The Single Greatest Predictor of Divorce is…

If you had to pick the single strongest sign that a marriage is headed for divorce, what would you guess? Many people would assume it’s constant arguing — that was my initial thought too — but that only tells part of the story. Dr. Sue Johnson, in Hold Me Tight, argues that marriage breakdowns aren’t primarily caused by more fights; they stem from a decline in warmth and emotional responsiveness. In her words, the end begins with a steady withdrawal of affectionate, responsive exchanges; conflict usually follows later. On the other hand, Dr. John Gottman points to contempt as the single most powerful predictor of divorce. Contempt is criticism escalated to a damaging level: it’s not merely pointing out irritating habits, it’s dismissing or demeaning your partner from a place of superiority or disgust. Contempt looks like name-calling, mocking, eye-rolling, scoffing, or belittling someone’s intelligence — essentially treating them as if they don’t deserve consideration. “Of course you wouldn’t think of that, why would you?” is the tone of contempt, and that corrosive stance erodes intimacy. Still, while contempt may be the strongest predictor, it’s not the only one. Even Gottman found that couples who stayed together and were happy responded to each other’s bids for connection over 80% of the time. That mirrors Johnson’s emphasis on responsiveness: it’s the small, attentive, emotionally engaged moments that preserve relationships. Turning toward a partner means putting the phone down, offering curiosity or interest, and being present when they reach out; turning away looks like dismissing them or saying, “Why are you bringing this up now?” In Gottman’s research, stable, satisfied couples turned toward each other about 86% of the time, while those who eventually divorced did so only 33% of the time. Yes, one or both partners can contribute to this pattern: if one becomes contemptuous or neglectful, it’s natural for the other to withdraw. But the underlying fact remains — the relationship is deteriorating. The main point is that daily interactions matter. Countless moments present opportunities to reassure a partner with attention and presence — to deposit affection, admiration, and emotional care into their “bank account.” For many couples, especially those with limited time together, being deliberate about these deposits is crucial: simple questions like “Tell me about your day,” “Is anything weighing on you?” or “How can I support you this week?” take minutes to ask but make large emotional deposits, signaling “You matter to me; you can rely on me; your feelings are important.” No emotionally healthy person would refuse such reassurance. Before panic sets in, it’s important to say: occasional contempt has happened in nearly every long-term relationship — the author’s marriage, for example, has seen contemptuous moments from both partners across eleven years — and they’re still together. The difference is repair. Everyone gets triggered, loses composure, or speaks harshly at times; what separates relationships that survive from those that don’t is the ability to own mistakes and repair the damage. Accountability means acknowledging that behavior hurt someone, apologizing, and offering a plan to change. Repair looks like, “I’m sorry — can we talk about how my words affected you?” It requires validating the partner’s pain by first being curious enough to understand it. Intimacy cannot survive when one or both people refuse to take responsibility for the harm they cause. If contempt has taken root in your relationship, consider this a warning: do the work of healing it now, even if you feel justified by how badly you’ve been treated. Choosing not to apologize because “they were worse to me” only perpetuates the cycle. Acting with integrity means doing the right thing even when it’s hard: apologize, ask how your behavior impacted them, and work toward repair. Once contempt is entrenched, the relationship is effectively dying; finger-pointing over who’s worse helps no one. Both people usually need to change and learn to repair wounds to rebuild safety and intimacy. If you find yourself meeting contempt with contempt — “I’m just fighting back because they hurt me” — recognize that this signals a toxic or potentially abusive dynamic rather than a healthy one. The answer isn’t to stoop to their level, but to assert your needs, set boundaries, and distance yourself from people who refuse to treat you with respect. That’s difficult but essential if you want a relationship grounded in dignity and mutual care. Remember, contempt often masks unresolved personal trauma: belittling a partner to feel superior is a projection of one’s own pain and insecurity. No one is inherently “better” than another; partners are equals who deserve mutual kindness. Living in contempt will ultimately lead to loneliness, because repeated disrespect destroys the capacity for trust and vulnerability. The remedy for contempt is personal healing: explore shame, fear, and why you feel compelled to defend rather than listen; learn to recognize the signs of becoming flooded or triggered during conflict. When people get flooded — shouting, interrupting, or becoming physically wound up — verbal attacks and name-calling follow, and those moments strongly predict divorce. It’s hard work to develop the self-awareness to pause and say, “I’m getting too heated; let’s take a break,” but it’s necessary. If your blood is racing, you’re interrupting, or you feel out of control, that conversation is no longer safe and may produce irreversible damage. By contrast, emotional responsiveness is the opposite of contempt: it’s moving toward a partner, cultivating safety, trust, honesty, and vulnerability through repeated, responsive intimate interactions. Conflict itself isn’t what breaks most relationships — conflict is normal and can be healthy — but persistent lack of responsiveness is lethal. Some relationships appear conflict-free because one partner suppresses their feelings entirely to preserve peace; that silence breeds