TL;DR
Get gifts for the two of you delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
A Gottman Institute article explains why couples may repeat an argument even after reaching a practical agreement: they can settle the immediate problem without understanding what it means to each partner. It describes three conflict styles and recommends exploring each person’s underlying concerns before trying to persuade or compromise.
The Gottman Institute has published guidance on why couples repeat arguments after apparently reaching a solution, arguing that partners may settle a practical question without understanding the concerns that made it emotionally important. The advice, drawing on John and Julie Gottman’s book Fight Right, says couples may benefit from understanding each other before trying to persuade or compromise.
The article illustrates the pattern with a couple arguing about camping expenses and household savings. One partner worries that additional purchases will leave the family short on money; the other says the children need sleeping bags for a planned trip and objects to a budget that would eliminate enjoyable activities. They discuss withdrawing a set amount of cash each week and stopping discretionary spending when it runs out. The plan appears practical, but the disagreement can return the next month if the couple has not addressed what spending and saving represent to each of them.
The Gottmans describe three broad conflict styles: conflict-avoiding, validating and volatile. Conflict-avoiding partners may leave differences unresolved or agree to disagree. Validating partners discuss concerns collaboratively and seek compromise. Volatile partners are more comfortable with strong emotion and debate; the article says humor and affection can remain part of exchanges for couples who are happy with this style. The framework is presented as a spectrum, and a person may recognize a mix of styles.
The article also outlines three stages in a disagreement: building an agenda, when partners state what concerns them; persuasion, when they try to bring the other person around; and an attempt at compromise, when they seek a workable arrangement. In its example, the partners move toward persuasion before exploring the memories and feelings behind their positions. One connects saving with avoiding financial insecurity, while the other fears a life devoted to saving without enjoying it. The article’s central recommendation is to make room for those explanations before pushing for agreement.
Why Practical Deals May Not Last
The guidance matters because a couple can agree on a specific spending rule yet remain divided about the underlying issue. One person may be seeking security, while the other is seeking room for enjoyment. If those concerns are not heard, a compromise can resolve this week’s purchase without changing how either partner understands the disagreement.
The article also cautions against treating different ways of arguing as proof that one partner does not care. A person who welcomes immediate debate may read withdrawal as rejection; a person who prefers to avoid conflict may experience pressure to respond as an attack. Recognizing the mismatch can help partners interpret each other’s behavior more accurately. The article offers a framework for reflection, not evidence that one style or a single technique will work for every couple.
Popular right now
Ninja CREAMi 7-in-1 Ice Cream Maker, NC299AMZ
KitchenAid Classic Series 4.5-Quart Tilt-Head Stand Mixer, Onyx Black
De'Longhi Rivelia Automatic Espresso Machine with Milk Frother
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Three Stages of Disagreement
In the camping example, the initial agenda is straightforward: one partner raises the extra costs, and the other explains why the gear is needed. Their positions become clearer, but so do the values underneath them. The saving-focused partner recalls growing up around spending that left no money for car repairs. The other thinks of a relative who saved extensively but, in his view, did not enjoy life. These experiences help explain why the budget is not just a question of arithmetic.
During persuasion, the partners challenge each other’s reasoning rather than first asking what shaped it. They later discuss a spending plan, and one proposes a weekly cash limit. According to the article, this validating couple stays relatively calm and tries to find a reasonable answer. But calm discussion alone does not necessarily resolve the concern if each person feels unheard. The Gottmans’ account places the conversation’s difficulty not simply in the disagreement, but in how quickly partners move from identifying the issue to arguing for their preferred answer.
The authors’ distinction among conflict styles also complicates any single prescription for a “good” argument. Some couples prefer not to persuade each other; others work through differences collaboratively, while volatile couples may use energetic debate. The article says happy, stable couples can have all three styles. It therefore emphasizes differences in expectations—when to debate, how intensely to engage and whether to seek agreement—rather than naming one style as universally best.
““agree to disagree.””
— John and Julie Gottman, as presented in The Gottman Institute article
What the Guidance Does Not Establish
The supplied material is a relationship-advice article, not a report of new research findings or a study testing outcomes. It does not provide a publication date, data on how often couples repeat arguments, or evidence that following the proposed sequence will prevent recurring disagreements. Its descriptions of conflict styles are a framework attributed to the Gottmans and should not be read as a diagnosis of a particular couple.
The article also does not establish whether the example couple’s cash plan works over time. It leaves open how partners should respond when their financial constraints are real, when they cannot find a compromise, or when one person does not feel safe discussing conflict. The supplied text ends during a discussion of why partners may misread each other, so further guidance beyond the material provided cannot be confirmed.
Questions Couples Can Raise
The article points readers toward a different next step before making another agreement: ask why the issue matters so much to the other person. In the spending example, that means exploring what financial security means to one partner and what enjoying life together means to the other, rather than immediately debating the weekly limit.
From there, partners can return to the practical question with a clearer view of the concerns involved. The article does not set a timetable or predict that a new conversation will end the disagreement. Its guidance is to slow the move into persuasion, listen to each person’s reasoning and then see whether a compromise addresses more than the immediate expense.
Key Questions
Why can couples repeat an argument after agreeing on a solution?
According to The Gottman Institute article, the practical agreement may leave the underlying concerns unexplored. If partners have not understood what the issue means to each other, the same disagreement can return.
What conflict styles does the article describe?
It describes conflict-avoiding, validating and volatile styles. The article says couples may have a blend and that happy, stable couples can use different styles.
What are the three stages of a fight in the Gottmans’ framework?
The stages are building an agenda, or stating concerns; persuasion, or trying to change a partner’s view; and an attempt at compromise.
Does the article say one conflict style is best?
No. The supplied article describes all three styles and says happy, stable couples can have any of them. It focuses on differences in how partners approach discussion and persuasion, rather than naming one style as best for everyone.
Source: gottman.com
