The Couples Therapy Donkey: Why the Word “But” Stalls Compromise
By Galen E. Cole, PhD, MPH, LPC
When I talk with clients about motivation, I often use the image of a donkey with a carrot in front and a whip behind. Most of our reasons for doing anything come down to moving toward a reward or away from a cost. Approach and avoidance aren’t abstractions. They drive most of what people do.
That donkey has one clear direction. The donkey I want to talk about here has two.
In a well-known philosophical puzzle called Buridan’s Ass, a donkey that is equally hungry and thirsty stands exactly halfway between a pile of hay and a bucket of water. Every step toward the hay is a step away from the water, and every step toward the water is a step away from the hay. Unable to choose, it stays where it is and dies of both hunger and thirst.
In relationships, that paralysis often shows up as a single word: “but.” “I want this, but I also want that.” The two desires cancel each other out, and nothing moves.
Listening for the “But”
When I’m helping a couple work toward compromise, I listen closely for that word, especially right after one partner agrees to do something.
One client had a signature pattern: “Yes, but…” followed by an extended explanation of why the requested change was impractical, risky, or unnecessary. Nothing substantive followed the “yes.” Over repeated sessions it became clear that what this person actually believed, wanted, and intended to do lived entirely in the material after the conjunction. The “yes” functioned as polite scaffolding—an opening that acknowledged the request without committing to it. The operative position, even when left unspoken, was the one that followed the “but.”
When I point this pattern out and ask both partners to listen for the “but,” they get noticeably better at reading each other’s intentions. It reminds me of a principle from my behavioral training in graduate school: when someone’s words and actions diverge, ask, “They’re acting as if they’re thinking what?” What a person repeatedly does, avoids, or postpones usually reveals the internal script more reliably than what they say in the moment.
Mapping the Conversation
If you diagram a typical compromise conversation as a straight line, it has a clear structure, and the “but” sits at the hinge.
Figure 2. Compromise conversation flow: the location of the “but.” Partner A’s statement moves left to right. In the pre-“but” zone, the partner offers surface agreement (“Yes, I will do X”). The “but” is the demarcation point where sustain talk begins. In the post-“but” zone, the partner names what they need to protect or keep (“I need to protect Y” or “I’ll keep the old pattern”). The surface agreement is what gets heard in the moment. The post-“but” intention is what usually gets acted on.
Three features of this map matter.
The “yes” is easy to hear. It is polite and relational, and it is what both people remember from the conversation. The speaker remembers saying yes, and the listener remembers hearing it.
The post-“but” clause is easy to miss. It is often shorter, quieter, or left unspoken, yet it tends to govern what happens next. That pattern isn’t unique to couples. Conversation analysts have long observed that disagreement is usually delivered behind a token agreement: “Yes, but…” “That’s true, but…” “I’d love to, but…” The agreement comes first because it protects the relationship. The disagreement comes second because it protects the speaker’s interests.
The gap between the two boxes is where conflict grows. Days later, the listener sees behavior that matches the post-“but” clause and feels misled. The speaker remembers saying yes and feels accused. Both have an accurate memory of half the sentence. Naming the structure lets both partners see the whole sentence without either one being cast as the liar.
What the Research Adds
Most conflicts don’t get “solved.” John Gottman’s long-term observational research found that about 69 percent of the problems couples argue about are perpetual. They come from lasting differences in personality, needs, or values, and no one-time compromise will make them disappear. Happy couples have these problems too. The difference is that they keep talking about them respectfully instead of sliding into gridlock. The remaining 31 percent are more situational and respond well to clear requests and concrete agreements. A “yes, but” about a perpetual issue is often a sign that the couple is trying to solve something that needs ongoing dialogue instead.
Losses loom larger than gains. Kahneman and Tversky’s work on loss aversion, confirmed by a large recent meta-analysis, shows that losses tend to feel roughly twice as painful as equivalent gains feel good, though the ratio varies across people and situations. The post-“but” clause is usually where the potential loss gets named: the comfort, autonomy, or safety the change would cost. In a relationship, the felt cost of changing a habit or risking vulnerability can outweigh the expected benefit of less conflict, until the accumulated damage becomes hard to ignore.
