for days without saying where she was going or when she would return.
John and Julie Gottman use meta-emotion to mean how we feel about feelings—and what we believe should happen when we express them. Should sadness be comforted or shaken off? Can anger be talked through, or is it better kept to ourselves?
Tyler believed difficult feelings should be expressed and explored. Noah believed they should be avoided. John and Julie Gottman call this a meta-emotion mismatch. For Tyler, talking through a disagreement could bring them closer. Noah wanted to escape a conversation he found overwhelming.
What happened when people got angry in our families? Could they disagree and become affectionate again afterward, or did someone stop speaking or walk out? We may have been living together for years without knowing the answers.
Emotional Regulation: Strong Feelings and Flooding
John Gottman identified three broad conflict styles in his research: conflict-avoiding, validating and volatile. Partners may recognize themselves in more than one.
Conflict-avoiding couples tend to accept their differences without trying to persuade each other to change. Some rarely discuss disagreements; others talk about their feelings, acknowledge that they see things differently and leave it there. They may be affectionate and deeply interested in each other while having little appetite for debate.
Validating couples are more willing to discuss a disagreement and work toward compromise. They tend to listen to each other’s reasoning and accept influence. If the conversation becomes heated, they try to settle it down. Sometimes a partner concedes more than they would like because they are so reluctant to let an argument escalate.
Volatile couples are more openly expressive. They may raise their voices and launch eagerly into debate. Among happy couples with this style, affection and humor remain part of the exchange; partners can laugh together while disagreeing. Someone accustomed to avoiding conflict might find the same conversation overwhelming.
Gottman found happy, stable couples with all three styles. A validating couple is not automatically healthier than a volatile or conflict-avoiding couple. But when partners approach conflict differently, they can badly misread each other. Tyler leaned toward the volatile style; Noah toward the conflict-avoiding style.
When, then, do we need a break?
Flooding is a state of physical and emotional overwhelm that makes it difficult to listen or think clearly. Our bodies respond to a perceived threat by releasing stress hormones, including adrenaline and cortisol. Our hearts pound, and we may clench our jaw without noticing. Even after we stop speaking, we may remain intensely agitated.
We hear our partner speaking but struggle to follow what they mean. They may still be trying to explain why something hurt while we are already preparing to defend ourselves. If we stop responding, our partner may see us as indifferent, although we are so overwhelmed that we want the conversation to end.
A partner who has stopped speaking is not necessarily calm. Once either person is too overwhelmed to take in what the other is saying, both need to pause before trying to continue.
When we’re flooded, emotional regulation means down-regulating—settling our bodies enough to listen again.
Asking for a Pause Without Pointing a Finger
Why won’t they listen? We keep explaining, perhaps more forcefully, while our partner is already trying to end the conversation.
The Gottmans advise against telling a partner, “you’re getting flooded.” The person hearing it may feel blamed or patronized. Now they may be arguing about who gets to decide what is happening inside the other.
The person asking explains that they feel overwhelmed and agrees on a time to return.
The other partner honors the request, even if they feel able to continue. Whoever asks for the break takes responsibility for coming back.
What to Do During the Break
In one of John Gottman’s experiments at his relationship research lab, known as the Love Lab, couples spent fifteen minutes discussing a relationship issue. Researchers then interrupted, saying they needed to adjust the equipment. For thirty minutes, the couples read magazines and avoided the topic. When they resumed, their heart rates were significantly lower and their interactions more productive.
The Gottmans recommend at least twenty minutes for the body to settle. Reading or a walk can help someone turn their attention away from the disagreement. A partner who spends the break rehearsing everything they intend to say may remain agitated. Partners can sit in separate rooms and still be arguing in their heads.
Some people need longer than twenty minutes. The person who asked for the break returns at the agreed time; if they are still overwhelmed, they explain and arrange more time. The Gottmans recommend returning to the discussion within twenty-four hours. The partner waiting should not have to pursue the other to get the conversation going again.
When We Start Talking Again
After a pause, both partners may still have plenty to say. Who listens first?
One way to begin is to return to the concern that prompted the argument: the partner who raised it speaks while the other listens. The Gottmans recommend a softened start-up: saying how they feel about a specific situation and what they need, without attacking their partner’s character.
In the Love Lab, partners in satisfying, lasting relationships postponed persuasion. The listener asked questions and summarized what they had heard, checking with the speaker before presenting their own point of view. If they had misunderstood, they asked more questions.
What about my side of the story? The listener gets a turn, too. Recognizing why a partner felt hurt does not require agreement about every detail of what happened. That is validation. Once the first speaker confirms that they have been understood, the partners switch roles.
If either partner snaps, an apology or a request to start again can be a repair attempt. They still have a concern to discuss; neither person has to concede it to try again more gently.
A Cheat Code for Understanding How We Fight
Our conflict styles influence how we argue—and what we expect from each other. In Fight Right, John and Julie Gottman explain how all three styles can work well. We may recognize ourselves in more than one.
Conflict-avoiding
What it can look like: We emphasize common ground and often agree to disagree. Some couples rarely discuss differences; others share their feelings without trying to change each other’s minds.
What can work well: We accept many of our differences and enjoy being together without debating every disagreement.
What to watch for: Important concerns may go unspoken. When a decision can’t be postponed, we may have little practice working through it together.
Validating
What it can look like: We discuss our differences, consider each other’s reasoning and work toward compromise.
What can work well: We cooperate and are willing to reconsider our positions.
What to watch for: We may concede too much to prevent an argument from escalating, or settle on a solution before understanding the feelings involved.
Volatile
What it can look like: We readily debate and express strong feelings. In happy couples, humor and affection remain part of the exchange.
What can work well: Arguing can be a form of engagement: we express ourselves openly and enjoy the lively exchange.
What to watch for: We may rush to persuade rather than listen. If negativity escalates, teasing can become hurtful and the argument harder to stop.
What if our styles are different?
Partners with conflict-avoiding and validating styles often have considerable common ground. A validating partner and a volatile partner may struggle when one tries to settle the discussion down while the other wants more emotional engagement.
The conflict-avoiding and volatile combination can be particularly difficult. One partner keeps pressing because they want a response. The other withdraws because the discussion feels overwhelming. One may feel rejected when their partner withdraws; the other may feel attacked when their partner keeps pressing.
Different styles do not mean a relationship is doomed. Nor does sharing a style guarantee that we handle disagreements well. A couple who rarely argues can be happy; so can a couple who debates passionately. Neither style makes criticism or contempt harmless.
If either partner becomes flooded, the Gottmans recommend a break of at least twenty minutes. Read something or take a walk rather than rehearse the argument. Agree on a time to return; whoever requests the break takes responsibility for coming back.
Tyler and Noah were able to reach each other once they recognized how differently they experienced conflict.
“At this stage the only goal is understanding,” John and Julie Gottman write in Fight Right. “Persuasion comes afterwards.”
FREE Download | What Are You Really Fighting About?
Download an exercise designed to help you learn how to use conflict to communicate better rather than arguing endlessly.
Sign up for Love Notes and Get the FREE Gottman worksheet, What are You Really Fighting About.
Sources: John Gottman and Julie Schwartz Gottman, Fight Right; John Gottman and Nan Silver, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work.
