Couple Power Therapy

Psychologists in Independent Practice

Leon VandeCreek, Series Editor

Treating Patients With Alcohol and Other Drug Problems:

An Integrated Approach
Robert D. Margolis and Joan E. Zweben
Treating Patients With Memories of Abuse: Legal Risk Management
Samuel J. Knapp and Leon VandeCreek
Treating People With Chronic Disease: A Psychological Guide
Carol D. Goodheart and Martha H. Lansing

Michal J. Murphy, Series Editor

Treating Patients With Neuropsychological Disorders:
A Clinician's Guide to Assessment and Referral
Jeffery B. Allen
Couple Power Therapy: Building Commitment, Cooperation,
Communication, and Community in Relationships
Peter L. Sheras and Phyllis R. Koch-Sheras

Couple Power Therapy

Building Commitment,
Cooperation, Communication, and
Community in Relationships

Peter L. Sheras
and

Phyllis R. Koch-Sheras

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

WASHINGTON, DC

Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association. All rights

reserved. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of
1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any
form or by any means, including, but not limited to, the process of scanning
and digitization, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the
prior written permission of the publisher.
Published by
American Psychological Association
750 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
www.apa.org
To order
APA Order Department
P.O. Box 92984
Washington, DC 20090-2984
Tel: (800) 374-2721
Direct: (202) 336-5510
Fax: (202) 336-5502
TDD/TTY: (202) 336-6123
Online: www.apa.org/books/
E-mail: order@apa.org

In the U.K., Europe, Africa, and the

Middle East, copies may be ordered
from
American Psychological Association
3 Henrietta Street
Covent Garden, London
WC2E 8LU England

Typeset in Palatino by World Composition Services, Inc., Sterling, VA

Printer: Book-mart Press, Inc., North Bergen, NJ
Cover Designer: Minker Design, Bethesda, MD
Technical/Production Editors: Gail B. Munroe and Tiffany L. Klaff
The opinions and statements published are the responsibility of the authors,
and such opinions and statements do not necessarily represent the policies
of the American Psychological Association.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Sheras, Peter L.
Couple power therapy : building commitment, cooperation,
communication, and community in relationships / Peter L. Sheras and
Phyllis R. Koch-Sheras.1st ed.
p. cm.(Psychologists in independent practice)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 1-59147-235-0 (alk. paper)
1. Marital psychotherapy. I. Koch-Sheras, Phyllis R. II. Title. III. Series.
RC488.5.S489 2005
616.89'1562dc22
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A CIP record is available from the British Library.
Printed in the United States of America
First Edition

2005007444

Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
INTRODUCTION
PART I. A NEW PARADIGM FOR RELATIONSHIPS:
COUPLE AS AN ENTITY

vii
3
17

Chapter 1

Redefining Couple: Shifting the Paradigm .... 19

Chapter 2

The Cocreating Couple:

A New Possibility

PART II.

41

THE TASKS OF THE COCREATING COUPLE:

THE FOUR Cs
61

Chapter 3

Commitment

63

Chapter 4

Cooperation

97

Chapter 5

Communication

119

Chapter 6

Community

151

PART III.

PUTTING THE MODEL

INTO PRACTICE

Chapter 7
Chapter 8

171

Obstacles Along the Way:

Challenges for Clients and Therapists

173

Creating a New Future for Couples:

Expanding Couple Consciousness

213

REFERENCES

229

INDEX

239

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

255

Acknowledgments
We have been together for many years as a couple, family, and
therapy team. This book is the culmination of decades of thought,
work, and experience together. We owe a huge debt of gratitude
to our professors, supervisors, mentors, clients, and family members for their insight, support, and nurturance throughout the
years. They are too numerous to mention by name here. However, among those who have truly changed us are our mentors
at the VA Medical Center in Palo Alto, CaliforniaElizabeth
Richards, MD; Jay Mann, PhD; Sheldon Starr, PhD; and our great
friends and collaborators from Couples Coaching CouplesHugo and Vialla Mendez and Kate Husband and Doug Ferguson.
With these kindred souls, we have worked, played, and created
together. Special thanks also to Michael Murphy for helping us
shape this manuscript and keep our eyes on the prize.

Couple Power Therapy

Introduction
ax and Mary arrive at your office for the first session,
M
spending most of the time interrupting each other. Married
only a few years, they can't seem to get along. They are perfectly
nice and reasonable individually, but it is almost like they enjoy
hurting each other. They tell their stories to you and want you
to mediate.
Louise and Bart say they love each other but are "just too
different" to be married. He wants kids and a wife who works
part-time. She wants a career and full-time childcare. They ask
your opinion as to what is the right thing for them to do.
Danny has just told his wife Janine that he has been having
an affair. They say they have been happily married for the past
15 years and love their two beautiful children. He seems sorry,
but Janine seems unwilling to continue their marriage. She is
upset, hurt, and distraught. Danny wants you to make it better
for them.
These are common scenarios presented in couples therapists'
offices every day.
Never have couples been more in need of support. Never have
psychotherapists been more in need of effective techniques for
helping couples. Whereas the general efficacy of couples therapies for improving relationship satisfaction has been empirically
validated (Baucom, Shoham, Mueser, Daiuto, & Stickle, 1998;
Christenson & Heavey, 1999; Jacobson & Addis, 1993), nothing
to date has really been able to turn the tide from separation and
divorce to lasting and fulfilling relationships. Though divorce
has been predicted reliably (Gottman, 1994), the creation or maintenance of marital satisfaction is yet to be predicted or even
addressed with the same precision. Even in the most empirically
supported marital treatment, traditional behavioral couple therapy (TBCT), at least one third of the couples were treatment
failures and among those improving, many, over the course of
2 years, did not maintain improvement (Jacobson, Christensen,

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

Prince, Cordova, & Eldridge, 2000). In another study, by the end

of 4 years posttreatment, the divorce rate among couples in
TBCT was 38% (Christensen, Atkins, Berns, Wheeler, Baucom,
& Simpson, 2004). Today there are fewer marriages annually in
the United States, and rates of divorce are between 50% and 60%
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2004). It has
been estimated that 50% of first marriages will end in divorce,
and the rates for second marriages are even higher (Bramlett &
Mosher, 2001). Nearly 20 million children under the age of 18
(28%) live in single-parent households (U.S. Census Bureau,
2002).
As couples therapists, we have been acutely aware of the dire
state of marriage and relationships. Over the past 20 years, we
have developed a technique we call couple power therapy (CPT)
that has successfully helped couples. It is based on a relatively
simple paradigm shift that may, however, involve overcoming
significant obstacles inherent in the current perspective about
relationships. This perspective is generated by a society that has
been built on the premise of individualism and competition
and that paradigm is becoming even more and more prevalent.
An individualistic approach does not work well for relationships;
however, it is within this problematic cultural context that therapists have been trying to help couples create lasting bonds with
each other. Couples therapy, in that context, is usually an agonizing process for both the couples and the therapists. It is possible,
though, for couples therapy to be effective and fun. How to make
that a reality is what we present in the following chapters.
In doing couples therapy, most mental health practitioners, we
believe, have missed an important point: Within a relationship
matrix, there exists a powerful couple identity that goes beyond
each partner's individual identity, and this couple identity can
be created and nurtured. The couple power model, based on the
couple as a distinct entity, respects both individual goals and
joint pursuits as part of the couple identitycreating something
bigger than the sum of the parts. In this model, the partners do
not lose themselves in each other; rather, they go beyond the
individual to acknowledge the couple entity and cocreate a unified vision for their relationship. The term cocreating refers to a

