How to make up after a fight: conflict, apologies and repair in relationships, by the research

In any close relationship, disagreements are hard to avoid. Research has looked less at whether couples fight than at how they fight. In two longitudinal studies that observed married couples discussing a conflict, disagreement and exchanges of anger went with unhappiness at the time, but over 3 years they went with improving marital satisfaction. Defensiveness (including whining), stubbornness and withdrawing from the conversation, by contrast, went with the relationship getting worse over time (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989). A reply argued, though, that this result was quite likely a statistical artefact of the way change was analysed (Woody & Costanzo, 1990).

In a study that looked at 73 couples twice, 4 years apart, the couples who stayed stable fell into three groups: those who validated each other while disagreeing, those who clashed with high intensity, and those who avoided conflict. The unstable ones were hostile couples and couples who were both hostile and detached (Gottman, 1993). A review of research on conflict in close relationships likewise argued that whether conflict harms or helps depends on how often it happens, how it is handled and how supportive the relationship is. The authors proposed that constructive conflict in a supportive relationship can, up to a point, do good, while coercive conflict tends to do harm (Laursen & Hafen, 2010). Fighting often, or hardly ever, says little about a relationship on its own.

This guide gathers research on fights and making up between partners and spouses, along with research on apologies and forgiveness that carries over to friends and family. Talking with a partner who pulls away is covered in how to talk to an avoidant partner, and clinging out of fear of being left in coping with anxious attachment. It is not a diagnosis. If you are afraid of the other person, or a fight has ever turned into threats or violence, read “When it is not a fight but control or violence” below before any of the tips here. In immediate danger, call your local emergency number. US: National Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-7233 · UK: National Domestic Abuse Helpline 0808 2000 247. In Korea, call 112 in an emergency and the Women’s Emergency Line 1366 (24 hours) for domestic and dating violence counselling.

How a fight starts matters too. In a study that coded the emotions shown in 15-minute conflict discussions of 124 newlywed couples, in 3-minute blocks, the first 3 minutes alone predicted whether the marriage was still intact 6 years later (Carrère & Gottman, 1999). In a study that looked at 73 married couples in 1983 and 1987 and split them by the balance of positive and negative behaviour in their conversations, the couples whose balance had tipped showed more negative and less positive emotion, more stubbornness, withdrawal and defensiveness, and a greater risk of considering or actually going through separation (Gottman & Levenson, 1992).

In a popular book, Gottman called criticism, contempt, defensiveness and stonewalling (shutting down and not responding) the “four horsemen” that threaten a relationship (Gottman & Silver, 1999). In a study by the same lab that followed couples for 14 years, negative emotion during conflict predicted early divorce, a lack of positive emotion in everyday and conflict conversations predicted later divorce, and a model that also included marital satisfaction and thoughts of divorce was reported to predict divorce with 93% accuracy (Gottman & Levenson, 2000). Critics point out, however, that the accuracy of such divorce predictions can drop sharply when they are tested on new data rather than on the data the model was built from (Heyman & Slep, 2001). The same lab’s newlywed study was also criticised for how couples were selected for analysis and for drawing causal conclusions from correlational data (Stanley et al., 2000). The popular line that divorce can be predicted with over 90% accuracy is better read as: these patterns went together with trouble, as warning signs.

Gottman’s team calls the words or gestures that try to turn a fight around “repair attempts”. In a study observing newlywed couples’ conflict discussions, the most effective repairs came early, in the first 3 minutes, and were the ones that tended to the emotional climate rather than appealing to logic or problem-solving: shared humour, affection, opening up about oneself, expressing understanding and empathy, taking responsibility for part of the problem, and signals that “we’re okay”. The study also supported the idea that a solid friendship between the two makes repairs easier to accept (Gottman et al., 2015). Another study of 49 newlywed couples found that playfulness and enthusiasm at everyday dinners went with humour and affection during conflict, but it was observational, so cause and effect cannot be told apart (Driver & Gottman, 2004).

