Validation: What It Is, What It Isn’t, and Why It Matters

Validation is often described as a core relationship skill, but in practice it is frequently misunderstood as a form of agreement.

They are not the same.

Agreement means you share the same perspective:

• “You’re right.” 
• “I see it the same way.” 

Validation means something more specific. It means you can understand how another person arrived at their experience, even if you would not arrive there yourself:

• “I can see why that felt upsetting.” 
• “Given what you were thinking, that makes sense.” 

Validation is about making an internal experience legible. It is not an endorsement of a conclusion.

This distinction becomes relevant quickly in couples work, because many people hesitate to validate their partner out of concern that it implies agreement or that it weakens their own position. The conversation then shifts, often without either person realizing it, into a negotiation about accuracy and can bring up urges to defend oneself.

For example, one partner might say:

• “I felt dismissed when you didn’t respond.” 

And the other responds:

• “I wasn’t dismissing you—I was busy.” 

That may be true. But it answers a different question.

Instead of addressing the experience being expressed, the focus moves to intention. The result is a conversation that stays organized around who is “right,” while the emotional impact remains unaddressed. Over time, that pattern tends to create a very particular kind of disconnection: one in which people feel misunderstood despite ongoing effort to explain themselves.

It is also useful to be concrete about what invalidation looks like, because it is often more subtle than people expect.

In practice, it commonly includes:

• Correcting the other person’s interpretation before fully understanding it 
• Explaining why they “shouldn’t” feel a certain way 
• Moving quickly to problem-solving or reassurance 
• Reframing the situation before the experience has been acknowledged 

These responses are rarely intended to dismiss. More often, they reflect discomfort, urgency, or a genuine attempt to help. But the effect is fairly consistent: the person sharing feels unseen, or as though their experience needs to be adjusted before it can be received. Additionally, when we feel invalidated (that our feelings are wrong, silly, or don't make sense) it actually prompts us to defend or even escalate the original emotion in hopes of making it make sense. 

Validation requires a temporary shift in focus:

• from Is this accurate? 
• to Can I understand how this makes sense from their point of view? 

That shift does not require you to give up your perspective. It does not require agreement, apology, or resolution. It simply asks that you make room for the other person’s experience to be understood on its own terms. 

When that happens, conversations tend to change in tone. Disagreement is still present, but it becomes less adversarial. Each person’s experience has a place.

When it doesn’t, even relatively minor issues can escalate—not because of the issue itself, but because of how each person feels responded to in the process. The goal is not to eliminate disagreement. It is to stay in contact with each other while disagreement exists. That is what validation supports.