INTRODUCTION

flexible way of operating that allows partners to acclimate over

time to personal, social, and environmental change together.
Although every couple is unique, we have distinguished some
basic characteristics that successful cocreating couples have in
common. To develop and maintain these positive characteristics,
the couple entity must address four basic tasks: commitment,
cooperation, communication, and community. We call these
tasks the Four Cs of couple power. The term couple power therapy,
as used here, may be defined as the approach that empowers
couples to see the possibility of their relationship in the present
and future by addressing the four major tasks required for creating and maintaining couple. Making progress in each of these
areas is necessary for a successful, resilient, and long-lasting
partnership to exist over time. The success of the couple and of
couples therapy is a matter of focusing on these tasks, creating
a structure to accomplish them, and building in ongoing work
and maintenance. The term couple power is reminiscent of social
movements of the 1960s and 1970s, such as Black Power, that
were striving to empower a particular group while attempting
to change the prevailing cultural norms. When properly learned
and applied, the Four Cs are an effective and powerful source
of social and personal support for relationships.
The couples therapist uses the Four Cs as the fundamental
tasks to be understood and worked on with the couple in treatment. They are simple enough to be taught by the therapist and
to be accomplished by almost any couple wiling to learn and
practice them. A key factor in making the CPT model simple to
learn and apply for both the couple and the therapist is narrowing
down the treatment to four fundamental tasks, that is, the Four
Cs. Solicitation of unnecessary or complicating information is
eliminated, deemphasized, or postponed. Complaints from the
past about one's partner or relationship, for example, are redirected into possibilities for getting clear about the couple's joint
commitment, responsibility, and cooperation. This focused approach is similar to what author Malcolm Gladwell (2005) calls
in his book Blink "thin-slicing," that is, "the ability of our unconscious to find patterns in situations and behavior based on very
narrow slices of experience" (p. 23). Gladwell gives several

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

examples, including the research by Gottman (1994) on predictors of divorce, of the value of "throwing out all that is irrelevant
while we zero in on what really matters" (p. 34): "What you
avoid . .. are all the confusing and complicated and ultimately
irrelevant pieces of information that can serve to screw up your
judgement" (p. 37). Similarly, focusing on the Four Cs enables
both the therapist and the couple more easily and faithfully to
accomplish their goals of treatment. They "thin-slice" the therapeutic process.
The fundamental elements of the Four Cs are consistent, and
the benefits of following them have been powerful and convincing to us, our clients, and our trainees over the past 3 decades.
CPT allows each individual to relate to the couple as a separate
entity in itselfone built on a strong foundation of commitment,
fostered by cooperation as a team, empowered by effective communication and language, and supported by a community of
peers. In brief, commitment is used here to mean not a commitment to another individual, but a shared commitment to the
entity of couple and what is possible for that unit. Cooperation
refers to the ability to be a team working together to meet a
common goal where each person does not necessarily perform
the same behaviors but coordination of activity is required. Effective couple communication is the act of speaking, listening, and
acting in such a way that the same meaning is understood by
both parties. Finally, community is the experience of common
feelings and shared goals of groups of couples living in physical
or psychological proximity.
We call the basic elements of the couple power model tasks,
rather than solutions or techniques, because the model goes beyond
things to do or learn for correcting something wrong; rather, the
Four Cs provide the couple with a structure for ways of being
and identifying themselves as a couple entity and living in that
entity together in their lives. The tasks build on the couple's
strengths to create the ongoing expression of their unique couple
identity. This identity has a character and personality of its own
that we refer to here as the couple entity or couple as an entity.
Usually we refer to the relationship as just couple without the
article a or the. The use of the term couple in this way emphasizes
the importance of language in describing a relationship as a joint

INTRODUCTION

commitment to a way of being together, rather than a commitment to an individual or a thing. Although it may seem awkward
at first, this linguistic maneuver is a reminder of the paradigm
shift that we are attempting to produce in seeing couple as an
entity. After a while, we find that the use of the term couple
becomes second nature and that clients can easily distinguish
between what is meant by couple and a couple.
Both couples and therapists alike often mistakenly begin with
the premise that a relationship in need of help must be corrected
or fixed in some way. They have probably read a book or seen
a program that defined the "right" partnership or the "perfect"
mate, and they are discouraged that they cannot achieve that
ideal. This is an example of the kind of obstacle the popular
media creates by portraying unrealistic standards for couples to
live up to. By presenting a framework of tasks for the couple
to accomplish during therapy, rather than problems to fix, the
therapist guides them to choose what they want to pursue. This
allows the couple to focus on creating positive possibilities and
visions for the future, rather than getting caught up in problems
of the past. The therapist identifies and builds on the strengths
and competencies that are inherent in the couple itself to help
the partners reach their goals. This possibility-based perspective
on couples work is consistent with strategic, structural, and narrative therapy models. It is primarily these approaches that we
have drawn on in the process of developing CPT, as we discuss next.
We began our work with couples armed with the traditional
psychodynamic training we had each received in graduate
school. Both of us received additional training in using principles
of behavior modification and behavioral therapies while working
with children and families in a variety of settings. We met while
on our clinical psychology internship at the Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center in Palo Alto, California, where we
learned both brief strategic theories and family therapy skills.
In addition to our training at the VA Family Study Unit that
included techniques of fair fight training (Bach & Bernhard, 1971)
and family therapy techniques of Satir (1972), we were exposed
to the cutting-edge work occurring at the Mental Research Institute in Palo Alto in the early 1970s. It was there and through

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

supervision at the Family Study Unit at the VA that we learned

the importance of looking for ways to create second-order change
in couples, not merely to accept first-order solutions (Watzlawick, 1996; Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974). After we completed our internships, we realized that accomplishing secondorder change for couples would require a new kind of speaking
and language than that which currently existed in the psychotherapy or relationship lexicon. It is fortunate that we discovered
several alternative perspectives on our journey of continuous
learning about relationships. First came several years of workshops at the National Training Laboratory in Maine with John
and Joyce Weir (Weir, 1975). These workshops, Laboratories in
Self-Differentiation, included gestalt therapy techniques and
training in a language of self-responsibility called percept language
used primarily with dream work. We learned to use the language
of the creative unconscious when working with night dreams,
fantasies, and waking daydreams or visions. The use of a new
language to create the vision and commitment of a relationship
eventually became the cornerstone of CPT.
The power of language to create change was also reinforced
by our subsequent training in both neurolinguistic programming
(NLP) and narrative therapy. From NLP (Sandier & Grinder,
1979) we learned the language of representational systems, reframing, metaphors, and fairy tales. Then from narrative therapy,
we further developed our understanding of how we "constitute
our lives and relationships through language" (White & Epston,
1990, p. 27). These techniques and approaches helped shape the
way we looked at possibilities for couples relating and communicating in new ways. Narrative therapy also helped broaden our
sense of the cultural context affecting couples and how that could
be used to externalize problems in the relationship. Coming to
see "the problem as a separate entity" (White & Epston, 1990,
p. 38) helped inform the eventual development of our concept
of the couple as an entity, a crucial part of the couple power
model. The concept of externalization is also integral to the tasks
of cooperation and communication, when couples learn to let
go of blaming each other for a problem and take on solving it
together as a team.