“But” marks the line between change and the status quo. Motivational interviewing describes ambivalence as wanting a change while also wanting to avoid what it costs. Clinicians call the first side change talk and the second sustain talk, and “but” is very often the hinge between them. Process research suggests that sustain talk in sessions is linked to poorer outcomes, and that arguing against it tends to strengthen it. When both partners carry their own version of this split, the couple ends up in shared ambivalence: push harder on one side and resistance grows on the other.
The Blind Spots
The diagram is useful, but it can be misread. The research points to five blind spots worth naming.
1. A “yes” is an intention, not a behavior. Even sincere intentions translate into action less often than people expect. Meta-analyses of experimental studies show that producing a medium-to-large change in intention leads to only a small-to-medium change in behavior. So a “yes” that never turns into action isn’t always a hidden “but.” Sometimes it’s an ordinary intention that never got a plan. The most reliable fix is an implementation intention, a specific if-then plan: “When I get home on Tuesday, I’ll put my phone in the kitchen before dinner.” Across nearly a hundred studies, if-then planning produced a medium-to-large improvement in goal attainment.
2. The post-“but” clause is a hypothesis, not a verdict. Sometimes the words after “but” express a genuine fear, a condition, or a request for reassurance (“…but I’m worried I’ll get it wrong”) rather than a fixed intention. In distressed relationships, partners tend to read each other’s ambiguous words through a negative filter, a pattern researchers call negative sentiment override. Treat the post-“but” clause as something to ask about, not as proof of bad faith. Then let behavior over time confirm or correct the guess.
3. Pressure produces “yes, but.” One of the most studied patterns in couples research is the demand–withdraw cycle: one partner presses for change, and the other withdraws. Under pressure, “yes, but” is often a withdrawal move. It ends the uncomfortable moment with a concession while reserving the right not to follow through. Psychologists call the underlying reaction reactance: when people feel their freedom is threatened, they push back to protect it. The harder one partner pushes for a yes, the more likely the yes comes with a hidden “but.”
4. A flooded partner can’t negotiate. Gottman’s work on physiological arousal found that when a partner’s heart rate climbs sharply during conflict (often above roughly 100 beats per minute), the capacity to listen, problem-solve, and use humor drops. A “yes” given in that state is often a way to end the conversation, not an agreement. The fix is a real break of at least 20 minutes, spent doing something calming rather than rehearsing the argument, before returning to the topic.
5. How the conversation starts shapes where it ends. Gottman and Carrère found that the first three minutes of a conflict discussion predicted how the relationship fared years later. A harsh opening (“You never…”) invites defensive “yes, buts.” A gentle one (“I’m feeling stretched thin, and I’d like us to figure out evenings together”) makes room for a “yes” that holds.
Moving Past the Stall
The work itself is straightforward. It requires everyone in the room, therapist included, to treat “but” as useful information rather than an interruption.
For couples
Get curious about both halves. When you hear “yes, but,” try: “I heard the yes. Help me understand what comes after the but, so I know what matters most to you right now.” This treats the whole statement as information instead of a contradiction.
Swap “but” for “and” when you speak. “I want us to be closer, and I want to keep some space that feels safe” makes the trade-off visible instead of erasing the first half of the sentence. This is a practical communication habit rather than a research finding, but it reliably changes how the sentence lands. Both desires can be true. The question is which gets priority right now.
Turn every “yes” into an if-then plan. Agree on when, where, and how: “If it’s Sunday evening, then we’ll sit down for 15 minutes with the calendar.” Vague agreements are where post-“but” priorities quietly win.
Accept influence where you can. Gottman’s newlywed research found that marriages were more stable when husbands accepted influence from their wives, and the principle applies to both partners. Before stating your own position, find one part of your partner’s you can genuinely agree with. Gottman calls this “yield to win”: you become more influential by showing you can be influenced.
Stop when you’re flooded. If your heart is pounding or your thoughts are racing, say so and take a break of at least 20 minutes. Agree on a time to come back.
