Why doesn’t my partner listen to me?
Why We Mishear Our Partners in Conflict—and How Relationship Therapy Can Help
Introduction
If you’ve ever found yourself saying, “That’s not what I said!” while your partner insists they’re responding to exactly what they heard, you know how maddening miscommunication can be. Couples often describe these moments as if they’re speaking two different languages. The truth is that in the heat of conflict, our brains and bodies set us up to mishear each other.
This doesn’t mean your relationship is doomed or that either of you is “bad at listening.” It means you’re human. Our nervous systems are finely tuned to detect threat, and disagreements with our partner—our closest attachment figure—are often perceived by the body as moments of danger. Mishearing in these situations is not unusual; it’s predictable.
In this post we’ll look at:
Why we mishear each other during conflict
What you can do differently in the moment
How relationship therapy creates the safety and structure for lasting change
Why We Don’t Hear Each Other Accurately
1. Our brains assume our view is the truth
Cognitive psychologists call this naïve realism—the sense that we see things objectively, while others are biased or unreasonable if they see things differently (Ross & Ward, 1996). In couples, this leads to statements like, “I’m just being logical—you’re being emotional.” If both partners assume their perspective is the baseline for reality, it’s no wonder words get distorted.
2. We interpret behaviour through a negative lens
When conflict rises, we become quicker to assign meaning to our partner’s actions—and usually in the least charitable way. This is known as a negative attributional style. For example:
Neutral behaviour: partner looks at phone.
Negative attribution: “You’re ignoring me on purpose.”
Research shows that couples in distress tend to make global, stable, and negative explanations for each other’s actions (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990). Over time, this pattern reinforces resentment and makes it harder to hear each other clearly.
3. The demand–withdraw cycle blocks understanding
One of the most researched communication patterns in couples is demand–withdraw. One partner pushes, criticises, or demands change, while the other retreats, minimises, or shuts down. In this cycle, both partners feel unheard: the demander sees withdrawal as proof of indifference, while the withdrawer sees demands as attack. Mishearing becomes inevitable when the focus shifts from the issue itself to survival inside the pattern (Papp, Kouros, & Cummings, 2009).
4. Our bodies flood with stress
When conflict escalates, heart rate, blood pressure, and stress hormones spike. Gottman and Levenson’s pioneering studies showed that physiological flooding shuts down our ability to process complex language (Levenson & Gottman, 1983). Instead of hearing words, we tune into tone, volume, and perceived threat. Even if your partner is saying, “I’m hurt because I care,” your body may only register danger.
5. Harsh openings set the whole tone
Gottman’s work highlights the importance of the first three minutes of a conflict discussion. If it begins with accusation, contempt, or sarcasm (a harsh start-up), the conversation usually spirals downward. But if it begins with gentleness and specificity, the conversation is more likely to stay constructive (Gottman, 1994).
6. Listening skills alone aren’t enough
You may have tried “active listening” exercises. While useful, studies suggest that parroting back words without genuine emotional attunement can feel mechanical or even irritating (Weger, Castle, & Emmett, 2014). What really matters is responsive listening—being curious about both content and underlying emotion (Kuhn, Bradbury, Nussbeck, & Bodenmann, 2018).
Research shows that couples in distress tend to make global, stable, and negative explanations for each other’s actions
What You Can Do Differently
Here are practical tools you can start using right away.
Regulate before you relate
If either partner is physiologically flooded, take a 20–30 minute break. The key difference from “the silent treatment” is that you agree when to resume. Do something genuinely calming, not ruminating.
Start soft, stay specific
Use the formula: “When X happens, I feel Y, and I need Z.”
“When you came home late (X), I felt worried (Y), and I’d like a quick text in future (Z).”
This avoids global accusations like “You never care.”
Use Speaker–Listener boundaries
Borrowed from communication training programmes, this means one partner speaks briefly, the other reflects what they heard (content and emotion), and checks accuracy. Then swap. This slows the cycle and prevents instant rebuttals.
Look for patterns, not villains
Shift from “You’re the problem” to “This is the cycle we get stuck in.” Naming the dance helps both partners stand on the same side against the problem.
Translate positions into needs
Instead of arguing over positions (“We need to spend less,” “We need to spend more”), ask: “What’s the need underneath?” Often it’s about security, freedom, or belonging. Needs are far easier to hear than accusations.
Make and accept repairs
Repair attempts are small bids that de-escalate tension—“Can we rewind?”, a gentle touch, or a smile. Happy couples don’t avoid conflict; they get better at repairing quickly.