resentment and disconnection even without outward fighting. So the goal isn’t to eliminate all conflict, nor to fight constantly; rather, it’s to maintain a healthy balance. Research shows that when the ratio of positive to negative interactions tilts too far toward the negative, trust, closeness, and passion erode — another predictor of divorce. What’s the remedy? Build a relationship culture rich in affection, emotional connection, and small intimate moments before conflicts arise. Those habitual turn-toward moments — the deposits in each other’s emotional accounts — heavily influence how conflicts are managed and how quickly repair happens. Often, the fight is only the visible tip of an iceberg whose bulk is a long decline in connection and responsiveness. We assume fighting must be the cause because fights feel high-stakes; during conflict we either have the greatest chance to deepen trust or the greatest risk of destroying it. We sabotage safety by resorting to criticism, contempt, blame, passive aggression, silent treatment, defensiveness, dismissing feelings, or escalation. The decisive factor in whether a relationship survives is not the mere presence of conflict but how couples handle it: can they navigate disagreement with safety, trust, and respect? Vulnerability is difficult, and opening up about needs, hurts, or insecurities risks being dismissed, which wounds the relationship and affects all future conflicts. And yes, some will say this won’t work with a narcissist — and they’re right. A narcissist typically lacks interest in a healthy, reciprocal relationship: they won’t accept accountability, they won’t genuinely validate your experience, and they won’t be curious about improving relational dynamics. They may perform many charming or manipulative behaviors early on, but they won’t sincerely apologize and inquire, “How did my behavior affect you?” They won’t seek to understand your feelings or work together to grow. Narcissists are often experts at contempt, guilt-tripping, entitlement, and belittling. If you’re partnered with someone contemptuous who shows no desire for emotional connection, you may remain physically together without being in a real partnership: you’ve stayed silent and minimized your needs because the person isn’t safe. Eventually you’ll reach a point when you refuse that mistreatment any longer. Setting boundaries, seeking counseling, or leaving such a relationship are valid paths — and sometimes the partner leaving is liberation, allowing you to find someone who treats you with the care you deserve. For couples who want to protect and nurture their relationship, practical emotional responsiveness matters: learn to turn toward each other during stress or conflict, and make space to hold and understand one another’s experience. What everyone wants when they’re hurt, scared, or upset is to be seen, heard, and understood by the people they love. Emotional responsiveness communicates: “You matter. Your pain matters. I want to understand, and I’ll make space for what you need, even if it’s uncomfortable.” Begin by acknowledging that it’s okay for partners to have legitimate needs; this isn’t about controlling or invading privacy (for example, demanding daily access to someone’s phone is inappropriate), but about core needs such as being allowed to speak about one’s inner world without being mocked, needing consistency, mutual respect, shared time, honesty, and regular intimate responses. If you feel disconnected from a partner who expresses needs differently than you do — for instance, a partner who is more emotionally expressive — don’t try to turn them into a carbon copy of yourself. If you want the relationship to work, be willing to meet them halfway: ask for counseling, or make clear that improving this dynamic matters to you. Dismissing someone as “too needy” or telling them to stop expressing their feelings will not foster closeness. Safety means that a partner can bring up concerns, fears, insecurities, or hurts and trust they’ll receive a compassionate response. Without that core trust, the relationship lacks a foundation. How to build that safety? First, respect a healthy ratio of positives to negatives. Acts of warmth — hugs, smiles, compliments, kindness, listening, responsiveness — should outnumber negative interactions substantially. The speaker mentioned a target of about fifteen positives to each negative interaction, and noted that when the balance drops (even to five positives for every complaint) the emotional bank account isn’t being filled and conflicts suffer. Second, encourage responsible and timely expression of concerns: don’t bury feelings until they fester into passive-aggression, but also be discerning about timing. Some couples set weekly check-ins; other times, a matter must be raised immediately if it can be discussed safely. Whoever initiates a difficult conversation should be emotionally regulated: anger and frustration are valid, but criticism, contempt, passive aggression, accusations, and blaming statements aren’t productive. Examples to avoid: “You’re so lazy,” “How can you be so selfish?” “How could you be that stupid?” “You always…” or “You never…” Such phrases lack vulnerability and invite defensiveness. Instead, try to communicate information calmly: “Can I share something that’s on my heart? When X happened earlier, I felt [name a feeling] — dismissed, overwhelmed, abandoned, hurt, sad, or afraid. The story I’m telling myself is Y, but I don’t want to jump to conclusions. I’d love some reassurance.” Often the angry complaint (“You never do the dishes; you only think of yourself”) actually translates to a vulnerable fear: “I’m scared you don’t care about me. I’ve been washing up after cooking and felt unseen, and I worry our relationship isn’t safe.” One statement is accusatory; the other is vulnerable and more likely to elicit connection. If you want to be heard and understood, leading with criticism will usually ensure defensiveness, not openness. To recap: be discerning about when and how you bring up complaints; don’t bury them, but process them