Check behavior against words, then check your interpretation. Watch what actually happens after the conversation. If behavior doesn’t match the “yes,” ask about it before concluding it was insincere: “We agreed on Tuesdays, and it hasn’t happened. What got in the way?”
For couples therapists
Reflect both sides without choosing for the couple. A double-sided reflection (“You want to be more available, and you also want to protect the distance that has kept you safe”) holds the ambivalence and lets partners examine it themselves. You can then selectively reflect the change side to build momentum without dismissing the need for protection.
Ask directly about what follows the “but.” “What usually comes after your ‘but’ in these conversations?” or “If we set the first part aside, what are you least willing to give up?” These questions surface the operative priority without confrontation.
Watch for demand–withdraw in the room. When one partner’s pressure is producing the other’s “yes, buts,” slow the pursuer down and give the withdrawer room to speak the second half of the sentence out loud.
Monitor arousal. Some therapists use pulse oximeters or simple self-ratings during conflict discussions. Don’t negotiate agreements while either partner is flooded.
Sort solvable from perpetual while the “but” is still visible. For solvable issues, guide the couple toward concrete, testable agreements written as if-then plans. For perpetual ones, shift to the hopes or fears underneath each position (Gottman’s “dreams within conflict”) so the couple can talk about meaning rather than gridlocking over a resolution.
Track the balance of change talk and sustain talk across sessions. When sustain talk dominates, slow down and explore values instead of pushing for agreement. When change talk grows, reinforce it and move toward small experiments. Motivational interviewing was developed for individuals, and research on its use with couples is still limited, so treat these as clinically informed adaptations rather than an established couples protocol.
Shared next steps
Name both wants without the canceling conjunction.
Decide whether the issue is solvable or perpetual, and set the goal to match: agreement for the first, ongoing dialogue for the second.
Turn any agreement into a specific if-then plan.
Watch what happens after the words, and ask before you assume.
Try a short, time-limited experiment: each partner takes one small step toward the shared value and away from the protective habit, then compares what actually happened with what they feared would happen.
Choosing a Direction
Couples rarely lack care or intelligence. What they often lack is a clear view of the two desires each of them is holding at once, and of the blind spot created by the small word that splits them.
The donkey doesn’t fail because the hay or the water is bad. It fails because it won’t choose a direction. Naming the “but,” deciding which value matters more in this moment, turning the choice into a concrete plan, and taking one observable step is what moves a relationship out of the middle.
References
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A Theory of Psychological Reactance. Academic Press.
Brown, A. L., Imai, T., Vieider, F. M., & Camerer, C. F. (2024). Meta-analysis of empirical estimates of loss aversion. Journal of Economic Literature, 62(2), 485–516.
Carrère, S., & Gottman, J. M. (1999). Predicting divorce among newlyweds from the first three minutes of a marital conflict discussion. Family Process, 38(3), 293–301.
Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 73–81.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119.
Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrère, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(1), 5–22.
Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999). The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. Crown.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.
Magill, M., Apodaca, T. R., Borsari, B., Gaume, J., Hoadley, A., Gordon, R. E. F., Tonigan, J. S., & Moyers, T. (2018). A meta-analysis of motivational interviewing process: Technical, relational, and conditional process models of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86(2), 140–157.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2023). Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change and Grow (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge University Press.
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 249–268.
Weiss, R. L. (1980). Strategic behavioral marital therapy: Toward a model for assessment and intervention. In J. P. Vincent (Ed.), Advances in Family Intervention, Assessment and Theory (Vol. 1, pp. 229–271). JAI Press.
The Gottman Institute. When the fight never ends. https://www.gottman.com/blog/when-the-fight-never-ends/
Learn more and connect:
BrainMax Wellness: https://www.galencole.com/brainmax
Circle C Wellness: https://www.circlecwellness.com
Email: offices@galencole.com
Phone: 678-629-2578
Recent journal publication: https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/7197
© 2026 Galen E. Cole, PhD, MPH, LPC. All rights reserved. This essay is an original work first published at galencole.com. No part of this work may be reproduced, redistributed, scraped, or used to train commercial models without prior written permission, except for brief quotation with clear attribution to the author and a link to the original post.
Comments