Have you ever disagreed with a loved one, only to hear them say: “If you really understood me, you should agree with me.” This notion, understanding another person feels like accepting their conclusion. Yet, in healthy relationships, agreement and understanding can actually coexist. A friend may understand the reason behind taking a particular difficult decision of yours, but they may decide differently for themselves; a colleague might grasp why you hold an opinion you don’t share; a parent and child might recognise each other’s feelings despite holding fundamentally different values.
Research indicates that effective communication can happen successfully despite the presence of disagreement. It may instead involve careful listening, attempting to see others’ perspective, recognising others’ feelings, and expressing one’s own position without hostility (Rogers, 1957; Vaassen et al., 2026).
Understanding Is Not the Same as Agreeing
Understanding refers to developing a reasonably accurate sense of what another person thinks, feels or intends, and an insight into why their position makes sense from their frame of reference. Agreement involves accepting or sharing the conclusion, judgment, belief, or preference presented. Although the two terms may overlap sometimes, they actually differ from each other.
For example, if a friend says: “I’m quitting my job because I don’t feel seen there at all.” An appropriate response might be: “I hear that. I can understand the reason what make you feel that way, as you shared.” An example of agreement might be: “You should absolutely quit; that’s the best idea.” One communicates understanding; the other conveys a verdict on the decision itself.
Why is this an important distinction?
Treating agreement as proof of understanding can make conversations unnecessarily adversarial. Disagreement may convert into a fight to establish who is ‘right,’ and conversations quickly turn oppositional. When people believe they ‘have’ to prove their own point, the motivation to hear out the other person’s narrative diminishes. In fact, studies of conflict have shown that people tend to underestimate the outcome of conversations with individuals with different perspectives. In several studies, individuals expected disagreements to produce less-positive interactive conversations, as they assume there wouldn’t be as much amount of shared ground at the end of the conversation (Wald et al., 2024).
Good communication is not about having everyone agree with everything; it’s about giving the other person enough space for two people to be real. Research examining empathy across different ideologies demonstrates that the effort to understand people from the other side can reduce interpersonal animosity while maintaining people’s ability to hold firm to their beliefs (Santos et al., 2022).
Read More: Repeating Relationship Patterns: Why We Choose Familiar Partners
The Psychology Behind Mutual Understanding
1. Empathy: “I Understand Your Perspective”
The original defining feature of empathic understanding is that one is able to connect and empathise with another person’s subjective experience, and not merely evaluate it as an outside observer. According to Rogers (1957), empathic understanding was a core element of effective human relationships. However, modern-day definitions of empathy tend to be more complex and do not focus on it as a single construct.
For example, Davis (1983) was able to empirically distinguish between the aspect of ‘perspective-taking’ and the perceived benefits to others of feeling concern for them. Importantly, there is a difference between understanding and condoning. For instance, people may understand that another person is experiencing anger, fear, anxiety or defensiveness without approving of the choices they have made. A good rule of thumb:
- Empathy: “I can understand this feels so overwhelming to manage right now.” Agreement: “I agree, that conclusion is justified.”
- Approval: “I think that action was the right one to take.”
Each response is distinct, and keeping them separate will help individuals to be compassionate without being credulous.
Read More: The Importance of Mutual Understanding in Relations
2. Perspective-Taking: Stepping Outside Your Frame
Perspective-taking is the process of consciously orienting towards a situation from another person’s perspective. Instead of leaping to “How could anyone possibly think/do that?”, people may use: “What exact experiences, information, values, or worries might lead this person to see things this way?”
Some evidence points to perspective-taking as helpful during contentious conversations. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 51 studies conducted in 2026 concluded that by practising empathy and perspective-taking, people were able to engage in more constructive conversations with people holding different views, but this could depend on the interaction of the technology and the people involved (Vaassen et al., 2026). It does not mean people are toying with the notion of adopting a different opinion. It just means giving themselves a little pause to try and see what the rationale might be for the alternative opinion.
Active Listening: Understanding Before Responding
Many conflicts become worse as people listen in order to argue rather than to understand the other person. Active listening breaks this cycle by focusing on the speaker’s intended meaning and confirming the message has been received.
Weger et al. (2014) showed that if individuals actively listen during a disagreement, the person on the other end will interpret their response as feeling more understood than if they respond with acknowledgement alone. There are similar findings in more recent work showing that high-quality listening during disagreements can reduce defensive self-reflection and polarisation (Itzchakov et al., 2024). Active listening can involve:
- Pay attention: Avoid preparing a counter-argument on the spot.
- Reflect: “So, if I understand correctly, what you’re feeling angry about right now is about that comment?”
- Clarify: “When you say you felt unheard, was it this specific instance that tipped the scales for you?”
- Check for understanding: “Is that an accurate interpretation?”
The goal is not to interrogate someone or mechanically repeat their words. It’s about making a genuine effort to understand others’ experience.