INTRODUCTION

As we continued to develop our model over the years, we

also acquired experience in structural family therapy theories
and techniques through reading, seminars, and consultation. The
technique of enactment, for instance, in which the therapist has
the clients "dance in his presence" (Minuchin & Fishman, 1981,
p. 79), influenced us in designing the process of creating a couple
vision in the session, during which the therapist "observe(s) the
family members' verbal and nonverbal ways of signaling to each
other" (p. 79). The focus in structural therapy on shaping competence and emphasizing positive behaviors and strengths is also
basic to CPT.
A crucial part of CPT is encouraging the couple to create,
adopt, and speak their vision as a positive possibility in the
momenteven when they may not see it or believe it. Rather
than something concrete to do or have, it is taught as a way of
being for the couple to "live into." Although this way of thinking
is often difficult for many people in Western society to understand, it came naturally to us in the context of our Tibetan
Buddhist studies. Studying the Tibetan Dzogchen tradition
helped open our minds to new possibilities of ways of relating
that we were able to translate into effective therapeutic techniques, such as the couple's statement of their vision. This is
consistent with the teachings of the Dalai Lama:
yet with ordinary people, their experience is a very solid
one of suppressing or indulging, with the result that they
accumulate karmic formations and fall prey to attachment
and aggression. On the other hand, for a Dzogchen yogin,
thoughts are liberated the moment they arise. (2000, p. 83)

What developed for us from our experience and training, as

well as from our years of working together and being a couple
ourselves, can be said to have evolved and integrated naturally
over time. We became students of the relationship process, saw
clients, worked with groups, consulted, coached, taught, and
worked on it together in our own relationship through a variety
of means, including a process called Couples Coaching Couples
that we describe later in detail (see chap. 6, this volume). We

10

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

interviewed couples, treated them, observed them, and learned

from themfrom our years at the VA until now, a period of
nearly 3 decades.
We developed the CPT model on the basis of the merits of
each approach we studied and what seemed to be problematic
or missing from each one. For instance, in much of our training
we were encouraged to start treatment by teaching couples good
communications skills. When we did this, however, we noticed
that they often used these skills to communicate clearly their
unfulfilled needs and what they disliked about each other and
the relationship. This seemed only to reinforce the hopelessness
of their circumstances and allowed them to be honest but unhappy. Gottman (1994) has examined this common occurrence,
demonstrating empirically that couples with poor communication are more likely to divorce. This research, although scientifically valuable, raises more questions. What seems to be missing
is a foundational element. Did the partners really want to be
together or could they even imagine a future with each other?
If they could not, what good was clear communication that might
be hurtful or retaliatory? Oddly enough, it became clear to us
that it was often too early in treatment to encourage clients to
be brutally clear and honest. Although clear communication was
obviously important, there appeared to be a sequence in which
certain things needed to be accomplished. The foundation
needed to be laid before other skills would be useful. If clear
communication was a tool in the relationship toolbox, what were
we actually using the tools to build? A hammer is not much
good unless one knows not only how to use it but also when
and toward what end. Is there a plan or blueprint for what is
being constructed? To be successful in the end, one must first
have a project to work on and a commitment to build it. In this
case, the project is the relationship, and the commitment is to
the couple as an entity.
The importance of commitment became clear to us following
a number of interviews we conducted 20 years after completing
our internship. We asked a number of our supervisors what they
had learned about couples over the past two decades. The former
director of the Family Study Unit where we trained summed up
the sentiments of most of our mentors. He reported that couples

INTRODUCTION

11

with great longevity had long since come to grips with their
differences, and even with the fact that they didn't like each
other sometimes. What looked like acceptance or selective inattention at first was really something more. It was a belief in the
institution of marriage and their commitment to it. After a while,
it was clear to them that they would stay married. Given that
circumstance, the couple would have to take on the difficulties,
differences, and individual problems together. The relationship
was the entity to which they were committed after all those
years, not just the other person. We began to understand that
the commitment to the entity was the primary requisite for a
lasting relationship.
From our experiences and research, we concluded that the
basis for effective couples therapy and for the establishment and
maintenance of a successful couple was learning how to build
a strong foundation for the relationship (as an entity) beginning
in the present moment. Sometimes it was possible to uncover
an old or existing foundation, perhaps an earlier more positive
time in their relationship to return to. As with any edifice under
construction, a solid foundation is crucial to the integrity and
design of the structure. No architect or contractor would build
a house without being sure it was supported by a solid foundation. The same is true of a couple relationship. It is not enough
just to teach couples how to communicate better. We have already seen how that kind of one-pronged approach has been
insufficient to create meaningful change, and ineffective in
achieving long-term results (Jacobson et al., 2000). In our clinical
experience, such isolated techniques can even make matters
worse unless other factors are considered and included in the
treatment. If a couple or therapist naively assumes that love or
communication is enough, the couple may find that the relationship they created is missing some crucial elements and could be
vulnerable to deterioration and collapse. If the relationship is
grounded in a solid foundation, however, beginning with a commitment not to the individual per se but to the relationship, it
can handle most any situation that may occur. That is what
completing the tasks of the Four Cs is designed to accomplish.
Over the decades of our working with couples, we also came
to see that whereas commitment was the foundation for a lasting

12

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

partnership and the essential first step, it was by no means the

only part of the fundamental structure of a healthy marriage or
relationship. As we explain later, the abilities to cooperate and
to communicate also play a large role in making the couple work
effectively and in a way that increases satisfaction. We worked
with our clients for many years creating commitment, teaching
cooperation, and fostering good communication. However, we
found that couples who had accomplished the basic tasks of
commitment, cooperation, and communication still experienced
considerable ongoing stress that was difficult for them to manage
as a couple. What we noticed in looking at our therapy successes,
our own life as a couple, and the lives of some of our close
friends was that the couples who maintained therapeutic gains
or remained happy and successful in their relationships were
those who had a support system comprised of other people in
healthy relationships. This discovery reminded us of our training
in group therapy that had taught us the power of universality,
altruism, and group cohesiveness (Yalom, 1994) in supporting
clients. We also remembered our experience of releasing patients
from inpatient treatment into circumstances in which little support was available, which caused them to return to the hospital
in short order. When we applied our experiences to couples, we
saw how important those kinds of outside connections were for
couples leaving treatment as well. Maintaining a couple as an
entity was a difficult task in many ways, and we began to believe
that creating a community of such couples or finding one for
clients to join was essential to their long-term success. What
emerged was the fourth C, community, the key to maintaining
gains and staying healthy as a couple. We came to see how it
supports the couple and gives them a place to share their concerns over time. This notion of finding or creating community
was reinforced in our own lives as we helped in the creation of
a national organization called Couples Coaching Couples (see
chap. 6). Preliminary research (Ferguson & Sheras, 2003) has
demonstrated that couples often credit the power of community
for their success as a couple.
The accomplishment of the Four Cs needs to be sequential:
commitment, cooperation, communication, and community.
They are presented in Part II of this volume in that order. These

INTRODUCTION

13

tasks have a cumulative effect and, although interrelated, each

one must be largely achieved before the next may be successfully
undertaken. The therapist needs to assess a couple's progress in
accomplishing each of the four tasks before proceeding therapeutically to the next. Questions for the therapist to ask couples in
assessing each of the Four Cs are presented at the end of each
of the chapters of Part II. Some couples come with one or
more of these tasks already completed; if that is the case, it is a
matter of identifying each area and filling in what is needed,
beginning with commitment.
Completion and mastery of all four tasks is the ultimate goal
of treatment. To ensure that the essential aspects of the Four
Cs operate continuously, the therapist needs to teach specific
practices and the couple clients need to learn and perform them
regularly. As in learning to practice daily meditation or brushing
one's teeth, it is not enough to just learn the method and put it
aside; it takes consistent, long-term practice to make a difference.
In this volume, we present the basic principles and practices that
a therapist needs to teach in order for a couple to accomplish
the tasks needed to have a profoundly fulfilling relationship. We
also emphasize the need for instructing couples how to consistently practice ways to incorporate what they have learned into
their daily lives after the termination of formal treatment.
We begin this volume by describing the prevailing paradigm
of marriage and relationship and propose a new paradigm that
redefines how to view couples and work with them. We then
describe a new possibility for being in a relationship (as a cocreating couple) and examine common ways that couples present
themselves in treatment before they are able to shift the paradigm. In Part II, we describe the basic structure of the tasks of
the Four Cs of CPT and provide guidelines for identifying when
and how to intervene therapeutically. This will enable the therapist to recognize where to start with each couple and how to
assess progress in each of the areas of the Four Cs. These procedures may be used in either couples therapy sessions or group
couples treatment, and with all types of couplesmarried or
not, heterosexual or homosexual. Therapies involving work with
married persons or those in committed relationships have traditionally been the province of what is called marital therapy. As