Communication skills are not the whole story, though. In a study that observed 431 newlywed couples from low-income neighbourhoods in Los Angeles County four times, 9 months apart, communication predicted later satisfaction and satisfaction predicted later communication, but neither link was strong. The researchers questioned theories and programmes that treat communication skills as the key to relationship satisfaction (Lavner et al., 2016). Meanwhile, among 136 couples who were consistently very satisfied over their first 4 years of marriage, those who divorced within 10 years had shown more negative communication and emotion, and more negative support behaviour, as newlyweds (Lavner & Bradbury, 2012). How you fight is worth a look even in a happy relationship, but no single fight decides a relationship’s future.

One common loop in arguments is when one person presses the other with emotional requests, criticism and complaints, and the other retreats through defensiveness or doing nothing. Researchers call this the demand–withdraw pattern. In a study where 31 married couples each discussed one change they wanted from the other, both partners tended to demand more when discussing a change they wanted, and to withdraw more when discussing a change the other wanted. Sex differences appeared as well, so the roles did not simply reverse, but who wanted the change also shaped them (Christensen & Heavey, 1990).

This loop weighs on a relationship. A meta-analysis of 74 studies (14,255 people) found demand–withdraw moderately associated with outcomes such as lower relationship satisfaction (overall r = .36), and the size of the association was similar whichever partner did the demanding (Schrodt et al., 2014). If you tend to pursue, try raising one change you want, gently, rather than pouring out several complaints at once; if you tend to withdraw, say when you can talk again before you disappear. The loop seen through attachment is covered in attachment styles in dating.

As a fight heats up, the body heats up with it. In a study that continuously recorded the physiological responses of 30 married couples during conflict conversations, the more physiologically aroused a couple was, the more their marital satisfaction fell over the following 3 years. It is a small study: only 19 couples were assessed again 3 years later (Levenson & Gottman, 1985). Gottman calls the state where emotion and physical tension flood in together and make it hard to keep talking “flooding”, and in a popular book advises taking a break of at least 20 minutes or so to calm down (Gottman & Silver, 1999). That is advice rather than a tested length of time. Going over the other person’s faults during the break tends to keep anger going; the research is in how to manage anger.

A break is not the same as avoiding or punishing the other person. Vanishing without a word can feel like abandonment to the other person, so say when you will come back, as in “I’m too worked up right now; I’d like to talk again in 30 minutes”, and then actually come back at that time. Agreeing together, in a calm moment, on a signal for stopping and on how long a break lasts can also help.

Apologies and forgiveness often go together. In a meta-analysis of 175 studies (26,006 people) on one person forgiving another who had wronged them, apology was notably associated with forgiveness (r = .42). How far the offence was seen as intentional (r = −.49), empathy for the offender (r = .51) and current anger (r = −.41) were also strongly associated with it (Fehr et al., 2010). In another, questionnaire-based study, the link between receiving an apology and forgiving was consistent with the idea that it works through greater empathy for the person who apologized (McCullough et al., 1997).

What should an apology contain? Two studies that tested six components of an apology separately (expressing regret, explaining what went wrong, acknowledging responsibility, declaring repentance, offering to make amends, and asking for forgiveness) found that apologies with more components were rated as more effective. Acknowledging responsibility mattered most, offering to make amends came second, and asking for forgiveness mattered least (Lewicki et al., 2016). But the participants, 333 adults recruited online and 422 university students, imagined being a hiring manager and rated the apology of a job applicant who had filed an incorrect tax return in a previous job (the first study told them which components the apology contained; the second had them read it), so carrying the results over to spoken apologies between partners calls for caution.

What gets in the way of a good apology? A review described a high-quality apology as one that covers many components and is not defensive, meaning it does not make excuses or blame the person who was hurt. It named three barriers: caring little about the other person or the relationship, feeling that apologizing makes you a bad person, and believing an apology will not help. People who had done wrong tended to expect apologizing to feel more humiliating and stressful than it actually did, and to underestimate its benefits; in one experiment, first reflecting on values that mattered to them led people to offer fuller and less defensive apologies (Schumann, 2018). An apology that carries a “but”, such as “I’m sorry, but you also…”, fits this research less well than one that owns the wrong and says how to make it right: “It was wrong of me to do that; next time I’ll do it this way.”

