Regulation During Relationship Conflict: It’s Not Just About Calming Down
Updated: 5 days ago
Taking a Break During Conflict — Part Two
There’s a point in almost every heated argument when a small, still-functioning part of our brain recognizes that whatever we're about to do probably isn't going to help. And another part of us says, Yeah, but what the hell…
And here we go.
We've explained the exact same thing seven different ways, each time with a little more heat. We've stopped listening altogether and are now silently crafting a seething rebuttal. Or we've gone completely silent on the outside while internally reviewing a decade's worth of accumulated grievances.
Somewhere in the middle of all that noise, a familiar piece of advice pops into our heads: I need to get regulated.
Which sounds like a great idea. But what are we actually expecting to happen? Are we hoping the anger will magically vanish? That our heart rate will drop back to a serene resting baseline? That we'll suddenly transform into enlightened, perfectly patient human beings while still feeling deeply hurt by whatever is happening right in front of us?
In Part One of this series, we explored why taking a break during conflict can be so surprisingly hard. Before we get to the practical question of how to take a helpful break in Part Three, I think we need to spend some time with this word that gets tossed around quite a bit in conversations about relationship difficulties: regulation.
If we're going to take a break "to regulate," it would help to understand what we're actually trying to do.
Calm Isn't Necessarily the Same as Regulated
We often talk about regulation as if it simply means calming down. We assume that if we're angry, visibly upset, or emotionally intense, we're dysregulated—and that the goal is to return to a state of quiet, peaceful calm.
Certainly, there are times when lowering our emotional intensity is helpful, even necessary. But psychologists who study emotion regulation describe something much broader.
Emotion regulation involves the ways we influence and navigate our emotional experiences.
Sometimes that means helping our bodies or minds settle when we're overwhelmed. It can also mean shifting our attention away from something that's fueling our distress, reconsidering how we're interpreting a situation, or choosing how and when to express what we're feeling. And sometimes it means reaching toward another person for reassurance or support.
In other words, regulation isn't necessarily about making uncomfortable emotions disappear. It's more about the ways we influence and respond to what's happening inside us.
Consider receiving a frustrating text from your partner while you're at the grocery store. You feel a sudden surge of anger, and before you've even finished reading, you're composing a rather impressive four-paragraph response explaining exactly why they're wrong.
Everything in you is urging you to send it. But what if, instead, you took a moment to notice what was happening, maybe took a breath, and decided this conversation deserved more attention than you could give it between the avocados and the self-checkout?
You're still angry. You haven't talked yourself out of being upset or convinced yourself that your partner was right. But you've recognized what's happening and chosen a different way to respond.
That's one example of regulation.
Other times, regulation involves reconsidering an interpretation. You initially hear a comment from your partner as criticism, but after a moment, you recognize that there may be another explanation. Your emotional response shifts as you consider a new or different understanding.
Regulation can also happen when you recognize that you're too overwhelmed to think clearly and need some time away from the conversation before you can participate thoughtfully.
These are different processes, but they're all ways of influencing how we experience and respond to emotion.
And this brings us to another important distinction: someone can experience strong emotions without necessarily losing their capacity to respond thoughtfully.
Picture two people having a difficult conversation. One is visibly frustrated, speaking with energy and gesturing for emphasis. The other is quiet, composed, and speaking in an even voice.
It's easy to assume that the quieter person is doing a better job of regulating. But what if the expressive partner is still listening, considering what's being said, and able to acknowledge a valid point? And what if the quiet partner has internally shut down, is mentally building a case, and has completely stopped participating?
Outward calm tells us something about how a person is expressing emotion, but it doesn't necessarily tell us how flexibly they're able to respond.
The question isn't simply how calm we appear or how intensely we're feeling something. It's also what we're capable of doing while that emotion is present.
What Are We Trying to Make Stop?
As conflict escalates, our responses can become less about resolving the original disagreement and more about escaping an uncomfortable internal experience.
Being misunderstood feels intolerable, so I push harder and repeat myself again. Uncertainty about where we stand feels frightening, so I insist we resolve everything before anyone goes to bed. Or the interaction becomes so overwhelming that I go silent, withdraw, or emotionally check out.
Different responses, but a similar experience underneath: I'm having a feeling I don't know what to do with, and I desperately want it to stop.
There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting relief from an uncomfortable feeling. Sometimes changing the situation really is the most helpful thing we can do. But the more urgently we "need" to escape our discomfort, the narrower our range of possible responses becomes.