14

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

many authors have pointed out, however, the concept of marital

therapy, in some ways like the concept of marriage itself, has
changed over the past 20 years. In addition to those who seek
a traditional marriage or relationship, people now considering
themselves to be in relationships include populations such as
those who are ambivalent about their relationships, those who
are courting or beginning a relationship, gay male and lesbian
couples exploring their own unique intimate interactions, and
many who do not contemplate marriage at all (Mikesell, Lusterman, & McDaniel, 1995). We must also now include those who
merely consider some form of cohabitation or something more
than friendship, and those who are together for the sake of
parenting children or avoiding costly financial or emotional separations as well. As a result of these changes, Gurman and Jacobson (1995) pointed out that the word couple has replaced marriage
to describe this common form of therapy. The former is the term
we use throughout this book.
From time to time, it will be necessary to go back and check
or reinforce the operation of one or more of the Four Cs while
working on a subsequent task. In couples therapy, as in any
other form of treatment, once is definitely not enough. Common
difficulties and cultural obstacles that both therapists and clients
face in implementing the model are addressed in Part III, with
case examples and applications of the model provided. Understanding the obstacles that couples confront in completing the
Four Cs is crucial to the implementation and maintenance of the
model in couples' lives. After the Four Cs are learned, they
become not so much something to do over and over, but a
creative and powerful way of operating for both the therapist and
the couple. This new kind of couple consciousness is described at
the end of the volume.
CPT is the integration of a number of theories and practices
used in couples therapy over the past 30 years. Some of the
references cited are classics from earlier decades; in many ways,
much modern research and theory has veered away from looking
at the basic assumptions of what makes a healthy couple. Like
the proverbial elephant viewed from different angles, CPT may
appear to be both similar and dissimilar to other existing treatments. Viewed in one direction it is clearly recognizable and, in

INTRODUCTION

15

another, it appears to be quite unique. For instance, CPT includes

teaching cooperation skills and communication training, but only
when commitment to the relationship is present. It may appear
to be problem-focused but is different from traditional solutionfocused treatments; what matters is not how to take on the problem but the fact that the couple as an entity, not the individuals
in the couple, takes responsibility for the problem. CPT also
includes acceptance and flexibility, key components in many
therapies (Hendrix, 1988; Jacobson et al., 2000), but it emphasizes
the creation of an underlying commitment to the relationship as
the first step to facilitate acceptance and allow the couple to risk
being more flexible. (It may be, in fact, the implicit commitments
to the joint goals of a couple that enable acceptance and flexible
cooperation to occur.) The CPT model allows the therapist to
use many existing tools to help clients build a healthy relationship, but the blueprint of the structure to be built is unique.
Looking microcosmically at bits and pieces of this therapy makes
it appear similar to many other treatments, but the deep structure
and overall goals are different.
Perhaps the key element of the structure of CPT that distinguishes it from other seemingly similar therapies is the notion
of working with the couple as a committed entity. Thus, although
Hudson and O'Hanlon (1991) include commitment as one of
their "four factors to make a good and lasting relationship,"
they "avoid asking questions" about it "at the outset of marital
therapy" (p. 156) and start instead with skills such as effective
communication. The difficulty presented by individual partners
expressing doubt about loving each other (albeit clearly), a concern expressed by Hudson and O'Hanlon, is handled at the outset
in CPT by the creation of the couple as an entity to which each
partner can commit. Understanding this crucial difference helps
bypass the doubt and destructive communication that might
otherwise derail the therapy.
The partners' commitment to the couple as an entity may be
seen as a marital virtue, a concept explored recently by philosophical psychologists (Cushman, 1990; Powers, 2000; Richardson, 2001; Richardson, Powers, & Guignon, 1999). This
morally responsible view of "partnership marriage" includes
notions of teamwork, active listening, and the couple as a "mini-

16

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

community" (Powers, 2000, p. 197) going beyond just individual

gratification. CPT goes further by identifying particular tasks to
be accomplished in a specific order, with the help of the therapist.
These methods are designed to foster completing the tasks of
commitment, cooperation, and communication and, in addition,
the task of community at a broader level than that described by
Powers (2000). CPT expands the notion of mini-community to
encourage couples to discover or create a larger community of
couples. This larger community moves partners beyond the status quo and can create a revolution in accomplishing lasting
relationship satisfaction.
Once understood, the conceptual and operational model of
CPT can be applied to a variety of other relationships and settings, both personal and professionalincluding businesses and
organizations, parents and children, siblings, friends, and larger
communities. We welcome your feedback and encourage you
to experiment with this new way of working in your own professional milieu. During this process, we expect this model will
create new possibilities for you, as well as your clients, and that
you will enjoy this exciting way of working as much as we have.
For this to happen, we invite you to open your mind to try on
CPT and see how it might fit into your own practiceinto your
professional and also your personal life. We hope that this userfriendly book makes it easy to apply and integrate the techniques
into your own therapeutic style.
Developing the CPT model over the years with our own couple
and the couples with whom we have worked, we have been
inspired to use it, teach it, and write about it as often as possible
with some remarkable results, as we describe in the following
chapters. A growing body of research and clinical experiences
supports each of the four basic tasks. Some of this research is
cited in the relevant chapters. We welcome collaboration on
experimental studies of the specific model described here. While
studies are being undertaken by ourselves and others, we encourage you as therapists to apply these principles in your own work
and to experience the extraordinary outcomes that are possible
for you and your clients.

I
A New Paradigm
for Relationships:
Couple as an Entity

Chapter

1
Redefining Couple:
Shifting the Paradigm
efore we describe new techniques for couples work, it is
necessary to examine the prevailing ideas in psychology and
Western culture about what a couple is or ought to be. The term
couple refers to a specific type of relationship in society. It has
been, most traditionally, a marriage; it has recently grown to
include the identification of any two people in a committed,
intimate, and loving pair. What a couple is expected to be like
and how the members of the couple are supposed to behave is
conveyed through modeling and socialization by the culture in
which they live. The prevailing description of a healthy couple
derives from the current cultural paradigm. This paradigm directly influences how couples feel they measure up to the ideal
they expect and whether or not they may need help or guidance
in achieving it. It may also determine how therapists view the
aspirations of their couple clients and what constitutes a successful outcome of treatment.
For us to understand how to succeed in achieving a couple's
goals or to decide if the goals are attainable or even necessary,
it is first important to look at this prevailing paradigm of couple;
then we may determine whether a new paradigm might be more
useful. A shift in the paradigm about the ideal couple can open
up new opportunities for clients. It may also open the therapist's
eyes to new perspectives and create possibilities for different
approaches to working with couples.

19

20

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

The Concept of a Paradigm

Remember that a paradigm is a model that gives meaning to a
person's world. Paradigms shape not only what people think
they see but also how they perceive, understand, and interpret
everything around them (Covey, 1990). In the case of couples,
the partners may feel that good communication is the key to
a successful relationship or that being honest will make them
happier, or that love conquers all, or that having good sex means
that everything else is all right. Viewing a relationship through
such a narrow lens may blind people to other important issues
or obstruct their ability to envision things differently.
Cultures and subcultures prescribe behaviors consistent with
their own mores, language, and history, which leads to the development of expectations about how important marriage, religion,
and fidelity, for instance, should be. These expectations define
the idea of a good or successful relationship. For instance, the
notion of wedded bliss in our culture leads most couples to
believe that they should be happy most of the time, that sex
needs to be consistently exciting and gratifying to both partners,
and that all problems can be solved by the two of them alone.
Understanding the expectation of a paradigm such as the one
above is vital and instructive for those working with couples.
Individuals from different cultures, diverse ethnicities, or dissimilar family structures may have difficulty understanding their
partner because they do not relate to possible conflicting paradigms of the other person's culture or subculture. They may also
feel that the ideal of the culture in which they currently live
dictates that they act in a way that may be difficult or impossible
for them.
Paradigms may be seen by therapists as rational, normative
perspectives, but they can also produce potential restrictions or
limitations for both clients and those wishing to help them. A
couple's inability to see that they are stuck in a destructive paradigm or "box" makes it difficult to bring about change or allow
them to see a new possibility "outside the box." It is essential
for therapists to realize that they themselves may be stuck in
the same or similar paradigm as their clients. For instance, practitioners may be trapped in the same view about what being a

