Relationships are often shaped by interpretations that remain unspoken. A partner sees a short text message and wonders why there was no expression of affection. Another notices that the couple has spent less time together and interprets it as growing distance. One person believes a conversation went well while the other leaves feeling ignored. Individually, these moments may appear insignificant. Over time, however, accumulated interpretations can create emotional distance and make conversations increasingly difficult.
For Sheila J. Simpson, executive director of FOCCUS Marriage Ministries, the central issue is often less about what was said than what each person believes the other person meant.
“Listening is about hearing the meaning between the words,” Simpson explains. “It requires us to consider what the other person is trying to communicate, including what they may find difficult to say directly. That requires us to step outside our own interpretation and consider the experience from their perspective.”
This distinction becomes particularly important during conflict. When couples focus on proving their interpretation, a disagreement can quickly become a contest. Details become evidence. Memories become competing testimony. Each partner begins defending a position rather than exploring the experience that produced it.
Simpson believes this is where relationships can lose sight of their real objective.
“A relationship is not a courtroom,” she states. “It is not about determining who is right or wrong or who has presented the stronger case. It is about understanding what the other person is experiencing and finding a way forward that strengthens the relationship. Consider the statement, ‘We never spend time together.’ One partner may immediately respond by listing the dinners, lunches, or evenings they have shared during the week. The facts may be accurate, yet the response may leave the underlying concern untouched.”
The statement could represent a longing for connection, a sense of loneliness, or a fear that the relationship has begun to drift. The disagreement may therefore have little to do with the literal amount of time spent together.
Simpson encourages couples to become curious about what lies beneath such statements. “Instead of responding with evidence, ask an open question,” she says. “Ask what makes the person feel that way or what they mean when they say they are not spending enough time together. That can transform an argument into an open discussion about the experience behind the statement.”
This approach also recognizes that two people can experience the same event differently. One partner may remember an evening as enjoyable while the other remembers feeling alone. Neither account has to invalidate the other.
For Simpson, understanding another person’s experience does not require surrendering one’s own perspective. It creates room for both perspectives to be examined. The willingness to listen has implications beyond individual disagreements. It contributes to psychological safety, the sense that a person can express concerns, uncertainty, or vulnerability without expecting ridicule, dismissal, or retaliation.
Simpson views psychological safety as something that develops through repeated interactions. Trust grows when people learn that difficult conversations can occur without automatically becoming battles.
“If you approach a conversation with the intention of winning, the other person may conclude that it is unsafe to raise that subject with you again,” Simpson says. “When you make a genuine effort to understand what the other person is saying and to see the situation from their perspective, you build trust. That trust becomes part of the safety within the relationship.”
This safety is rarely established in a single conversation. Early in a relationship, couples often develop it through small disclosures and consistent responses. As years pass, however, work, family responsibilities, and competing demands can change how partners communicate. Conversations may become increasingly focused on schedules, responsibilities, and logistics. Difficult subjects may be postponed after an unpleasant exchange. The resulting distance can make the next conversation feel even more difficult.
Simpson describes this as something couples must continually maintain. “Safety in a relationship is something you build throughout your life together,” she says. “You make deposits through the way you listen, respond, and communicate. We are all human, so there will be occasional withdrawals, but the relationship needs those continued deposits of trust.”
For couples who have experienced repeated conflict, Simpson recommends resisting the temptation to begin with the most difficult unresolved issue. Rebuilding communication can start with something considerably smaller.
She explains, “A request about checking pockets before putting jeans in the laundry, discussing a meal without the distraction of screens, or agreeing to set aside uninterrupted time together may seem unrelated to deeper relationship concerns. Yet these interactions can provide opportunities to practice listening, responding respectfully, and expressing needs clearly.”
The principle applies to affection and everyday communication as well. Couples may have different expectations about how frequently they should text, how much time they should spend together, or what constitutes meaningful attention. Those expectations can remain invisible until one partner feels disappointed.
Rather than assuming what the other person means, Simpson encourages couples to define their expectations together.
“If one person’s definition of quality time is two lunches a week and the other’s is lunch every day, the solution begins with understanding those definitions,” she says. “Once both people understand what the other means, they can work toward a solution that serves the relationship.”
In this sense, compromise becomes more meaningful after understanding has taken place. A mutually acceptable arrangement can emerge when each partner knows the need beneath the other’s position.
Simpson sees text messaging as another reason couples should be thoughtful about which conversations belong on a screen. “You cannot always hear tone in a text message, and you cannot see the other person’s expression or gestures,” she says. “That creates opportunities for interpretation that may have nothing to do with what the person intended. When something is emotionally important or easily misunderstood, a face-to-face conversation gives both people a better opportunity to understand what is actually being communicated.”
Even couples who have established strong communication patterns can drift. Familiarity can encourage assumptions. Responsibilities can displace conversation. Previous conflicts can influence how new statements are interpreted.
For Simpson, this makes relationship safety an ongoing responsibility.
“You cannot build a bank account of safety and then assume it will remain full without continuing to make deposits,” she says. “You have to keep working at it. If you stop investing in the relationship, the sense of safety can decline.”
A successful relationship does not require two people to agree on every interpretation, preference, or memory. Simpson believes a more meaningful measure is whether both partners can communicate their experiences and remain engaged in finding a constructive way forward.
She notes, “The question during conflict, therefore, should change from ‘How do I prove my point?’ to ‘What is my partner trying to tell me?’ That question creates space for curiosity. It can reduce the pressure to defend every detail and allow couples to explore the feelings, expectations, and needs beneath their words.”
For her, that is ultimately the difference between treating conflict as a contest and treating it as an opportunity to strengthen the relationship.
“When you stop approaching every difficult conversation as something you have to win, you begin to ask a different question: What do we need to do to make this right for us?” Simpson says. “That is where understanding begins, because the goal is no longer winning the conversation. The goal is caring enough about the relationship to understand each other and build something that works for both people.”
Adam Mulligan, a psychology graduate from the University of Hertfordshire, has a keen interest in the fields of mental health, wellness, and lifestyle.
