The Worst Things to Do During an Argument, According to Experts

Stay Calm and Communicate with Care

Arguments with loved ones can be upsetting, but there are constructive ways to work through disagreements. This article provides tips from experts on avoiding unhelpful conflict resolution approaches, instead focusing on compassionate dialogue.

Key takeaways

Avoid using always and never to prevent defensiveness and focus on specific instances instead.
Use genuine I statements to express internal emotions rather than using them to disguise judgments.
Stop arguing if you are hungry, angry, lonely, or tired to avoid biological flooding.
Move conflict from text to in-person conversations to avoid misinterpretation and missing non-verbal cues.
Shift your goal from winning the argument to repairing the relationship and understanding your partner.

Don’t Make Personal Attacks

Criticizing the other person or name-calling, even if you feel angry, will likely only make them defensive. As marriage therapist Dr. Sue Johnson explains, “Blame and personal attacks threaten the other person’s sense of self.”

Don’t Dwell on the Past

Brining up past issues that have already been resolved will not be productive. “Stay focused on the present conflict so you can work toward a resolution,” suggests psychologist Dr. Eli Finkel.

Don’t Demand an Apology

Forcing the other person to apologize often backfires. As Finkel explains, “Demands for apologies make the other feel controlled.” A sincere apology must come freely.

Don’t Expect Agreement on Everything

We all see things differently, and that’s okay. Pushing too hard for the other person to agree with your views entirely almost never works. “Accept there will be disagreements,” says marriage researcher Dr. John Gottman. “Strive to understand each other.”

The Danger of Universal Generalizations: Avoiding “Always” and “Never”

One of the most common yet destructive habits during a conflict is the use of absolute language. When you tell a partner, “You always ignore my needs,” or “You never help with the housework,” you are utilizing universal generalizations that are rarely, if ever, factually accurate. Psychologists refer to this as a cognitive distortion that can quickly derail a productive conversation. By framing a single instance of frustration as a permanent character trait or a consistent behavioral pattern, you effectively erase every time the other person did get it right. This creates a sense of hopelessness in the listener; if they are “always” failing, they may feel there is no incentive to try harder in the future.

Experts suggest that these words act as a “red flag” for the brain’s amygdala, the part responsible for the fight-or-flight response. When someone hears “always” or “never,” they immediately stop listening to the substance of the complaint and begin scanning their mental archives for counter-examples to prove you wrong. Instead of discussing the current issue—such as the dishes in the sink or a missed phone call—the argument shifts into a historical debate about frequency and accuracy. To avoid this, focus on specific instances. For example, instead of saying, “You never listen to me,” try, “I felt unheard during our conversation this morning when you were looking at your phone.” This narrows the focus to a manageable, solvable moment rather than an indictment of the person’s entire history.

In edge cases where a behavior truly is frequent, it is still more effective to use data-driven language. Phrases like “I’ve noticed this has happened three times this week” or “I feel like this is becoming a recurring pattern” are much harder to dismiss than a hyperbolic “always.” This approach keeps the door open for the other person to acknowledge the pattern without feeling like their entire identity is under siege. It moves the dialogue from a courtroom-style prosecution to a collaborative effort to improve the relationship’s daily rhythm.

Recognizing and Avoiding the Stonewalling Trap

While the existing article emphasizes the importance of staying calm, there is a specific type of “calm” that is actually deeply harmful: stonewalling. Stonewalling occurs when one person shuts down, stops responding, and builds a metaphorical wall between themselves and their partner. This isn’t the same as a healthy “time-out” to cool off; rather, it is a defensive maneuver that signals a total withdrawal from the interaction. According to research by the Gottman Institute, stonewalling is one of the primary predictors of relationship dissolution because it leaves the other person feeling abandoned and emotionally stranded.

The psychological impact of stonewalling is profound. When a partner goes silent or refuses to make eye contact during a conflict, the other person often experiences an escalation in heart rate and anxiety. They may pursue the stonewaller more aggressively to get a reaction, which in turn causes the stonewaller to retreat further. This “pursue-withdraw” cycle is an exhausting loop that prevents any actual resolution. It is important to distinguish between the need for physiological regulation and the act of punishing a partner with silence. If you feel so overwhelmed that you cannot speak, the expert-recommended approach is to verbally ask for a break. You might say, “I’m feeling too overwhelmed to be productive right now. I need thirty minutes to calm down, and then I want to come back and finish this conversation.”

By providing a specific timeframe for when you will return, you reassure your partner that you aren’t abandoning the relationship or the issue. This transforms a potential stonewalling moment into a constructive “self-regulation” break. During this time, it is crucial not to spend the minutes ruminating on how wrong your partner is. Instead, engage in activities that lower your heart rate, such as deep breathing, walking, or listening to music. Returning to the conversation with a regulated nervous system allows for the “compassionate dialogue” mentioned earlier, whereas staying in the room while emotionally checked out only breeds resentment.