REDEFINING COUPLE

21

happy couple looks like. Therapists may also be caught in a

paradigm about how best to help, or what constitutes desired
outcomes. Being helpful may not be getting the couple to reach
the immediate goals they set within the prevailing paradigm
(e.g., financial security or an exciting sex life) but, rather, may
be getting them to see that invoking or constructing a new perspective may produce different positive outcomes. The job of
therapists, then, is not just to help a couple reach their goals but
to assist them in changing how they define the goals in the first
place. The couple may need to learn how to cooperate and see,
for instance, that focusing on learning this skill may be more
important to them than making money or having great sex all
the time.
Let's take the case of Jim and Judy. They came to therapy
because they both said their sex life was "a mess." Married for
nearly 10 years, they described themselves as happy in general.
Although they wanted to have children, they were unable to
conceive as a result of their sexual problems. Jim had an ejaculatory dysfunction caused by penile surgery he had as a child,
and physicians had been unable to treat his condition medically.
Jim and Judy began to date in high school, and Judy had been
his only sex partner. They reported enjoying their physical relationship a great deal despite his dysfunction. When they later
tried to conceive a baby, however, the complex medical procedure they needed to follow was awkward and discouraging for
them. They stopped having sex altogether and contemplated
divorce. They felt that their marriage could never be normal
because of his condition. He felt hopeless, and she felt cheated.
Jim and Judy were living in a paradigm that defined normal
marriage as requiring missionary sex, typical ejaculation, and
pregnancy. When they came for sex therapy the therapist encouraged them to explore a new model of sex and marriageto focus
on activities that gave them positive feelings about each other,
ways of giving each other pleasure and arousing each other
sexually in a variety of ways. They were prompted to try to
create good feelings from spending time together. To their surprise, they began to enjoy each other's company and physical
interactions againonce they were relieved of the expectation
to be normal. Once they began to see that physical intimacy

22

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

did not require the kind of sex they thought was necessary,
alternatives for sexual pleasure and procreation became apparent. They created a different paradigm for intimacy, couple, and
family. Seeing their options in a different way made them feel
happier and more successful. It opened up new possibilities for
their couple.

Understanding the Limitations of the

Current Paradigm of Couple
To help couples examine the paradigms in which they live and
to change or enlarge these boxes, we as therapists must identify
the limitations of the prevailing paradigm. These limitations (or
cultural barriers) may be internal or external, innate or acquired,
positive or negative. Some of the cultural barriers to being a
successful couple can be overcome by working to change behaviors within the existing paradigm or box; others necessitate moving outside the paradigm. Watzlawick, Weakland, and Fisch
(1974) speak about changes "inside the box" as first-order
changes; second-order changes take place "outside the box," in
a larger context or process. In the latter case, behaviors are
changed, not because they seem more reasonable or are reinforced, but because they are viewed in a new way.
It is this kind of paradigm shift, changing the entire framework
or context in which a concept exists versus a change of name or
conceptualization, that we feel is necessary for couples therapy.
For example, in a relationship, certain behaviors may be extremely annoying to one partner. The husband thinks, for example, that his wife is purposely trying to make him angry by
constantly asking for his help. A therapist may rename this behavior as "trying to get your attention because she loves you."
A whole different paradigm would examine the assumption that
needing to get the other's attention is the important variable
here. If it is not necessary to prove that the significant other cares
by getting attention in a negative way, the annoying behavior
may no longer be essential.
Of all the characteristics of the dominant paradigm for relationships that therapists currently encounter, the most impor-

REDEFINING COUPLE

23

tant and pervasive limitation appears to be the principle of

individualismthe notion that being independent and getting
one's needs met is the highest form of personal functioning.
From this perspective, a couple is an arrangement between two
individuals. In this paradigm, great emphasis is placed on concerns about losing individuality, personal autonomy, and power.
In the United States and Europe since the end of the Second
World War,
there clearly has emerged an ethos of radical individualism
in which personal autonomy, individual rights, and social
equality has [sic] gained supremacy as the cultural ideal. In
keeping with these ideals the main goals of personal behavior
have shifted from commitment to social units of all kinds
(families, communities, religions, nations) to personal
choices, lifestyle options, self-fulfillment, and personal pleasure. (Popenoe, 1991, p. 52)

This paradigm of individualism is one of the major societal

factors responsible for the current deterioration of couple relationships. Powers (2000) called it "the dominant philosophy of
American life, which helped inspire the myth of marital happiness" (p. 97). It accounts for many of the difficulties people in
modern Western culture encounter in firmly establishing themselves as couplesand that psychotherapists encounter in treating them. Although a strong individual identity is certainly
important for both individual and couple fulfillment, it seems
to have gone too far, fostering the "me" generation of recent
decades. Social critic Christopher Lasch (1979) warned decades
ago of a spiritual crisis in America: "To live for the moment is
the prevailing passionto live for yourself, not for your predecessors or posterity" (p. 5). The passion for being an individual
has threatened the desire and ability to sustain couple relationships, even in marriages with children. "The more crucial
reality," according to Hacker (2003), "is that the shifts that are
occurring are making it harder for members of the two sexes to
adapt to one another" (p. 35).
There are certainly some positive outcomes of the present
emphasis on individualism in relationships. These include an

24

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

increased freedom of expression for both women and men and

less emphasis on staying together purely out of obligation or
duty. However, there are too many unnecessary and premature
casualties of individualism among couples. Cross-cultural research has indicated, in fact, that the "high divorce rate that
characterizes American society is due in good part to the culture's
exaggerated sense of individualism" (Dion & Dion, 1988, p. 286).
Within the paradigm of individualism, therapeutic efforts ultimately treat the individuals and their ability to exist separately
in the couple, rather than teaching them to be a couple together.
Stan and Carla, for example, came to treatment because they
were separating. Each had a full-time job. When Carla began to
work, she arranged her schedule so that one of them was always
home with their baby. Each wanted a career, however. Even
though the money from two incomes was not essential, Carla
had said she wanted to feel useful in the world and not just be
a mother to their child. From the beginning, things did not go
well. They rarely had time together and when they did, one was
usually coming home tired from work while the other was just
getting ready to go. Carla felt that she was getting little support
at home from Stanchores were not done, and he was not
emotionally responsive. Stan felt alone at home and missed Carla.
Carla eventually formed a relationship with a salesman with
whom she worked closely at the office, and they began an affair.
She then decided to leave Stan. In this case, individual plans
and goals took precedence over the needs of their relationship.

Limitations of the Paradigm of Individualism

The paradigm of individualism leads to many perceptions that
may impede the progress of therapy and the healthy development and maintenance of a couple relationship. Therapists
often see at least three patterns. The first of these is the fear of
intimacythat is, the fear of the loss of individual identity or
personal space; the second impediment is egocentrism, when
the person experiences a conflict of interest between couple and
personal goals; the third difficulty is the issue of sacrifice and
the related notion of compromise.