Keep the positivity bank healthy
Every relationship has an “emotional bank account.” Daily moments of affection, humour, and kindness buffer against the strain of conflict. The stronger this baseline, the easier it is to hear each other during tough conversations.
How Relationship Therapy Helps
Sometimes tools aren’t enough on their own. If you and your partner find yourselves stuck in repeating cycles, relationship therapy can help by providing structure, safety, and a neutral guide.
Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT): Focuses on the attachment needs beneath conflict. Partners learn to express softer emotions (“I felt scared you might not need me”) instead of secondary reactions like anger. This shift helps rebuild trust and security.
Integrative Behavioural Couple Therapy (IBCT): Blends acceptance and behaviour change. Couples learn to detach from blame, describe patterns neutrally, and create practical agreements.
Communication training (e.g., PREP): Offers structured techniques like soft start-ups and the Speaker–Listener model. In therapy, you practise these skills in real time, with guidance when things get tense.
Therapy isn’t just about teaching skills. It’s about creating a safe space where both partners can risk showing vulnerability, experiment with new patterns, and be supported in the process.
A Five-Step Conflict Reset
Here’s a short exercise you can try tonight:
Pause. If you’re flooded, take a 20-minute break with an agreed return time.
Start soft. Use the When X, I feel Y, I need Z formula.
Take turns. One speaks; one reflects. Swap.
Name the pattern. Externalise the cycle you both get caught in.
Repair and plan. Make one repair attempt and agree one small, realistic step forward.
The goal isn’t perfection—it’s fewer, shorter, and less damaging ruptures over time.
If you and your partner find yourselves stuck in repeating cycles, relationship therapy can help by providing structure, safety, and a neutral guide.
Final Thought
Mishearing in conflict is normal, but it doesn’t have to define your relationship. When you regulate your body, soften your approach, and learn to focus on needs rather than blame, you give yourselves the best chance to truly hear each other. And if you need support, therapy can help you break old cycles, practise new skills, and rebuild connection where it matters most.
About the Author
Mark Ryan is an integrative psychotherapist and relationship therapist based in London. Through my practice, Rise and Grow Therapy, I support individuals and couples in navigating communication challenges, deepening connection, and building healthier patterns of relating. My approach blends person-centred, CBT, psychodynamic, and relational frameworks, with specialist training in couples therapy, to create a safe and collaborative space for growth.
References
Baucom, B. R., McFarland, P. T., & Christensen, A. (2011). The language of demand/withdraw: Verbal and vocal expressions in dyadic interactions. Personal Relationships, 18(4), 654–674.
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 3–33.
Christensen, A., Doss, B. D., & Jacobson, N. S. (2017). Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy. Family Process, 56(2), 285–301. (overview/effectiveness).
Christensen, A., Atkins, D. C., Berns, S., Wheeler, J., Baucom, D. H., & Simpson, L. E. (2010). Marital status and satisfaction five years following a randomized clinical trial comparing traditional versus integrative behavioral couple therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(2), 225–235.
Gottman, J. M. (1994). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56(1), 5–22. (Classic findings on positivity/negativity balance).
Kuhn, R., Bradbury, T. N., Nussbeck, F. W., & Bodenmann, G. (2018). The power of listening: Lending an ear during dyadic coping conversations. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(5), 598–609.
Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1983). Marital interaction: Physiological linkage and affective exchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 587–597.
Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1985). Physiological and affective predictors of change in relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 85–94.
Papp, L. M., Kouros, C., & Cummings, E. M. (2009). Demand–withdraw patterns in marital conflict in the home. Personal Relationships, 16(2), 285–300.
Ross, L., & Ward, A. (1996). Naïve realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In E. S. Reed, E. Turiel, & T. Brown (Eds.), Values and knowledge (pp. 103–135). Psychology Press.
Stanley, S. M., Allen, E., Markman, H. J., Saiz, C. C., Bloomstrom, G., & Jenkins, N. H. (2014). A randomized controlled trial of relationship education in the U.S. Army: 2-year outcomes. Family Relations, 63(3), 482–495.
Weger Jr., H., Castle, G. R., & Emmett, M. C. (2014). The relative effectiveness of active listening in initial interactions. International Journal of Listening, 28(1), 13–31.
Wiebe, S. A., & Johnson, S. M. (2016). A review of the research in Emotionally Focused Therapy for couples. Family Process, 55(3), 390–407.
