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 revisit a disagreement even after settling on a practical compromise: the agreement may not address the deeper concerns driving each partner’s position. It outlines three conflict styles and three stages of a fight, while emphasizing that different expectations about persuasion can cause partners to misread each other.
The Gottman Institute has published guidance on why couples may repeat arguments after reaching an agreement, using a household spending dispute to show how a practical compromise can leave the concerns beneath it unexplored. The article says partners may focus on persuading each other before understanding why the issue matters to each person, making the same conflict more likely to return.
In the example, one partner is worried that camping equipment and other expenses will leave the household short on money. The other says the sleeping bags are needed for a planned family trip and worries that saving will mean giving up enjoyable activities. They discuss the credit-card balance and agree to try a spending plan. One partner proposes withdrawing a set amount of cash each week and stopping when it runs out.
The arrangement appears to address the immediate problem, but the article asks whether the couple has discussed what spending and saving represent to them. One partner recalls an uncle who saved extensively but did not enjoy his money; the other remembers a childhood in which careless spending left the family unable to cover an unexpected car repair. Those experiences point to different concerns: enjoying life now, and feeling financially secure.
The article, drawing on John and Julie Gottman’s book Fight Right, describes three stages in a conflict: building an agenda, when partners identify their concerns; persuasion, when they try to bring each other around; and an attempt at compromise. In the spending example, the couple moves toward a solution without spending much time exploring the emotions and past experiences shaping their views.
Why the Same Deal May Not Last
The distinction matters because settling the immediate question is not always the same as resolving the conflict. If a couple agrees on a spending limit without discussing what financial security or shared experiences mean to each of them, the plan may not answer the concern that prompted the argument. The Gottman Institute presents that as one possible reason the disagreement resurfaces when money again becomes tight.
The article does not claim that every recurring disagreement has the same cause or that a particular conversation technique will prevent future arguments. Its practical point is narrower: partners may benefit from asking why an issue matters to the other person before trying to win agreement. That can reveal whether the disagreement is only about a purchase or also about security, freedom, enjoyment, or earlier experiences.
It also cautions against treating one style of disagreement as the right one for every couple. A calm discussion, a lively debate, or a decision to leave a difference unresolved can each fit a couple’s approach. Trouble can arise when partners interpret different approaches as indifference or hostility rather than as different expectations about how conflict should proceed.
Popular right now
Breville Bambino Espresso Machine, Brushed Stainless Steel (BES450BSS)
Dyson V8 Cyclone Cordless Vacuum
Bose QuietComfort Headphones (2nd Gen), Wireless Noise-Cancelling Over-Ear Headphones, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Three Styles, Different Expectations
The Gottmans group conflict approaches into three broad styles. Conflict-avoiding partners may discuss a difference briefly or agree to disagree without trying to change each other’s minds. Validating partners tend to discuss issues collaboratively and seek compromise. Volatile partners are more likely to express strong feelings and debate readily; the article says humor and affection can remain part of the exchange for couples who are happy with that style.
The source says stable, happy couples can have any of these styles, and individuals may recognize a mixture. The difference becomes especially relevant when partners approach persuasion differently. Someone who welcomes debate may see a quick response as engagement, while a partner who prefers to avoid conflict may experience the same pressure as upsetting. Conversely, withdrawal can feel like rejection to a partner seeking an active discussion.
In its example, a conflict-avoiding couple might raise the money concern and then decide not to press it, while a volatile couple might move quickly into debate. The validating couple tries to lay out the problem and find a workable arrangement. These are illustrations from the article, not findings from a reported study or evidence that one style produces better outcomes.
“Couples often begin persuading before they really understand each other.”
— The Gottman Institute, summarizing guidance from John and Julie Gottman’s Fight Right
What the Advice Does Not Establish
The source is relationship guidance, not a report of a new research study. It does not provide data on how often couples repeat arguments, test whether the suggested approach prevents recurrence, or establish that unexplored emotions are the cause in any particular couple’s dispute. The camping-expense scenario is an illustration rather than a documented case study.
The article also does not prescribe a single method for every disagreement or specify how partners should proceed when they cannot discuss an issue calmly. Its account describes possible patterns and interpretations; readers should not treat the three styles as a diagnosis. The source material gives no publication date, and it does not report a new announcement or event beyond the publication of the guidance.
Questions to Raise Before Compromising
The article’s proposed next step is to pause persuasion long enough for each partner to explain why the issue matters. In the spending example, that means discussing both the concern about overspending and the concern that saving could crowd out meaningful family experiences. Partners can then see whether a proposed limit addresses both priorities rather than only the balance due this month.
For readers applying the guidance, the central questions are practical: What is each person worried will happen? What does the proposed solution protect, and what might it cost the other person? The source does not report a follow-up outcome for the fictional couple or say whether its cash-based plan succeeds. Whether an agreement lasts remains dependent on whether it addresses the concerns that brought the partners into conflict.
Key Questions
Why might couples repeat an argument after agreeing on a solution?
The Gottman Institute says a practical compromise may leave the underlying concerns unexplored. If partners have not discussed why the issue matters to each of them, the original disagreement may return.
What are the three conflict styles described in the article?
The article identifies conflict-avoiding, validating, and volatile styles. It says couples can be happy and stable with any of them, and people may show a mix.
What are the three stages of a fight in the Gottmans’ framework?
The stages are building an agenda by raising concerns, persuasion by trying to change the other person’s view, and an attempt at compromise.
Does the article say one conflict style is best?
No. It describes different approaches and says stable, happy couples can have all three styles. The article focuses on how partners may misunderstand each other when their expectations for discussion differ.
Is the spending dispute a documented real-life case?
The source presents it as an illustrative scenario. It does not identify the couple or report an independently documented outcome for their spending plan.
Source: gottman.com
