WELCOME

Archives 2026

Listening to Understand, Not to Win

Many couples argue because they are trying to win, not because they don’t care. When people listen just to prove their point, conversations turn into fights. When people listen to understand, conversations turn into chances to grow closer.

Listening to understand means you are trying to truly hear what your partner feels and needs—even if you do not fully agree. This kind of listening builds trust, safety, and connection in marriage.

Listening to Win vs. Listening to Understand

Listening to Win

When someone listens to win, they are:

  • planning what to say next
  • defending themselves
  • trying to prove they are right
  • pointing out mistakes

This makes the other person feel unheard and unsafe. When people feel unsafe, they shut down or fight back.

Listening to Understand

When someone listens to understand, they are:

  • focused on the other person
  • trying to understand feelings
  • asking questions instead of accusing
  • showing care and respect

Research shows that feeling understood lowers anger and helps couples solve problems together (Gottman Institute, n.d.).

Why Feeling Heard Matters So Much

When your partner feels heard, their body and brain calm down. They are more open to problem-solving. Studies on active listening show that people communicate better when they feel emotionally understood, not judged (Rogers & Farson, 1957).

You do not have to agree to show understanding. You only have to show that you are trying to understand.

A Helpful Rule: Understand First, Respond Later

A simple rule for couples is this:

Do not argue with something you do not fully understand yet.

Before responding, try to explain your partner’s point in your own words. This shows effort and care.

Example:

  • “What I hear you saying is that you felt ignored when I didn’t respond.”
  • “It sounds like that really hurt you.”

This approach reduces defensiveness and keeps conversations respectful (Gottman Institute, n.d.).

5 Simple Skills for Listening to Understand

1. Give Full Attention

Put down your phone. Look at your partner. Show that they matter.

2. Don’t Interrupt

Let your partner finish speaking. Interrupting sends the message that their feelings don’t matter.

3. Repeat What You Heard

Say:

  • “So you’re saying…”
    This helps prevent misunderstandings.

4. Name the Feeling

Try:

  • “It sounds like you felt frustrated.”
    This helps your partner feel seen.

5. Ask If You Got It Right

End with:

  • “Did I understand that correctly?”
    This turns the conversation into teamwork.

These steps are core parts of active listening and emotional connection (StatPearls, 2023).

A Simple Script Couples Can Use

Partner A:
“I feel hurt when this happens.”

Partner B:
“What I hear is that you felt hurt because ____. Did I get that right?”

Partner A:
“Yes” or “Almost—here’s what I mean…”

Partner B:
“Thank you for explaining. Tell me more.”

This small change can completely shift the tone of a conversation.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

  • Trying to fix the problem too fast
  • Saying “yes, but…”
  • Correcting small details instead of focusing on feelings
  • Getting defensive right away

When emotions are high, understanding must come before solutions.

Conclusion

Listening to understand, not to win, changes marriages. It creates safety. It builds trust. It helps couples feel like partners instead of opponents.

When both people feel heard, even hard conversations become moments of connection.

Reframes for Couples

Use these simple reframes during conflict:

  • ❌ “You’re wrong.”
    ✅ “Help me understand your point.”
  • ❌ “You’re overreacting.”
    ✅ “I see this really matters to you.”
  • ❌ “Here’s why I did that.”
    ✅ “I want to understand how that affected you.”
  • ❌ “You always…”
    ✅ “When this happens, it feels…”
  • ❌ “I need to defend myself.”
    ✅ “I need to listen first.”

Strong marriages are not built on being right.
They are built on being present, patient, and willing to understand.

This article was written by John S. Collier, MSW, LCSW-S. He is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker and behavioral health professional with extensive experience working with individuals, couples, and families. He specializes in relationship dynamics, emotional regulation, trauma-informed care, and communication patterns that impact long-term connection. John is known for blending clinical insight with practical, real-life guidance that helps couples move from conflict toward understanding, safety, and emotional growth. His work focuses on helping people build healthier relationships through empathy, accountability, and intentional communication.

Reflective Questions

  1. Do I listen to understand or to respond?
  2. What helps me feel heard by my partner?
  3. What habits do I have that shut conversations down?
  4. How do I react when I feel misunderstood?
  5. What would change if I focused more on understanding than winning?

References

Being Intentional and Productive During Divorce Recovery

Divorce is not merely a legal process; it is a profound psychological, emotional, and identity-based transition. Research consistently shows that divorce ranks among the most stressful life events, often comparable to bereavement or serious illness (Holmes & Rahe, 1967). While the pain of divorce is unavoidable, prolonged suffering is not inevitable. Recovery becomes more adaptive—and ultimately more healing—when individuals approach this season with intentionality and purpose rather than avoidance or emotional paralysis.

