It starts with an expense made without warning, a forgotten appointment or a poorly said phrase. Ten minutes later they are discussing that time in 2019, the other person’s character flaws and probably his mother too. The initial problem is now dispersed, but both remember very well every wrong suffered in the last five years. According to psychologist Mark Travers, specialized in couple relationships, there is a way to avoid this escalation: immediately admit the small part of the wrong that belongs to us.
The technique is called partial yieldwhich can be translated as partial concession. It consists of recognizing a specific responsibility without taking the blame for the entire discussion and without giving up one’s reasons. A phrase like “You’re right, I should have warned you” can lower the tension before the conversation turns into a competition to see who suffered the most. Of course, it requires saying two words that, during an argument, seem to weigh as much as a refrigerator: “You’re right.”
How partial concession works during a dispute
Let’s imagine that your partner gets angry because we made an important decision without consulting him. We can defend our choice, explain why it was reasonable, remember all the occasions when the other person also acted the same way. Maybe pulling out some precedents that date back to when we still called each other.
Or we can recognize one thing right away: “I should have talked to you about this sooner.” The difference is when the admission comes. Travers observes that, during a conflict, those who feel ignored or contradicted tend to accumulate arguments to prove they are right. The voice rises, the examples multiply and the discussion begins to concern the person rather than the disputed behavior.
Spontaneously acknowledging a responsibility can interrupt this dynamic, because the other no longer has to commit to proving something we have already admitted. Of course you have to be sincere. The classic “Okay, you’re right”, pronounced with the expression of someone who is considering a murder, hardly produces the same result.
The psychologist also suggests avoiding another very common habit: immediately adding a “but” to your admission. “You’re right, I should have told you, but you too…” is a particularly efficient way to pick up the discussion right where we left it. The advice is to let the recognition be heard, without immediately turning it into an opportunity to counterattack. Our reasons can wait a few moments. They will survive.
What science says about couples who know how to recognize each other’s reasons
The partial concession described by Travers is a strategy suggested based on his professional experience. There is no technique under this name whose immediate effectiveness has been demonstrated by a specific clinical experiment. However, there is interesting research on a very similar behavior: emotional validation, that is, the ability to recognize and understand what the partner is communicating.
A study published in Journal of Family Psychology observed 93 couples expecting a child during 15-minute discussions, recorded and analyzed to follow the emotional changes of the participants.
The researchers found that when a person showed understanding, interest and recognition towards their partner, the partner was more likely to move from a negative emotional state to a neutral or positive one. Greater validation during conflict was also associated with better relationship quality after the child’s birth.
We are talking about couples in a particular phase of life, that of pregnancy, and associations observed by researchers. It would therefore be premature to claim that the same strategy always works, for anyone and in any discussion. However, the result suggests that feeling listened to can change the emotional climate of an argument, even while it is still ongoing.
Another research published in 2018 followed 3,405 couples across five surveys, examining the relationships between conflicts, communication and romantic satisfaction.
The findings associated more frequent arguments, withdrawn attitudes, and less constructive communication with lower subsequent satisfaction. However, the relationships were bidirectional: the perception of the quality of the relationship also influenced the way of arguing. In short, the problem doesn’t end with counting how many times a couple argues. The way in which he faces and manages conflicts also contributes to the quality of the relationship.
Be careful, though: always agreeing with your partner can become a problem
There is a detail that risks being lost among all these good intentions: recognizing an error only makes sense when that error actually exists. Those who already tend to apologize for everything, perhaps to avoid their partner’s bad mood, could read the partial concession as yet another invitation to be understanding, patient and accommodating.
Even when he would have very good reasons to be angry. That would be a rather questionable application of the technique. A scientific review published on Current Opinion in Psychology by researchers Nickola Overall and James McNulty highlighted that the most useful communication also depends on the nature of the problem.
Showing understanding and availability can help when facing minor or difficult to change difficulties. When faced with serious behaviors that require change, however, direct and even openly contrary communication may be necessary. Being always conciliatory risks, in certain circumstances, leaving unresolved precisely what should change.
The distinction is especially important in relationships in which one of the two partners systematically ends up taking on all the responsibility. And in situations of intimidation, manipulation or violence, a strategy designed to manage normal disagreements cannot replace protecting your own safety. Partial concession, therefore, makes sense when it allows two people to recognize their respective responsibilities without turning every discussion into a trial.
Saying “I should have warned you” can be a good start. Then you can discuss the decision, explain your reasons and listen to those of the other. Without resurrecting every precedent, without compiling a sentimental criminal record and above all without pretending that someone must necessarily emerge defeated. Also because winning an argument against your partner offers rather short-term satisfaction. The next day, usually, we have to continue living together.