The Risk of Weaponized “I” Statements

Many people have been taught that using “I” statements—such as “I feel…”—is the gold standard of healthy communication. However, a common mistake is using these statements as a thinly veiled way to criticize or blame. This is known as a “weaponized I statement.” For instance, saying “I feel that you are being incredibly selfish” is not actually expressing a feeling; it is an opinion or a judgment disguised as a feeling. True “I” statements focus on the speaker’s internal emotional state (e.g., “I feel lonely,” “I feel overwhelmed,” “I feel anxious”) rather than the other person’s perceived flaws.

When you use a weaponized “I” statement, the listener’s brain ignores the “I” and focuses entirely on the “you are being selfish” part. This triggers the same defensiveness as a direct personal attack. To use this tool correctly, you must peel back the layers of your anger to find the vulnerable emotion underneath. Anger is often a “secondary emotion” used to protect more tender feelings like hurt, fear, or inadequacy. If you find yourself wanting to say, “I feel like you don’t care about this family,” try to dig deeper. A more honest and effective statement might be, “I feel scared when our finances aren’t discussed because I value our stability.”

An important edge case involves the phrase “I feel like…” or “I feel that…” These are almost always followed by a thought or an accusation, not a feeling. A helpful rule of thumb is that if you can replace the word “feel” with “think” and the sentence still makes sense, you aren’t expressing an emotion. For example, “I feel that you’re ignoring me” becomes “I think you’re ignoring me.” To fix this, remove the “that” and focus on a single emotion word: “I feel ignored.” This subtle shift in language changes the entire dynamic of the argument, moving it from an accusation the partner must defend against to a vulnerability they can potentially comfort.

Shifting the Goal from “Winning” to “Repairing”

In the heat of a disagreement, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that you and your partner are on the same team. Many people fall into the trap of viewing an argument as a zero-sum game where there must be a winner and a loser. This “litigation mode” involves gathering evidence, cross-examining the other person’s statements, and building a case to prove your own rightness. While this might work in a courtroom, it is catastrophic for intimacy. When you “win” an argument by steamrolling your partner or proving them wrong, the relationship actually loses. The “loser” often feels belittled, unheard, or resentful, which erodes the foundation of trust required for long-term success.

Experts suggest that the goal of any conflict should not be victory, but “repair.” Repair is the process of reconnecting after a rift has occurred. This requires a fundamental shift in mindset: instead of “Me vs. You,” the perspective must become “Us vs. The Problem.” When you prioritize the relationship over your own ego, you become more willing to acknowledge your own role in the conflict. Even if you believe you are only 10% responsible for the disagreement, taking full ownership of that 10% can be a powerful catalyst for resolution. It signals to the other person that you value the connection more than being right.

Consider the long-term cost of “winning.” If you successfully argue your point but leave your partner feeling defeated, you have created a power imbalance. Over time, these imbalances lead to a lack of intimacy and a decrease in emotional safety. To avoid this, ask yourself during the argument: “Do I want to be right, or do I want to be close?” This doesn’t mean you should concede on issues that are deeply important to you, but it does mean you should approach the discussion with the intent to understand and bridge the gap rather than to conquer the other person’s perspective. Repair often starts with small gestures—a softening of the voice, an acknowledgment of the other’s feelings, or a simple “I’m sorry we’re fighting.”

The Silent Language of Contempt and Physical Dismissal

While the words we choose are vital, the non-verbal cues we send during an argument can be even more damaging. Contempt, which is a blend of anger and disgust, is often communicated through body language rather than speech. This includes eye-rolling, heavy sighs, sneering, or mocking the other person’s tone of voice. Unlike a simple disagreement, contempt carries an undercurrent of superiority. It sends the message: “I am better than you, and your thoughts are beneath me.” This is why experts frequently cite contempt as the single greatest predictor of divorce; it is psychologically impossible to feel safe with someone who views you with disdain.

Physical dismissal is another subtle but powerful way to escalate a conflict. This might look like turning your body away while the other person is speaking, checking your watch, or continuing to look at a screen. These actions signal that the other person’s emotional distress is not worth your full attention. In a high-stakes argument, this perceived indifference can be more painful than an actual shout. Humans are biologically wired for “attachment,” and when we are in distress, we look to our partners for signs of presence and attunement. When those signs are replaced by dismissive gestures, it can trigger a deep sense of panic or rejection.