Understanding Divorce as a Transition, Not a Failure

One of the most significant barriers to recovery is the tendency to frame divorce solely as a personal failure. This narrative fuels shame, rumination, and identity collapse. Contemporary psychological models instead conceptualize divorce as a life transition that disrupts routines, roles, and attachment bonds (Amato, 2010). When individuals reframe divorce as a transition requiring adjustment—not a verdict on their worth—they are better positioned to engage in productive healing behaviors.

Intentional recovery begins with acknowledging loss while resisting the urge to remain psychologically anchored in the past. This balance allows grief to be processed without becoming one’s permanent emotional residence.

The Role of Intentionality in Emotional Healing

Intentionality refers to making deliberate, values-driven choices rather than reacting solely to emotional distress. Following divorce, emotions often fluctuate rapidly—anger, sadness, relief, fear, and loneliness may coexist. Without intentional structure, individuals may default to maladaptive coping strategies such as isolation, substance use, rebound relationships, or excessive rumination (Sbarra & Emery, 2005).

Intentional recovery involves:

  • Setting boundaries with the former spouse
  • Creating predictable daily routines
  • Choosing behaviors aligned with long-term well-being rather than short-term relief

Research on self-regulation and coping demonstrates that purposeful goal-setting during periods of stress improves emotional stability and resilience (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007).

Productivity as a Stabilizing Force

Productivity during divorce recovery does not mean relentless busyness or emotional suppression. Instead, it involves engaging in meaningful activities that restore a sense of competence, agency, and identity. Studies indicate that mastery-oriented activities—such as learning new skills, maintaining employment, or pursuing health goals—can counteract the helplessness often experienced after relational loss (Bandura, 1997).

Productive behaviors that support recovery include:

  • Rebuilding physical health through exercise and sleep hygiene
  • Establishing financial literacy and independence
  • Engaging in purposeful work or service
  • Developing new personal or professional goals

These actions help regulate mood, rebuild confidence, and create forward momentum during a time that often feels stagnant.

Reconstructing Identity After Divorce

Divorce frequently dismantles shared identity—roles such as spouse, partner, or co-parent may change abruptly. Identity reconstruction is a central task of recovery (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). Intentional individuals actively explore who they are becoming rather than clinging to who they were.

This process may involve reassessing values, redefining boundaries, and clarifying personal beliefs about relationships, trust, and commitment. Therapeutic research shows that individuals who engage in reflective meaning-making following divorce experience greater long-term psychological growth (Tashiro & Frazier, 2003).

Avoiding the Trap of Emotional Avoidance

Productivity must not become a mechanism for emotional avoidance. Suppressing grief or anger often prolongs distress rather than resolving it. Healthy recovery requires alternating between action and reflection—doing the work of daily life while allowing space for emotional processing.

Mindfulness-based and acceptance-oriented approaches emphasize acknowledging pain without allowing it to dictate behavior (Hayes et al., 2006). This balance enables individuals to move forward without denying the emotional reality of their experience.

Being intentional and productive during divorce recovery is not about rushing healing or minimizing loss. It is about choosing to engage with life in ways that foster stability, growth, and self-respect while grief runs its natural course. Divorce changes a person’s life, but it does not have to define the rest of it. Through deliberate choices, meaningful action, and reflective growth, recovery can become not just an ending—but a turning point.

This article was written by John S, Collier, MSW, LCSW-S. Mr. Collier has over 25 years of experience in the Social Work field. He currently serves as the Executive Director and Outpatient Behavioral Health Therapist for Southeast Kentucky Behavioral Health in London Kentucky. He may be reached by phone at (606) 657-0532 and by email at john@sekybh.com.

References

Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 650–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self-regulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00001.x

Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes, and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006

Hetherington, E. M., & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or for worse: Divorce reconsidered. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11(2), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(67)90010-4

Sbarra, D. A., & Emery, R. E. (2005). The emotional sequelae of nonmarital relationship dissolution: Analysis of change and intraindividual variability over time. Personal Relationships, 12(2), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00112.x

Tashiro, T., & Frazier, P. (2003). “I’ll never be in a relationship like that again”: Personal growth following romantic relationship breakups. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00039

I

The Affair Partner Is Not an Innocent Bystander

“That affair partner is not an innocent bystander. They are an active participant in the ongoing betrayal.”