REDEFINING COUPLE

25

Fear of Intimacy
Many people enter their relationship with little understanding of
what it takes to function together successfully. During childhood
and adolescence, they developed an identity based on personal
uniqueness, engrossed in the struggle to become superior to their
peers and independent of their parents. During the school years,
emphasis is placed on individual grades and personal achievement. Even while struggling with pressures to conform and
strong needs to affiliate, teenagers try to be themselves, original
and one-of-a-kind. It is no wonder that when they begin to
consider being part of a couple, they are concerned about losing
what they have so recently gainedwhat they consider to be
their separate sense of self. This intense desire to maintain the
unique self leads to the fear that their identity might be submerged, taken over, or negated by the force of their partner's
identity.
In the early stages of a relationship, this interplay of two selves
is usually playful, flirtatious, and competitive. When the time
comes for a long-term commitment to be made, to decide whether
to stay together, marry, and have children, the challenge to the
sense of individuality reemerges. This challenge may form a
barrier to creating a couple and to successful treatment as well.
Although we as therapists often attempt to create some space
for individual time and some for the couple (my time, your time,
and our time), conflicts over apportioning this time are often
quite intense and threatening to a sense of the independence our
clients seem to desire. For example, having one's own space,
room, checking account, and the like may seem to be protection
of personal identity, but it may really just be a hedge to prevent
the person from confronting their fears of committing to a relationship fully and trusting the couple to protect them.
Egocentrism
If each member of a couple is a unique individual, as the prevailing cultural paradigm insists, then occasions will arise
when what one person wants differs significantly from what
the other wants. These conflicts of interest cause a mismatch

26

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

of expectations (Hacker, 2003) and potentially severe upsets,

threatening the longevity of the relationship. "Brides and grooms
are less embarking on a journey together than on a trip with two
separate itineraries and destinations" (Hacker, p. 35). This kind
of exaggerated egocentrism often leads to arguments designed
to convince the other person that what he or she wants is not
important or less important. It is not uncommon to find that one
partner attempts to intimidate or threaten the other one to get
his or her way. Threats to leave, to assault physically, to deny
sex, or to collapse emotionally are common manifestations of
these conflicts of interest. Therapists are often called on to mediate these disputes, to judge whose needs are most important or
more normal or, at least, to get the partners to "fight fair."
Carlos and Wanda, a couple for 4 years, came to therapy saying
that they were constantly arguing. Their fights were often about
small things, such as what to wear to a party or which grade of
gasoline to put in the car. Both were unable to give in to the
other on anything. Both reported that they felt threatened and
intimidated by what the other wanted. Carlos said that when
Wanda did not get her way, she would withdraw from him and
sulk for days. Wanda said that Carlos would sometimes even
threaten to hurt her physically (although he never had). They
wanted the therapist to tell them who was right. The therapist
knew that this would not solve their problems, but each of the
partners was adamant and unwilling to give in. The therapist
was able to see that the arguments were about not only content
issues but also conflicts of individual interest that escalated because of their egocentrism. Each felt that he or she would be
dominated by the other and lose his or her individual identity.
When this was pointed out to them, they were able to stop
fighting and reexamine what they really wanted from the
relationship.
Sacrifice and Compromise
Most couples feel that to be in a healthy relationship, each member must be willing to give something up. They think the more
they want the relationship to succeed, the more they must be
willing to sacrifice and the more significant the sacrifices must

REDEFINING COUPLE

27

be. Many couples feel that they are willing to make a sacrifice,
but want to be assured that their partner is making an equivalent
concession. In many cases, the sacrifice that one person makes
is either unacknowledged or undervalued by the other, which
creates a sense of martyrdom or resentment.
Jason and Jodi, a young married couple with one child, came
to therapy at her insistence. He had to give up his Wednesday
night softball games to come. Jason wasn't sure what she wanted
and was clearly feeling hassled. She explained that for years she
had been taking care of the house and their young daughter as
well as managing the checkbook while he was out most nights
with his friends, playing sports and having fun. She did not see
him very much, and when he was home, either he was distracted
watching TV or she was exhausted from doing her chores. In
the past year, she had taken on a part-time clerical job to help with
the finances, but she felt unacknowledged for her extra work.
Jason said that he was confused by Jodi's feelings. He worked
hard during the week and brought in a fair amount of money.
He felt that he needed his time at home to rest. He felt that she
did not have a full-time job, so that, though she did manage the
household, she had more time to do her own things during
the day while he was at work. He felt that his main job was
professional work, and hers was to be at home. She might want
to have a career later, after their daughter Lorna was out of
elementary school. This was the way it had been with his parents
when Jason was growing up.
Jason thought that changing their patterns would mean that
he would have to give up what he believed in. He thought he
needed to use his free time to have fun and recuperate from
work. Jodi felt she had to sacrifice her own desires to do what
he wanted. She said that she saw her own mother do what her
father wanted all the time, giving up a promising career as an
artist. Jodi decided she was unwilling to do the same. She was
tired of giving things up for Jason, and he seemed unwilling to
do so for her. Each one did not want to make a sacrifice for the
other person to make them happier. When this became clear in
therapy, it became the immediate focus of their sessions.
For some couples, sacrifice seems like an intense form of compromise in which what they must give up is extremely costly to

28

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

them. Compromise is a similar concept but with the implication

that there is consensus about what is to be given up and more
acknowledgment for it. The notion of compromise is distinct
from what we describe as cooperation, which will be discussed
later (see chap. 4, this volume). Although the word compromise
often means the act of giving something up, its Latin root means
a mutual promise. The negative connotation of the word compromise, driven by the common idea that to share, one has to give
something up, can be destructive to the establishment of a healthy
and flexible relationship. However, the second way to view this
worda compromise seen as an opportunity to decide some
actions togethermay be a sign of cooperating as a healthy
couple. The first sort of compromise may frighten couples away
from the commitment of a relationship, whereas the second
meaning may show them some possibilities they had not seen
yet. It is important, then, for a therapist to help couples understand this second meaning of compromise to avoid the profoundly individualistic idea portrayed by the first meaning.

A New Paradigm of Couple

The cultural paradigm of individualism reflects the belief that a
relationship is the coming together of two individuals in such
a way that each of their needs can be met by the other. The
primary focus is on the individual being satisfied. The creation
of a couple, in this sense, is seen through the eyes of the individual, not the vision for the relationship. Most people look for a
perfect partnerfor Mr. Right or the Perfect Woman. These
ideals are based on expectations of individuals who want always
to be able to be completely themselves while still being part of
an equal and loving couple. However, the chance of such perfect
individuals getting together in perfectly equal relationships is
quite small.

The Couple as Entity

A different paradigm of relationships is possible, one in which
the couple is viewed as an entityin and of itself. The partners

REDEFINING COUPLE

29

do not see the relationship as primarily meeting their individual

or even each other's needs, but rather meeting the agreed upon
needs of the relationship itself. They are devoted to the entity
that they create together. For instance, Campbell (1988) stated,
"Marriage is a relationship. When you make the sacrifice in
marriage, you're sacrificing not to each other, but to the unity
in a relationship" (p. 7). The couple becomes an entity when
the partners form a relationship according to certain conditions.
When they are joined together as one, primarily by saying that
it is so, they do not act in relation to each other, but in relation
to the couple entity. This is a paradigm for couples entirely
different from the one based on the culture of individualism
described above.
When this paradigm of couple is used, while individual histories are still addressed, the focus in therapy changes from meeting
individual expectations and goals to forming and meeting the
goals of the couple. It is often said when referring to good relationships that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. In
the paradigm of couple as an entity, the relationship goes beyond
the contributions of the individuals. They are not just adding
more feelings and behaviors to the repertoire of themselves as
individuals, but generating different ones that serve the couple.
These new behaviors are similar to what Powers (2000) called
"partnership virtues" that "exist for the sake of a higher good
... a better marriage" (p. 113).
If a couple is an entity, and it is the creation and maintenance
of that entity that allows for happy and fulfilling partnerships,
then commitment to the goals of that unified relationship is
essential. Therapists need to help clients create their couple entity
or discover that such an entity already exists. Our culture has
no real name for this entity, although the word marriage purports
to be that name. As mentioned earlier, this entity will be referred
to here as couple without the use of the article the or a in front
of it. A couple or the couple, on the other hand, reflects the paradigm of individuality of two people trying to achieve some
particular thing together. Nock (1999) described this condition
as being "like two soloists [who] do not make a very good duet"
(p. 26). Even though they may both be excellent musicians, they
play their individual parts, lacking a sense of what the entire

