Anatol Rapoport and the Gottman–Rapoport Conversation

We often get caught in conflict cycles in relationships and life, reinforced by news and social media. Opposing perspectives push us to take sides, deepening divisions rather than fostering understanding. Narrowing our views excludes the richness of other perspectives.

In relationships, there are fewer absolutes than we imagine. Most differences are nuanced and deserve reflection. Seeking simple black-and-white answers—yes or no, good or bad—limits our ability to appreciate others’ perspectives and refine our own.

Polarised conflict can become exhausting: arguing positions, feeling right while the other is wrong, leaving both partners frustrated and unheard. Repeating points more forcefully rarely works; it usually leads to withdrawal and hurt.

John Gottman’s research was influenced by Anatol Rapoport, a mathematician and psychologist known for game theory and conflict resolution. Gottman adopted Rapoport’s idea of two valid subjective realities—each person has a different perception, and rarely is there a single right or wrong.

In therapy, couples slow conversations, reduce arousal, and focus on understanding. The speaker uses gentle I-statements, expresses feelings without blame, and states positive needs. The listener takes notes, resists rebuttals, and reflects both content and emotion. This approach fosters empathy, validation, and a corrective emotional experience, opening the way to compromise.

Clinical Case Example: The Gottman–Rapoport Conversation in Practice (A very brief example to demonstrate the essences of the Rapoport conversations)

Emma and Daniel, both in their late thirties, presented to therapy feeling “stuck in the same argument” about parenting their 14-year-old son, Liam. 

Emma felt Daniel was “too lenient” and failed to set boundaries. 

Daniel felt Emma was “too controlling” and “always on his back.” 

Their arguments had become circular and emotionally charged—each convinced they were right, and that the other “just didn’t get it.” 

During a session, the therapist introduced the Gottman–Rapoport Conversation to help them move from persuasion to understanding. 

Emma began as the speaker, starting with a gentle I-statement: 

“I feel anxious when I see Liam talking back, and I worry that he’s learning it’s okay to ignore rules. I need to feel that we’re a united front so I can relax and not feel like the bad cop.” 

Daniel listened, taking brief notes to stay present and reduce his urge to defend. 

When Emma finished, he summarised: 

“You’re saying that when I don’t step in, it feels like I’m leaving you alone to manage his behaviour, and that makes you anxious. You want to feel like we’re in it together.” 

Emma nodded, visibly softening as she felt heard. Then they switched roles. 

Daniel shared his perspective: 

 “When you step in so quickly, I feel undermined as a parent. I need space to handle it in my own way before you jump in.” 

Emma reflected back: 

“So when I correct Liam in front of you, it feels like I don’t trust your parenting, and that hurts. You need a bit more space before I step in.” 

Both partners began to recognise that beneath their positions were valid needs—Emma’s need for security and teamwork, Daniel’s need for respect and autonomy. By focusing on understanding rather than winning, they experienced a corrective emotional shift: tension eased, empathy grew, and problem-solving became possible.

Takeaway: True dialogue doesn’t require agreement—it begins with understanding. Recognising two valid perspectives can shift conflict from battle to collaboration, creating deeper connection and flexibility in relationships.