Affairs are often framed in public discourse as a failure that exists solely within a marriage or committed relationship. In this framing, responsibility is frequently placed only on the unfaithful partner, while the affair partner is portrayed as peripheral, misled, or emotionally detached from the consequences of the betrayal. This narrative, while convenient, is incomplete and ethically flawed. An affair partner who knowingly engages with someone in a committed relationship is not a passive observer—they are an active participant in deception, harm, and relational rupture.

Active Participation in Betrayal

An affair requires ongoing choices. Each message sent, meeting arranged, and boundary crossed represents a conscious decision to continue behavior that undermines another person’s trust, emotional safety, and lived reality. Research on infidelity consistently demonstrates that affairs are not isolated moments of weakness but sustained patterns of secrecy and rationalization (Glass & Wright, 1992). When an affair partner is aware of the primary relationship, their involvement becomes a collaborative act in maintaining deception.

From an ethical standpoint, participation in an affair cannot be separated from its impact. The affair partner benefits emotionally, sexually, or psychologically from a relationship that exists only because another person is being deceived. This is not neutral behavior; it is facilitation.

Prioritizing Desire Over Human Cost

Affair partners who proceed despite knowing the relational context are making a value-based choice. They are prioritizing immediate gratification—validation, excitement, attachment, or escape—over the foreseeable harm to others. Studies examining empathy and moral disengagement show that individuals involved in harmful relational behaviors often minimize the suffering of unseen victims in order to justify their actions (Bandura, 1999).

This moral disengagement may take many forms:

  • “Their marriage was already over.”
  • “I’m not the one who made the commitment.”
  • “They would have cheated anyway.”

Such rationalizations function as psychological shields, allowing the affair partner to continue behavior that conflicts with basic ethical principles such as honesty, respect for autonomy, and nonmaleficence.

The Impact Is Not Abstract

The devastation caused by infidelity is well-documented. Betrayed partners often experience symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress, including intrusive thoughts, hypervigilance, emotional dysregulation, and loss of identity (Gordon, Baucom, & Snyder, 2004). Families are disrupted, children are affected, and long-term relational trust may be permanently altered.

The affair partner may never witness these consequences directly, but distance does not negate responsibility. Ethical responsibility is not limited to harm we personally observe; it extends to harm we knowingly enable.

Integrity and Empathy as Moral Benchmarks

Integrity involves aligning one’s actions with ethical principles even when doing so is inconvenient or emotionally costly. Empathy requires recognizing the humanity and vulnerability of others, including those outside one’s immediate emotional sphere. Engaging in an affair with a committed partner reflects a breakdown in both.

This does not suggest that affair partners are irredeemable or incapable of growth. However, accountability is a prerequisite for growth. Healing—both individual and relational—begins with naming harm accurately rather than obscuring it through minimization or misplaced neutrality.

Affair partners who knowingly engage in relationships with committed individuals are not innocent bystanders. They are active participants in an ongoing betrayal, making repeated choices that prioritize temporary gratification over the emotional lives they help dismantle. Acknowledging this reality is not about assigning cruelty; it is about restoring moral clarity in a space where harm is too often softened by euphemism.

True empathy requires seeing the full relational system—not just the desires of the present moment, but the human cost that follows.

This article was written by John S. Collier, MSW, LCSW. Mr. Collier has over 25 years of experience in the Social Work field. He currently serves as the Executive Director and Outpatient Therapist through Southeast Kentucky Behavioral Health in London Kentucky. He may be reached at (606) 657-0532 or by email at john@sekybh.com.

References

Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3

Glass, S. P., & Wright, T. L. (1992). Justifications for extramarital relationships: The association between attitudes, behaviors, and gender. Journal of Sex Research, 29(3), 361–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499209551654

Gordon, K. C., Baucom, D. H., & Snyder, D. K. (2004). An integrative intervention for promoting recovery from extramarital affairs. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30(2), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2004.tb01235.x

What Is Overparenting?

Overparenting is a pattern of parenting in which a caregiver provides developmentally inappropriate levels of control, monitoring, problem-solving, and “help” that limits a child’s chances to build autonomy and coping skills. Researchers often describe it as excessive directiveness and involvement that goes beyond what the child needs at their age or stage. (guilfordjournals.com)

You’ll also hear overparenting discussed as “helicopter parenting” (hovering and intervening quickly) and sometimes “lawnmower/snowplow parenting” (removing obstacles before the child encounters them). In research, these terms commonly point to the same general issue: too much parental management, too little child agency. (PMC)

What Overparenting Looks Like in Real Life

Overparenting isn’t the same as being warm, involved, or protective. It’s more about how involvement is delivered—especially when it replaces a child’s learning opportunities.