Research defines forgiving as a change of motivation in which people hold back responses that would damage the relationship and come to act constructively towards someone who has hurt them (McCullough et al., 1997). In two studies, of couples in their third year of marriage and of couples married longer, wanting to retaliate or to avoid the partner went with poorer conflict resolution, and goodwill towards the partner with better conflict resolution. Which spouse’s motivation mattered, and which kind, differed between the studies, and these links held regardless of marital satisfaction (Fincham et al., 2004).

But forgiveness and reconciliation are not the same thing. A paper in the counselling field set out how they differ and stressed that counsellors should not confuse the two (Freedman, 1998). Forgiveness is a change within you; reconciliation, renewing the relationship, is something two people do together. Nor does forgiving always lead somewhere good. In a study that followed 72 couples in north-central Ohio for 4 years from within 6 months of their first marriage, the partners of spouses who described themselves as more forgiving kept up the same level of psychological and physical aggression, while the partners of less forgiving spouses became less aggressive over time. The author concluded that forgiveness is not a panacea (McNulty, 2011). Only 37 couples remained at the last assessment and the study looked at associations, so causes cannot be pinned down, but forgiving does not mean covering over repeated aggression. If there is aggression or there are threats, safety comes first. In immediate danger, call your local emergency number. US: National Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-7233 · UK: National Domestic Abuse Helpline 0808 2000 247. In Korea, call 112 in an emergency and the Women’s Emergency Line 1366 (24 hours) for domestic and dating violence counselling.

Forgiving someone does not oblige you to stay in the relationship, and deciding to end it is a choice that deserves respect. Recovering after a breakup is covered in how to get over a breakup. If you are the one who caused the hurt, do not press for forgiveness if it does not come right away: in the apology studies above, asking for forgiveness was the component that mattered least (Lewicki et al., 2016).

One study suggests that the distress a fight leaves behind can shrink even when the fights themselves do not. In it, 120 married couples taking part in a 2-year study with assessments every 4 months were randomly split, and in the second year half of them did a 7-minute writing task three times (21 minutes in all), thinking about their latest disagreement from the point of view of “a neutral third party who wants the best for all involved”. In the first year, marital quality fell in both groups; in the second year it kept falling among the couples who did not write, but not among those who did. The two groups fought about as often and about equally serious topics, and less distress about their fights explained the difference (Finkel et al., 2013).

Still, it is one study from one lab. Another research team adapted the method in a pilot randomized trial in Canada with 140 couples who had children under 6, who wrote three times over 9 weeks: relationship quality worsened between the start and the end of the program in the comparison group but not in the reappraisal group (Prime et al., 2024). Research is still limited, and that difference was reported only up to the end of the program. If you want to try it, briefly write down the facts of a recent disagreement, then write how a neutral third party who wants the best for everyone would see it.

If the same fight keeps coming back despite both people’s efforts, couple therapy is worth considering. Research on how well couple therapy works is covered in the relationship boredom guide. Before considering it, though, check that “When it is not a fight but control or violence” below does not describe your situation. In that kind of relationship, safety comes before couple therapy. In immediate danger, call your local emergency number. US: National Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-7233 · UK: National Domestic Abuse Helpline 0808 2000 247. In Korea, call 112 in an emergency and the Women’s Emergency Line 1366 (24 hours) for domestic and dating violence counselling. In a relationship like that, get help separately.

The making-up tips in this guide are for fights in relationships where neither person is afraid of the other. Researchers see intimate partner violence as more than one thing and distinguish four patterns: coercive controlling violence, violent resistance, situational couple violence and separation-instigated violence (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). Deciding whom the other person may meet or talk to, making them account for their time, restricting or checking their phone use, insisting on knowing their account passwords, tracking their location through devices and cutting them off from family and friends are behaviours that UK government guidance gives as examples of coercive control (Home Office, 2023). If this is happening, or if you are afraid of the other person, safety comes before making up. In immediate danger, call your local emergency number. US: National Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-7233 · UK: National Domestic Abuse Helpline 0808 2000 247. In Korea, call 112 in an emergency and the Women’s Emergency Line 1366 (24 hours) for domestic and dating violence counselling.