Emotional Validation: “Your Feelings Make Sense”
People’s understanding of a perspective is not complete unless they recognise the feelings they are likely associated with. Emotional validation is the act of acknowledging the feelings of another person in the context of their experience as being understandable. It doesn’t inherently mean agreeing with the reason behind emotions, nor with the person’s action. As an example, consider: “I can see why that was so hurtful for you.” This is a statement about the emotional experience itself, not a statement about what caused it. It is also distinct from saying: “they intended for you to be hurt.”
Researchers have demonstrated that reflection and validation lead to increases in a sense of belongingness in laboratory studies, with validation especially reducing negative affect and aggression in participants following social exclusion (Kim & Kim, 2013). This form of communication is invaluable, especially during highly emotional discussions. Often, a person needs the emotional component of their experience to be heard and recognised before they are capable of engaging with the reasoning or factual aspects.
A response that validates and then states disagreement might look like: “I can see what happened must have felt incredibly dismissive to you, and I get why that matters immensely. However, I remember the event from a very different angle, and I’d like to explain my point of view too.”
Steps to Disagree Without Destroying Understanding
Having mutual understanding is particularly crucial in deciding what individuals may believe about relationships, parenting, career, social opinions, political, and ethical issues. It seems that communicating with people who have different opinions may successfully bridge the gap between societal divides and can create more social connection even when those beliefs don’t particularly change (de Jong, 2024; Kardas et al., 2026). The following is a simple structure for constructive disagreement:
Listen → Clarify → Validate → Explain → Set boundaries
For Example:
- Listen: “Tell me what exactly led to this conclusion.”
- Clarify: “So basically your main concern is fairness, rather than the outcome itself?”
- Validate: “I completely understand why this is so important for you.”
- Explain: “I see it differently because I place more weight on…”
- Set boundaries: “I respect how you are approaching this from your angle, but I am not comfortable making that choice for myself.”
This approach allows people to acknowledge differences without turning them into personal attacks. Research also suggests that the medium of communication matters. A 2026 study involving 1,576 conversation partners found that spoken disagreement was associated with greater understanding, lower conflict, and more favourable impressions than written disagreement (Bevis et al., 2026). This does not mean every disagreement should happen face-to-face, but it highlights the importance of tone, responsiveness, and interpersonal cues that can be harder to communicate through text.
Conclusion
Understanding and agreement aren’t two sides of the same coin, but actually they represent two different psychological processes. When people ‘agree,’ they ask, “Do I share the same conclusion as you?” How do we know if someone ‘understands’?. We wonder if we can say to them, ‘Can I walk a mile in his/her shoes?’ This second question opens up opportunities for empathising, perspective-taking, listening, validation and challenging respectfully.
In daily interaction, this matters tremendously. It gives parents a little more space to understand their child’s frustration. And it helps friends to have differences of opinion about their romantic life and career choices without losing respect for one another. It helps colleagues to deliver professional feedback about plans and ideas more passionately without questioning each other’s integrity. Even politically opposing comments in the public sphere can be avoided if only people listen with curiosity rather than dismissing them as bad intentions (Vaassen et al., 2026; Bevis et al., 2026). Instead, it bids us to leave space for another’s reality while remaining honest about our own. Sometimes the ultimate expression of compassion involves not just saying “I agree”, but saying “I understand.”
References +
- Bevis, B., Schroeder, J., & Yeomans, M. (2026). Spoken disagreement is more constructive than written disagreement. Nature Communications, 17, 5792. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-71669-5
- Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113– 126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
- de Jong, J. F. (2024). Cross-partisan discussions reduced political polarisation between UK voters, but less so when they disagreed. Communications Psychology, 2, 5.
- Itzchakov, G., Weinstein, N., Leary, M., Saluk, D., & Amar, M. (2024). Listening to understand: The role of high-quality listening on speakers’ attitude depolarisation during disagreements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 126(2), 213–239. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000366
- Kardas, M., Nordgren, L., & Rucker, D. (2026). Unnecessarily divided: Civil conversations reduce attitude polarisation more than people expect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 130(2), 187–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000469
- Kim, E., & Kim, C. (2013). Comparative effects of empathic verbal responses: Reflection versus validation. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 60(3), 439–444. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032786
- Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045357
- Santos, L. A., Voelkel, J. G., Willer, R., & Zaki, J. (2022). Belief in the utility of cross-partisan empathy reduces partisan animosity and facilitates political persuasion. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221098594
- Vaassen, C. E., van den Broek, T. A., Aaldering, H., & Beersma, B. (2026). Increasing empathy and perspective-taking in controversial discussions: A systematic review and future research directions. Computers in Human Behaviour Reports, 22, 101062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101062
- Wald, K. A., Kardas, M., & Epley, N. (2024). Misplaced divides? Discussing political disagreement with strangers can be unexpectedly positive. Psychological Science, 35(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976241230005
- Weger, H., Jr., Bell, G. C., Minei, E. M., & Robinson, M. C. (2014). The relative effectiveness of active listening in initial interactions. International Journal of Listening, 28(1), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2013.813234