Common signs include:

  • Solving problems the child could reasonably solve (calling teachers/coaches/bosses to fix issues, negotiating consequences, managing conflicts for them) (apa.org)
  • Over-monitoring and micromanaging daily routines, schoolwork, friendships, or activities beyond what’s age-appropriate (Wiley Online Library)
  • Overprotecting from normal risk and discomfort (not allowing failure, discomfort, or independent decision-making) (PMC)
  • Excessive tangible help (doing tasks for the child—executive functioning “scaffolding” that never fades) (guilfordjournals.com)

Why Overparenting Happens

Overparenting is usually driven by good intentions and real pressure, not selfishness. Common contributors include:

  • Parent anxiety and fear (about safety, achievement, social standing, or future stability) (guilfordjournals.com)
  • Cultural and economic pressures that frame childhood as high-stakes and competitive (sometimes called “intensive parenting”) (OUP Academic)
  • A mismatch between a child’s needs and the parent’s support level (support doesn’t gradually step back as skills grow) (guilfordjournals.com)

What the Research Says About Potential Impacts

Research findings are nuanced (and many studies are correlational), but the overall pattern is consistent: higher overparenting/helicopter parenting is often associated with weaker adjustment and well-being, especially in adolescence and emerging adulthood.

Mental health and distress

A systematic review of helicopter parenting studies found that most included studies reported relationships with higher anxiety and/or depression symptoms (noting that many studies are cross-sectional and can’t prove direction of cause). (PMC)

Autonomy, self-efficacy, and adjustment

The APA summarized research suggesting that overcontrolling parenting can interfere with children’s ability to adjust in school and social settings and may be linked with poorer functioning when kids must manage independently. (apa.org)

Family communication and satisfaction

Research has also linked overparenting with lower-quality parent–child communication and indirect effects on family satisfaction. (Wiley Online Library)

Emerging adulthood outcomes

Classic work in this area has reported associations between helicopter parenting and poorer psychological well-being in college-aged samples. (Taylor & Francis Online)

Important nuance: Some parental involvement is healthy and protective. The risk tends to increase when support becomes controlling, intrusive, or prevents normal independence-building. (PMC)

Overparenting vs. Healthy Support: A Simple Rule

A practical way to distinguish healthy involvement from overparenting:

  • Healthy support: “I’ll help you think this through, then you try.”
  • Overparenting: “I’ll handle this so you don’t struggle.”

The goal isn’t to step back emotionally—it’s to step back operationally as the child’s capacity grows. (guilfordjournals.com)

How to Reduce Overparenting Without Becoming Hands-Off

Evidence-informed strategies that align with what researchers emphasize about autonomy and development:

  1. Shift from rescuing to coaching
    Ask: “What’s your plan?” “What are two options?” “What’s the next small step?”
  2. Use “fade-out” support
    Provide structure early, then gradually remove it as competence increases.
  3. Normalize safe failure
    Let children experience manageable consequences and discomfort—this is how coping grows. (OUP Academic)
  4. Check your anxiety channel
    If your urge to intervene spikes, pause and ask: “Is this about my fear or their need?” (Parent anxiety is commonly discussed as a driver.) (guilfordjournals.com)
  5. Keep warmth high, control appropriate
    Connection protects; overcontrol can backfire. Aim for support + autonomy, not one or the other. (PMC)

This article was written by John S. Collier, MSW, LCSW-S.  Mr. Collier has over 25 years of experience in the Social Work field.  He currently service as the Executive Director and Outpatient Therapist at Southeast Kentucky Behavioral Health in London Kentucky.  He may be reached by phone at (606) 657-0532 or by email at john@sekybh.com.

References

  • American Psychological Association (APA). (2018). Helicopter parenting may negatively affect children’s behavior and mental health, study suggests. (apa.org)
  • Lawson, D. W. (2025). Extended parental care and the evolution of overparenting. (OUP Academic)
  • LeMoyne, T., & Buchanan, T. (2011). Does “hovering” matter? Helicopter parenting and its effect on well-being. (Taylor & Francis Online)
  • Segrin, C., Woszidlo, A., Givertz, M., & Montgomery, N. (2012). The association between overparenting, parent–child communication, and family satisfaction. (Wiley Online Library)
  • Segrin, C., Woszidlo, A., Givertz, M., & Montgomery, N. (2013). Parent and child traits associated with overparenting. (guilfordjournals.com)
  • Vigdal, J. S., & Brønnick, K. (2022). A systematic review of “helicopter parenting” and its associations with mental health and adjustment. (PMC)