In a relationship like this, communication skills, apologies, forgiveness or couple therapy are unlikely to be the answer. The US National Domestic Violence Hotline does not encourage anyone in an abusive relationship to seek counselling with their partner: abuse is not a relationship problem, couple therapy cannot fix the unequal power structure of an abusive relationship, and an abuser may later use what was said in therapy against the partner (National Domestic Violence Hotline, 2022). Clinicians who worked with couples where there had been low-level violence passed on clients’ accounts that a “time-out” taught to one partner only was often ineffective and could be used abusively (Rosen et al., 2003), and in one study the partners of more forgiving spouses did not become less aggressive (McNulty, 2011). When the other person may be dangerous, do not confront them alone; tell someone you trust what is happening, and decide in advance where you would go and whom you would call in an emergency. In immediate danger, call your local emergency number. US: National Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-7233 · UK: National Domestic Abuse Helpline 0808 2000 247. In Korea, call 112 in an emergency and the Women’s Emergency Line 1366 (24 hours) for domestic and dating violence counselling.

Signs that jealousy is turning into control are covered in the jealousy guide, and words that keep shaking your memory and judgement in the gaslighting guide.

Q. Does the same apply after a fight with a friend? A. Most of the research here is about partners and spouses. But the meta-analysis linking apology and forgiveness pooled many situations in which one person wronged another, not only romantic ones (Fehr et al., 2010), and the review arguing that whether conflict harms depends on how often and how people fight, and on the quality of the relationship, covered close relationships in general (Laursen & Hafen, 2010). An apology that owns the wrong and says how to make it right, and a break with a clear time to come back, can be tried between friends too. If a falling-out has left you lonely, see also loneliness: what helps.

Q. Who should apologize first? A. We found no research saying who should go first. People who have done wrong do tend to expect apologizing to be harder, and less useful, than it really is (Schumann, 2018). If part of the fault is yours, try owning that part first: taking responsibility for part of the problem was one of the repair attempts that worked in newlywed couples’ fights (Gottman et al., 2015).

Q. My partner won’t answer after a fight. A. After a heated fight, the other person may need time for feelings to settle; Gottman also advises taking a break when emotions flood (Gottman & Silver, 1999). If shutting down happens after every fight, it may be the demand–withdraw loop (Christensen & Heavey, 1990). Rather than pressing with messages, ask once when you could talk again, and wait. Talking with a partner who pulls away is covered in how to talk to an avoidant partner. If going silent keeps being used to punish or control, read “When it is not a fight but control or violence” above. In immediate danger, call your local emergency number. US: National Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-7233 · UK: National Domestic Abuse Helpline 0808 2000 247. In Korea, call 112 in an emergency and the Women’s Emergency Line 1366 (24 hours) for domestic and dating violence counselling.

Q. Is it true that Gottman can predict divorce with over 90% accuracy? A. It is true that, in a 14-year follow-up, a model was reported to predict divorce with 93% accuracy (Gottman & Levenson, 2000). The model also included answers about marital satisfaction and thoughts of divorce, so the figure does not come from watching conversations alone. But critics note that such predictions can lose much of their accuracy when tested on new data (Heyman & Slep, 2001), and have questioned how couples were selected and how causes were inferred (Stanley et al., 2000). The Gottman lab studies described here mostly observed married heterosexual couples. Treat the patterns as warning signs, but do not read a relationship’s future from a single fight.

Q. Do we keep fighting because our attachment styles or love languages differ? A. That is hard to say. You can look at how you draw close and pull away with the attachment style test, and at the expressions of love that matter to you with the love language test, but neither test diagnoses the cause of fights. How the two ideas differ is covered in love languages vs attachment styles.