I might know that repeating my point for the eighth time is making the argument worse, but something inside me insists that I cannot stop until I get the understanding I'm looking for. Or I might recognize that withdrawing is making connection more difficult, yet feel truly not able to remain emotionally engaged.
This is where emotional acceptance becomes particularly relevant.
Research on emotional acceptance suggests that people who are more willing to acknowledge uncomfortable thoughts and feelings, rather than judging themselves for having them, tend to experience better psychological well-being and less negative emotional reactivity to stress.
Acceptance doesn't mean liking what we feel or agreeing with whatever caused it. It means becoming more willing to recognize our internal experience without immediately having to change it.
I'm angry. I'm hurt. I'm frightened that we're not going to find our way through this.
Can I acknowledge those feelings and allow them to be present, even briefly, without immediately acting on the urge to defend, fix, attack, or disappear?
Granted, this isn't so easy when the person sitting across from us seems to have an uncanny ability to activate the very things we find hardest to tolerate.
But as we become more capable of experiencing uncomfortable emotions, the urgency to make them disappear begins to loosen its grip. The feelings are still there, but we have more room to consider what the situation actually calls for.
There's an important distinction here, though. Learning to tolerate difficult emotions doesn't mean becoming better at enduring harmful behavior. Feeling angry is one thing; using that anger to humiliate, threaten, or intimidate a partner is another. And while withdrawing can be an understandable response to overwhelm, taking space to recover is different from using silence to punish or control. Understanding why we respond as we do doesn't excuse the impact of our behavior, and developing greater regulatory capacity doesn't require us to remain in interactions that have become harmful or unsafe.
The goal isn't to become extraordinarily good at putting up with things. It's to become more aware of what's happening, both within us and between us, so we have greater freedom to choose how we respond.
More Room to Choose
This brings us to an interesting concept in the research: regulatory flexibility.
Psychologists have challenged the idea that certain emotion regulation strategies are always helpful while others are always harmful. Instead, they emphasize recognizing what a situation calls for, having different ways to respond, and adjusting when something isn't working.
There's no single regulation strategy that's right for every person in every situation.
Sometimes remaining in a difficult conversation is worthwhile. Other times, continuing will only deepen the hurt, and stepping away is the wiser choice. Sometimes we need to express what we're feeling more directly; other times, we need to recognize that we've said enough and make room to listen. And sometimes we discover that the approach we've been using for the past twenty minutes is, in fact, making absolutely nothing better.
Regulation isn't about mastering one particular trick, whether that's taking ten deep breaths, always using I-statements, or assuming that leaving for twenty minutes will automatically make everything better. It's about developing a broader range of possibilities and becoming better able to recognize which ones might help.
Our growing capacity to tolerate discomfort is especially useful here. When we're less compelled to escape an uncomfortable experience, we can consider responses that aren't immediately obvious.
Imagine you're feeling increasingly misunderstood during an argument. Your familiar response might be to explain harder, speak louder, or insist that your partner acknowledge what you're saying. But then you notice the urgency building and recognize that you're no longer listening, either.
You might find yourself able to say:"I'm realizing how important it is to me that you understand what I'm trying to say. And I think I've stopped being able to hear you."
Or you recognize that you're too overwhelmed to continue thoughtfully and ask for a break rather than remaining physically present while emotionally disappearing.
Neither response requires you to stop feeling what you're feeling. Each offers a possibility beyond following the most familiar impulse.
Of course, this isn't easy work. Acute stress interferes with cognitive flexibility, making it harder to consider alternatives or shift away from an interpretation we've already formed. And many of our familiar responses to conflict have been with us for years, oftentimes beginning in the relationships and environments in which we grew up.
Developing new responses takes practice. It's not about suddenly getting everything right; it's about gradually expanding what becomes possible when things get difficult.
We Don't Do This Alone
It would certainly be convenient if regulation were something we could master independently—in a quiet room, on a meditation cushion—and then execute flawlessly whenever conflict arose.
But anyone who's ever felt reasonably steady until their partner sighed, rolled their eyes, or responded with a particular tone of voice knows that things become considerably more complicated once another person enters the picture.
Our emotional experiences don't unfold in isolation. We're continually noticing and responding to one another's expressions, words, tone, and behavior. Those interactions influence what's happening inside both people.
Research with couples has demonstrated that the way one partner manages emotional experiences can affect both partners' emotions and physiological responses during conflict.
One partner's rising intensity makes it harder for the other to think clearly. A change in tone or expression creates uncertainty about what's happening between them. Or both people grow increasingly quiet, each privately becoming more convinced that the other doesn't care.
But the influence can also work in a more settling direction. A moment of warmth, a willingness to listen, or an unexpected expression of understanding can help one or both partners feel more able to remain engaged.