30

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

piece should sound like. Individuals may share many things or

have a great deal in common, but this "may not be sufficient to
create an enduring entity without including a shared commitment to a larger notion of what it means to be a couple" (Sheras
& Koch-Sheras, 2000, p. 88).
Once couple as an entity is established, it empowers the
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of the partners. The world is
seen through the eyes of the entity known as couple. It becomes
the paradigm through which partners view the world and act
in it. It is vital for the couples therapist to note that most clients
arrive for treatment without having truly established their couple
in this sense. They may believe that they are a couple but do
not see what is missing, or they try to fix what is wrong with
the other person, thinking that will be the solution. If couple is
an entity and not just two individuals, it has, in some sense, its
own being. This being motivates behaviors. This being comes,
not from individualism, but from couplism.
Once the entity is established, there is no need to prove its
existence. The couple is because the partners agree that it is.
Then the couple, not the individuals but the unit with nothing
to prove to one another, acts. For a couple operating within the
individualism paradigm, the individuals must usually prove that
they are dedicated to each other to convince themselves that
they are a viable couple. They might plan a trip or even buy a
new house, but they may not really be couple. Once couple is
created, rather than wondering if they have an acceptable partner
and constantly evaluating their actions (e.g., Does she love me?
Is he passionate enough for me?), the partners are now able to
examine the goals of the relationship to which they are committed, and to see if their actions are consistent with the vision they
have created for their couple entity together. In this regard,
couple is a place to come from, not a place to get to. The couple,
not the individuals, takes on the problems. Clients soon realize
through couple power therapy (CPT) that couple is who you
are, not what you do. Actions and behaviors are a by-product
of being couple, not things designed to demonstrate that they
can be dedicated to each other. Partners become dedicated to
the relationship, not just to each other.

REDEFINING COUPLE

31

Barb and Daniel had been dating for 2 years and went to
couples therapy to explore a "deeper commitment." Dan had
some nagging concerns about trusting Barb to be both financially
and emotionally responsible in their relationship. They had tried
to make a joint budget and even plan a vacation but always
argued about the details. Dan was not sure whether they were
really a coupleor just two people who had fun doing things
together. The therapist shifted the emphasis from what each
person wants to creating the couple as an entity.
T: What is it that you would like from Barb?
D: I want to know that I can trust her completely.
T: If you could trust her completely, what would your couple be like?
D: What do you mean, what would our couple be like?
T: What would your couple be like together as a unit? How
would you be as a couple?
D: Well, we would trust each other. I could ask her to do
anything and she would do it, or at least tell me why she
couldn't at the time.
B: And vice versa. I could ask you and you would do it.
And we could talk about it.
D: Yeah, I guess so.
T: So together you might be able to decide what you
would do?
B: And if we really understood each other, I wouldn't ask
him to do anything outrageous. And he could trust me.
T: Why don't you do that this week, Dan? Why don't you
do everything that Barb asks, whatever it is, and see what
happens. That way you might see if you can trust her to do
what is best for your couple.

Dan was anxious about the task, to say the least, but reluctantly
agreed. When they returned at the next session, Dan reported
that, to his surprise, Barb's requests were very reasonable and
not at all irresponsible or impossible. She said that she knew

32

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

that the requests she made were really not for her alone, but for
their couple. He saw that he could tell her to ask for anything
because she would never ask for anything that was not consistent
with being couple.
The Goals of Therapy
Couples therapy may be an effective vehicle for addressing individual problems or dysfunctions. The treatment of these difficulties often significantly influences the overall happiness of a
couple or marriage by enhancing the happiness of one of the
partners. Although treating individual issues may be useful in
its own right, CPT focuses on the interventions and tasks that
foster the health of the overall marriage or relationship itself.
The concept here is that this therapy is treatment of and for
the relationship, not primarily for the individuals per se. Even
though it is likely that a positive relationship helps support
individual progress, the focus here is on creating and maintaining
the couple partnership. The basic principle of the couple power
model is that a relationship that is functioning well is the bedrock
of mental health in most aspects of a person's life. Most therapies
assume that healthy individuals are necessary to produce a
healthy couple. This new paradigm encompasses the idea that
a healthy, well-functioning relationship supports the health of
the individual. In some ways, CPT could be considered a source
of healing and support to help families deal with their issues,
and to help individuals deal with their issues as well. Luquet
(1996) stated, for instance, "Healthy conscious relationships may
be the means for individuals to reclaim their 'wholeness' and
pass on a peaceful consciousness to future generations" (p. 13).
A couple that shares problems and supports its own general
well-being can't help but support the health of the individuals.
For instance, a couple might create a commitment to healthy
nutrition or lifestyle and together produce a more complete
healthful environment, more than can be created by one of them
alone, even for the sake of the other.
Why study or work with the functioning of the couple in
particular rather than the individual or the family as a whole?
We believe that the couple is the essential element in overcoming

REDEFINING COUPLE

33

the limitations of the paradigm of individualism. To be part of

a couple creates immediate opportunities for developing meaningful sharing, cooperation, and teamwork. It is in a couple
relationship, an intimate relationship of choice, not blood relation, that one must learn to love, share, cooperate, and forgive
to meet mutual goals. In this sense, couple is not just a part of
the family but is the genesis of the family, the source and model
of positive relatedness between the partners and all family
members.
This book is designed to help practitioners to determine
(a) reasonable goals or outcomes for healthy couples to achieve
with our help as therapists and (b) the methods that help to
promote these gains. As a starting point, an assessment of goals
to reach in couples therapy may include the following:
D
D
n
n
D
n
D
D

maintenance of a positive relationship and divorce prevention,

reduction of discord,
increase in intimacy,
increase in marital satisfaction,
effective communication between partners,
increase in happiness and joy,
increase in positive sexual functioning or fulfillment,
sense of mutual accomplishments and cooperation (e.g.,
parenting, teamwork), ability to construct a future or a
vision for the couple together, and
community participation with extended family or other
couples.

To aid client couples in reaching these goals, the therapist

needs to coach his or her clients to see the obstacles that often
stand in the way of achieving them. Within the context of the
new paradigm, therapeutic goals include helping clients to understand and establish the entity couple, or to decide that such
a commitment is not viable at this time. Many therapists know
that it is difficult to treat a client who is not committed to being
in treatment. In couples therapy, it is difficult to treat partners
who are not first committed to work on being couple. To be
successful in this kind of work, the partners must learn a new
paradigm of couple. The therapist, who is already familiar with

34

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

it and has a model for explaining it, presents the new paradigm
to them. Introducing the four basic tasks of couple, or the Four
Cs of Couple Power, is the best way to begin. It is important to
accomplish these tasks in sequence, and all participants should
understand how each of these tasks reflects the paradigm shift
described above. Each of the Four Cs counters the negative force
of individualism as it builds couple. Whereas Part II describes
in detail how to accomplish the Four Cs, we provide a brief
summary in the context of the new paradigm here.
The first task to accomplish is the establishment of commitment
to the couple as an entity. This is separate and distinct from
committing to each other as individuals. It is the task of the
therapist to create the awareness of this entity and the vision of
what a true couple relationship is for the partners. This includes
the process of asking them to consider what sort of relationship
would be possible for them, and then committing to it. Once
couple is established or recognized, helping the partners in therapy is much simpler because they do not question the existence
of their couple. Commitment to being a happy couple becomes
paramount, as opposed to commitment to personal happiness.
By the way, it has been our experience that couples who are
happy as couple are usually happy as individuals as well.
Once commitment to the couple entity is established, the next
task is to teach the partners how to meet the stated goals of their
couple. This is accomplished by learning the second C, the task
of cooperation. Despite what most couples think, they usually
do not know how to operate effectively as a team to achieve
common goals. They may not have been able to even generate
common goals that they each can believe inusually because
they have been socialized to compete as individuals and have
never had to practice teamwork together. Although individually
they may have had the experience of working on a team in sports
or business, they do not generally apply the skills from these
areas to common goals in their couple. Partners often attempt
to compromise by giving up something. It is unlikely that
compromising will satisfy either partner completely. Someone
usually ends up feeling guilty, resentful, or compromised. Cooperation as couple involves learning such concepts as teamwork,