References: Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989), Marital interaction and satisfaction: a longitudinal view, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 57(1), 47-52, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.57.1.47; Woody, E. Z., & Costanzo, P. R. (1990), Does marital agony precede marital ecstasy? A comment on Gottman and Krokoff’s “Marital interaction and satisfaction: a longitudinal view”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 58(4), 499-501, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.58.4.499; Gottman, J. M. (1993), The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction: a longitudinal view of five types of couples, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61(1), 6-15, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.61.1.6; Laursen, B., & Hafen, C. A. (2010), Future directions in the study of close relationships: conflict is bad (except when it’s not), Social Development 19(4), 858-872, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00546.x; Carrère, S., & Gottman, J. M. (1999), Predicting divorce among newlyweds from the first three minutes of a marital conflict discussion, Family Process 38(3), 293-301, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1999.00293.x; Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992), Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: behavior, physiology, and health, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(2), 221-233, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221; Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999), The seven principles for making marriage work, Crown Publishers; Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000), The timing of divorce: predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period, Journal of Marriage and Family 62(3), 737-745, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00737.x; Heyman, R. E., & Slep, A. M. S. (2001), The hazards of predicting divorce without crossvalidation, Journal of Marriage and Family 63(2), 473-479, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00473.x; Stanley, S. M., Bradbury, T. N., & Markman, H. J. (2000), Structural flaws in the bridge from basic research on marriage to interventions for couples, Journal of Marriage and Family 62(1), 256-264, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00256.x; Gottman, J. M., Driver, J., & Tabares, A. (2015), Repair during marital conflict in newlyweds: how couples move from attack-defend to collaboration, Journal of Family Psychotherapy 26(2), 85-108, https://doi.org/10.1080/08975353.2015.1038962; Driver, J. L., & Gottman, J. M. (2004), Daily marital interactions and positive affect during marital conflict among newlywed couples, Family Process 43(3), 301-314, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2004.00024.x; Lavner, J. A., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2016), Does couples’ communication predict marital satisfaction, or does marital satisfaction predict communication?, Journal of Marriage and Family 78(3), 680-694, https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12301; Lavner, J. A., & Bradbury, T. N. (2012), Why do even satisfied newlyweds eventually go on to divorce?, Journal of Family Psychology 26(1), 1-10, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025966; Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990), Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59(1), 73-81, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.73; Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., & Shimkowski, J. R. (2014), A meta-analytical review of the demand/withdraw pattern of interaction and its associations with individual, relational, and communicative outcomes, Communication Monographs 81(1), 28-58, https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2013.813632; Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1985), Physiological and affective predictors of change in relationship satisfaction, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49(1), 85-94, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.85; Rosen, K. H., Matheson, J. L., Stith, S. M., McCollum, E. E., & Locke, L. D. (2003), Negotiated time-out: a de-escalation tool for couples, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 29(3), 291-298, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2003.tb01207.x; Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010), The road to forgiveness: a meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates, Psychological Bulletin 136(5), 894-914, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019993; McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997), Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73(2), 321-336, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.321; Lewicki, R. J., Polin, B., & Lount, R. B. (2016), An exploration of the structure of effective apologies, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 9(2), 177-196, https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12073; Schumann, K. (2018), The psychology of offering an apology: understanding the barriers to apologizing and how to overcome them, Current Directions in Psychological Science 27(2), 74-78, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417741709 (summarising Schumann, K. (2014), An affirmed self and a better apology, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 54, 89-96, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.04.013); Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., & Davila, J. (2004), Forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage, Journal of Family Psychology 18(1), 72-81, https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.72; Freedman, S. (1998), Forgiveness and reconciliation: the importance of understanding how they differ, Counseling and Values 42(3), 200-216, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1998.tb00426.x; McNulty, J. K. (2011), The dark side of forgiveness: the tendency to forgive predicts continued psychological and physical aggression in marriage, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37(6), 770-783, https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211407077; Finkel, E. J., Slotter, E. B., Luchies, L. B., Walton, G. M., & Gross, J. J. (2013), A brief intervention to promote conflict reappraisal preserves marital quality over time, Psychological Science 24(8), 1595-1601, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612474938; Prime, H., Muise, A., Jambon, M. M., Koven, M. R., Markwell, A., & Wade, M. (2024), A pilot randomized controlled trial of a brief conflict reappraisal intervention for community couples with young children, Cognitive Therapy and Research 48(5), 895-909, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-024-10485-x; Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. P. (2008), Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: research update and implications for interventions, Family Court Review 46(3), 476-499, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00215.x; Home Office (2023), Controlling or coercive behaviour: statutory guidance framework (England and Wales), updated 27 July 2023, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/controlling-or-coercive-behaviour-statutory-guidance-framework/controlling-or-coercive-behaviour-statutory-guidance-framework-accessible; National Domestic Violence Hotline (2022), Should I go to couples therapy with my abusive partner?, updated 14 April 2022, https://www.thehotline.org/resources/should-i-go-to-couples-therapy-with-my-abusive-partner/