What we mean by co-regulation is that our emotional experiences are influenced or supported through our interactions with other people. This idea expands our understanding of regulation beyond something we do entirely on our own.
Developing our own capacity for regulation matters. But sometimes our partner's responsiveness helps us settle, reconsider what's happening, or become more emotionally available. Other times, the interaction itself makes those things considerably harder.
Co-regulation doesn't mean we're responsible for managing our partner's emotional state. Nor does it mean that if we respond perfectly, we can prevent our partner from becoming upset. We remain responsible for how we behave, even while acknowledging that we're continually influencing one another.
Becoming more aware of that influence creates another opportunity for flexibility. We begin to recognize not only what happens inside us during conflict, but how our responses contribute to what's happening between us—and how we might participate differently.
Becoming a Conflict-Capable Couple
Which brings us to something I find especially hopeful about all of this.
In The Power of Discord, Ed Tronick and Claudia Gold explore the importance of mismatch and repair in human relationships. Their work challenges the idea that healthy relationships are those in which people remain consistently attuned, connected, and in sync.
Misunderstandings and moments of disconnection are inevitable. What matters is whether we're able to recognize those moments, respond in a caring way to what happened, and find ways to reconnect.
Meaningful repair can do more than bring a difficult interaction to an end. Over time, these experiences help build trust in our ability to navigate future difficulties. We discover that being misunderstood right now doesn't mean we'll never be understood, that disagreement doesn't necessarily threaten the entire relationship, and that we can lose our way with someone we love and still find a path back.
I think there's an interesting relationship between these experiences of repair and our growing capacity for regulation.
As we develop greater tolerance for uncomfortable emotions, we're better able to listen, remain curious, acknowledge our impact, and recognize when we need to pause. These capacities create more opportunities for meaningful repair, while our experiences of successful repair help us approach future difficulties with greater confidence and less urgency.
Neither process happens automatically. Repeated hurt without meaningful repair can undermine trust rather than strengthen it. But when couples develop greater flexibility in how they respond and learn to find their way back to one another, new possibilities emerge.
This is part of what I mean when I talk about becoming a conflict-capable couple.
It doesn't mean learning clever communication strategies that allow us to bypass disagreements. Nor does it mean becoming so perfectly regulated that nothing our partner says or does ever gets under our skin. And it certainly doesn't mean developing an extraordinary ability to simply put up with each other when we're really mad or hurt.
I believe that becoming conflict capable means gradually learning to navigate the difficult things that inevitably arise between two people without becoming quite so captive to our familiar ways of responding. It means recognizing when we're overwhelmed, developing greater flexibility in what we do next, and taking responsibility for how we treat one another even when we're struggling.
Not perfectly. Not every time. But increasingly.
If regulation isn't simply about becoming calm, then taking a successful break during conflict involves more than spending twenty minutes apart. We might use that time to settle ourselves, reconsider how we're interpreting the situation, or make some room for the discomfort that made stopping so difficult in the first place.
Or we might spend those twenty minutes continuing the argument quite enthusiastically inside our own heads, building an increasingly impressive case for why our partner is wrong.
The difference matters, because the real question isn't simply whether we've calmed down. It's whether we can return to the conversation in a better way — with greater awareness and flexibility.
In Part Three, we'll explore what taking a helpful break might actually look like: how to recognize when a pause is needed, what to do while we're apart, and how to return to the conversation in ways that allow for understanding and repair.
Because ultimately, I don't think we're learning to regulate simply so that we can feel better during conflict. We're developing the capacity to do something different with the difficult moments that relationships inevitably bring.
Research and Further Reading
James Gross (2015): Emotion Regulation: Current Status and Future Prospects.
Brett Ford and colleagues (2018): The Psychological Health Benefits of Accepting Negative Emotions and Thoughts.
George Bonanno and Charles Burton (2013): Regulatory Flexibility.
Shiri Ben-Naim and colleagues (2013): An Experimental Study of Emotion Regulation During Relationship Conflict Interactions.
Ed Tronick and Claudia M. Gold (2020): The Power of Discord: Why the Ups and Downs of Relationships Are the Secret to Building Intimacy, Resilience, and Trust.
One more thing before I go...
Our next Getting the Love You Want Couples Workshop is coming up November 6–8 (2026)! It's a weekend devoted to understanding one another more deeply, recognizing the patterns that get us stuck, and developing new ways of connecting.
It's coming up quickly, but if you've been thinking about attending a workshop together, I'd love to hear from you. You can find more information at Hart Counseling Services.
Comments