first. Ask yourself what emotions underlie the complaint and what you need to feel more valued going forward. You can be direct while remaining kind and respectful: describe the behavior, explain its impact on you, name a specific feeling (avoid “I feel like you don’t care” as a feeling — name sadness, fear, abandonment, etc.), and offer a request for change. Attack and blame come from fear — the fear of not being met, held, or understood — but fear doesn’t create intimacy. Stop repeating grievances from years ago or venting endlessly; that overwhelms rather than heals. And if you think “it won’t matter how I say it — they’ll still respond badly,” then still choose the kindest, most respectful approach you can. If anger or loudness got them to change sporadically, that often means you’ve been conditioned to accept volatile patterns as the only way to get attention; that’s a dangerous cycle. You shouldn’t have to shout to be heard, and you shouldn’t tolerate being shouted at. If you can’t discuss important things with vulnerability and trust, that relationship isn’t safe and professional help should be sought. Neither partner can unilaterally “boundary” someone into loving them; relationships only work when both people do the work. The work means each partner feels safe bringing up what’s on their heart and trusting the other to respond kindly; without that, a relationship will decay because honesty and safety are absent. When someone does speak vulnerably, emotional responsiveness looks like this: begin by acknowledging their courage and the importance of what they shared — “Thank you for telling me this; I care about how you’re feeling.” Then listen like a curious detective: don’t search for holes to exploit, don’t assume you’re under attack, and don’t try to dismantle their experience. Aim to understand the events and feelings that led to their hurt. Ask clarifying questions, reflect what you hear, and validate the emotional truth of their experience — for example, “I can see how that made you feel abandoned” or “That sounds really painful; thank you for sharing.” Validation doesn’t require agreement with every detail; it honors that something happened and that it genuinely affected them. If you instead interrupt, dismiss, or label them irrational, you push them further away. Some will object: why validate feelings that may be based on inaccurate facts? If someone misinterpreted an event, a better approach is to say, “This is the meaning I’m making of it, but I don’t want to assume. I’m open to other perspectives.” Challenging someone’s feelings for them almost always backfires. Instead, acknowledge what they feel as real, then gently explore meaning and facts together. Validation helps feelings dissipate; factual correction delivered without empathy often deepens the wound. Both partners should also be ready to take accountability. Apologies should be sincere and specific: say “I’m sorry I hurt you” rather than “I’m sorry you feel that way.” Describe how your actions led to their experience, and invite collaboration on repair: “I’m sorry. I see how that led you to feel abandoned. I care about how my actions affect you. How can I make this right so you feel reconnected?” If the initial speaker feels heard, they may then invite the other’s perspective: “Thank you for listening. I’d like to hear what you intended with that comment or action.” It’s often fine to postpone that clarification until both are calm, but many couples can manage such exchanges safely once they learn to talk without attacking. Remember, many big fights begin with misunderstandings: the other person usually lacked malicious intent, though the hurt is still real. So explore and validate first; then share your side while acknowledging the hurt you caused. A healthy example might sound like: “I can see how my failing to text that I’d be late left you scared and angry — especially because it’s happened before. I didn’t mean to hurt you. My phone died and I forgot my charger; I’ll do better about a heads-up next time.” Give each other the benefit of the doubt and prioritize the person who raised the concern initially: let them speak and be heard first, then if needed switch roles so both perspectives are aired. What’s not helpful is turning every complaint into a tit-for-tat: Person A brings up a hurt, and Person B replies, “You do the same to me!” Then they both end up talking past each other. Emotional responsiveness is about yielding the floor and holding space for the other, not making everything about oneself. It’s a concrete way to honor one another: listen with curiosity, be empathetic, and respond with warmth — that communicates, “You matter to me.” It’s not about placating or apologizing superficially to end the conversation quickly; it’s about genuinely engaging as a team. If someone is receptive and listens well, the person who first spoke should also be willing to hear the other’s side afterward. Many conflicts are simple misunderstandings that can be cleared up with calm, empathetic exchange, but that requires both partners to be willing to explore and to forgive unintentionally caused harm. To summarize the practical steps: be intentional about small, daily deposits of attention and affection; learn to turn toward bids for connection; maintain a strong ratio of positive-to-negative interactions; address issues thoughtfully and when regulated; lead with vulnerability rather than criticism; and practice curiosity, reflection, and validation when listening. Apologize sincerely when you’ve caused harm, and create repair plans cooperatively. If contempt or chronic refusal to be accountable is present, or if your partner is abusive or narcissistic and refuses to engage in healthy reciprocity, that’s a red flag that the relationship may not be salvageable. But for most couples, strengthening responsiveness — the habit of noticing, engaging, validating, and repairing — is the most powerful way to protect intimacy and weather conflicts together. Emotions matter; attention matters; the small, consistent acts of presence are what sustain love over time.