To combat these habits, practice “active presence” even when you are angry. This involves maintaining soft eye contact, keeping an open body posture (unfolding your arms), and nodding to show you are processing what is being said. If you feel an eye-roll coming on, take it as a signal that you are becoming “flooded” and may need that strategic break mentioned earlier. Awareness is the first step. By consciously choosing to stay physically engaged and avoiding the “superiority” of contemptuous gestures, you maintain a baseline of respect that allows the conflict to remain a conversation rather than a combat mission.

The Digital Disconnect: Why You Should Never Argue via Text

In the modern era, a significant number of arguments take place over text message, email, or messaging apps. Experts almost universally agree that this is one of the worst ways to handle conflict. The primary reason is the absence of non-verbal cues. In face-to-face communication, we rely on tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language to interpret the meaning behind words. In a text message, all of that context is stripped away. A short sentence like “Fine, do whatever you want” can be read as a casual agreement, a sarcastic retort, or a cold expression of fury, depending entirely on the recipient’s current mood.

Furthermore, digital communication often leads to what psychologists call the “online disinhibition effect.” People tend to say things via text that they would never say to someone’s face. The physical distance and the delay in seeing the other person’s emotional reaction make it easier to be cruel, dismissive, or overly blunt. There is also the issue of “rereading trauma.” In a verbal argument, words are spoken and then they pass. In a text thread, you can reread a hurtful sentence fifty times, cementing the pain and making it much harder to move past the incident. The “read receipt” feature only adds to the anxiety, as partners monitor how long it takes for a response, often interpreting a delay as a deliberate act of aggression.

If a conflict begins to brew over text, the best course of action is to stop typing immediately and move to a different medium. A simple message like, “I think this is getting a bit heated, and I don’t want us to misinterpret each other. Let’s talk about this in person (or on the phone) tonight,” can save hours of digital heartache. This approach respects the complexity of the relationship and ensures that the nuances of the issue aren’t lost in a sea of emojis and blue bubbles. Save texting for logistics and affection; leave the heavy lifting of conflict resolution for real-time, voice-to-voice interaction.

Respecting the Biological “Flood” Point: The HALT Principle

Sometimes, the worst thing you can do during an argument is to keep having it. Our brains have a limited capacity for rational thought when we are physically or emotionally taxed. This is where the HALT principle comes in, which stands for Hungry, Angry, Lonely, or Tired. When you are in any of these four states, your prefrontal cortex—the part of the brain responsible for logic, empathy, and impulse control—is significantly compromised. Instead, the primitive “reptilian” brain takes over, prioritizing survival over relationship health. Trying to resolve a complex emotional issue when you haven’t eaten in six hours or after a grueling ten-hour workday is almost guaranteed to lead to an escalation.

Physiological “flooding” is a specific state where your heart rate exceeds 100 beats per minute. When this happens, you literally cannot process information or think creatively about solutions. You are in a state of “diffuse physiological arousal,” and your body is preparing for a physical fight. Experts suggest that once flooding occurs, the argument must stop for at least twenty minutes. This is the amount of time it takes for the body to metabolize the adrenaline and cortisol that have flooded the system. Continuing to talk during this state is like trying to drive a car with a blown engine; you aren’t going to get anywhere, and you’re likely to cause permanent damage.

Learning to recognize the physical signs of flooding—such as a tight chest, sweaty palms, or a racing heart—is a vital skill. When you notice these signs in yourself or your partner, call for a “tactical pause.” This isn’t an admission of defeat; it’s a high-level communication strategy. Respecting the biological limits of your nervous system shows a deep level of care for the relationship. It acknowledges that you are both human beings with physiological needs that must be met before you can effectively care for one another’s emotional needs. By waiting until you are both fed, rested, and calm, you ensure that the conversation is guided by your values rather than your hormones.

FAQ

What is the worst thing to do in an argument?

Personal attacks, bringing up past issues, demanding apologies, and refusing to accept disagreements tend to be the least constructive approaches during conflicts with loved ones.

How can I argue more effectively?

Stay calm, speak respectfully, listen to understand the other perspective, compromise where possible, and focus on resolving the current issue rather than attacking the other or dredging up the past.

Should I apologize even if I don’t think I was wrong?

You should only apologize if you sincerely feel remorse and want to make amends. Forced apologies won’t mend the relationship. Accept that you may need to agree to disagree at times.

What should I not say during a heated argument?

Avoid name calling, hurtful sarcasm, dismissive language, threats, accusations, or criticism of the other’s personality or past actions. These tend to escalate tensions rather than lead to resolution.

How do I reconnect after an intense argument?

After emotions have cooled down, try having a caring dialogue where you make an effort to calmly understand each other’s perspectives, validate feelings, take responsibility for your own questionable actions, find common ground, and reaffirm your commitment to the relationship.