REDEFINING COUPLE

35

goal setting, and coaching. These skills are described in subsequent chapters.
The need to speak clearly to a partner and to be understood
is very important in any healthy relationship. Most people think
that communication is the most important factor in a relationship.
To communicate effectively, however, the partners first have to
create a framework for the purpose of supporting the couple as
a committed entity. This is in contrast to communicating just
to meet the needs of the individuals; that kind of communication is based on self-centeredness and the paradigm of individualism rather than cooperation. The new paradigm, on the other
hand, allows partners to communicate through their commitment to couple versus the individual. Only when this has been
accomplished can communication (the third C) be effectively
accomplished.
The last of the Four Cs is community. Together with the first
C (commitment), these two concepts form the frame or bookends
of the new couple paradigm. People need the supportive structure and collective group identification that a larger group or
community is able to provideeven when they are already in
a satisfying relationship. Communities may include a number
of generations, including elders or parents, or they may be comprised predominantly of peers, those in the couple's age group,
neighbors, friends, or relatives. The first form of community
might be called vertical, and the second, horizontal. In past generations, when couples were created in a context of a larger community of shared values and goals, the focus of being together
both within generations and with peerscould go beyond the
individual or just the relationship itself. Today, people are often
more motivated by a sense of individual entitlement than a sense
of connection; they are more concerned with the satisfaction of
their personal needs than with developing a sense of community
with others. At the same time, whether single or in couples,
people desperately need and seek connection with others.
The diagram that follows briefly portrays the four basic tasks
to be accomplished in treatment (see Figure 1.1). After the establishment of commitment, therapy provides the skills of cooperation and then aids the partners in communicating clearly. Finally,

36

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

COMMITMENT

COOPERATION

COMMUNICATION

COMMUNITY
Figure 1.1.

The basic tasks of CPT treatment.

a strong community helps to reinforce the commitment made

by the partners and provides support for it. It is also true that
commitment fosters better communication, and cooperation
helps build community.

How to Change Paradigms

The focus of the approach to couples work proposed in this
volume is based on the notion that to be most effective, it is
necessary to change or shift the paradigm of couple from working
with two individuals to working with the entity of couple. This
is easier said than done, of course. To aid clients in shifting the
paradigm they have for relationships, we as therapists must
first shift our own. Therapists must examine their own relationshipsnot just those with significant others, but with clients as

REDEFINING COUPLE

37

well. This task involves more than just looking at countertransference issues with particular clients. It means examining feelings
about their own relationships and values. Practitioners may come
to see that their own expectations about relationships may limit
the possibilities of client couples. In fact, the practitioners themselves may actually be a part of the problem they are trying
to help alleviate. Questions that need to be asked include the
following: Are the goals in treatment geared to individual change
or a change in the paradigm of the couple problem? When feeling
frustrated or blocked by clients, how do I as a therapist think
about the problem?
In the context of treating couples, it is useful for us to see
therapists as agents of change. First, we teach clients to view the
world differently, and then we support them in finding ways
to operate inside the new paradigm they have adopted. In his
description of scientific revolutions, Kuhn (1970) described the
process of change as a "relatively sudden and unstructured
event" (p. 62). This "aha" experience is possible only if we,
as therapists, are willing to view things differently ourselves.
Practitioners need to view relationships from a different perspective than they have in the past: They need to look at what is
possible in the futurenot just to look for the problems, but to
see possibilities as well. That requires not looking for what is
wrong, but for what is possible for the couples with whom
we work.
Likewise, we should look at what is possible for couples therapy in the future, and not be overly critical about what has
failed. "One of the most common fallacies about change is the
conclusion that if something is bad, its opposite must necessarily
be good" (Watzlawick et al., 1974, p. 19). Attempting to shift a
paradigm by trying to facilitate the opposite behaviors of clients
may represent only a first-order solution.
For example, the couple that argues over the fact that the
husband will not pick up his dirty underwear from the bedroom
floor may work with a therapist to find a way to change this
behavior. One suggestion might be that he pay a fine each time
he leaves his briefs around, or be rewarded every time he puts
them in their proper place. These solutions are predicated on
the assumption that this is a problem and that the husband is

38

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

wrong in what he does. Even though he may comply, he is likely

to feel like a bad child and perform his tasks grudgingly. On
the other hand, if the "dirty underwear" behavior is seen as an
opportunity for the couple entity, it could generate a different
sort of solution. The couple might take on the issue as a team
or joint project. They might buy a backboard to place on the
laundry hamper so that the husband can shoot his shorts in the
basket before going to bed. This is fun for both the husband and
the couple, acknowledging their mutual desire for playfulness,
instead of his sloppiness.
In treating couples, we must take care and look for possible
solutions in creative ways. Although therapists often look to the
past for explanations and ideas, it might be more useful to look
to the future. If a miracle occurred, how would the partners like
things to be, and how might the couple entity support such
behaviors? Changing paradigms is not easy. It requires flexibility,
daring, inventiveness, and playfulness. When one is feeling
stuck, it is fine to stop and try something else. When a negative
outcome is likely to occur again for some clients, take a deep
breath and consider something off the wall. It may be that any
change at that point is better than no change at all. We often
use the analogy for clients that changing their view and behavior
from individualism to couplism is like going from seeing the
world as flat to seeing it as round. This new perspective changes
almost everything for the better, but it is a difficult adjustment
to make initially.

When Paradigms Are Shifted

Despite the sometimes obvious benefits, most people continue
to avoid change. It is just too scary. People are taught by the
news media and their own experiences to believe that any time
things change, they can always get worse. Although it is possible
to find a few examples of when things did get worse, people
often overlook times when the opposite was true.
Changing the paradigm of relationships epitomizes for clients
both their fears and their potential. Couples often seem to be
holding onto slim hopes, distorting reality, or trying to get per-

REDEFINING COUPLE

39

mission to start over. The idea of viewing the couple as an entity

changes what is conceptualized. The client couple moves from
blaming each other individually to working together as a unit.
The therapist moves from analyzing the problem to envisioning
a possibility. The practitioner may thereby help couples create
something that will give them joy and happiness, not just remove
annoyance or pain. In doing so, they can assist a couple in reaching new heights in functioning, satisfaction, and happiness. Remember, of course, that there likely will be another paradigm
that will help us place this one in perspective some day as well!

Chapter

2
The Cocreating Couple:
A New Possibility
anaging problems of inflexibility when working with couples is often the first challenge for the couples therapist.
The partners must be open and flexible enough to consider new
ways of thinking and behaving. Causing change or creating new
perspectives involves assessing past and current patterns of
behavior. Helping a couple to be more flexible is essential to
exploring new possibilities and effecting successful therapeutic
outcomes. In this chapter, we describe what flexibility in a wellfunctioning couple relationship (i.e., the cocreating couple) might
look like and compare it with common fixed patterns often seen
in couples coming for treatment.

Characteristics of the Flexible

Cocreating Couple
It is important for couples therapists to have a clear notion of a
healthy relationship as a framework for working with clients.
Although well-trained in identifying and diagnosing dysfunction
in individuals and couples, therapists often lack a positive model
of couple functioning. A picture of the behavioral repertoire or
identity of a well-functioning couple can be constructed on the
basis of the notion of the couple as an entity. Most couples living
in an individualistic culture fit the definition of identity as a
41

42

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

"fixed pattern of characteristics enduring over time"; however,

a truly well-functioning couple is actually less a fixed unit and
more a flexible way of operating. Once a therapist adopts the
concept of couple as an entity, this model is capable of creating
a powerful relationshipone that is able to accommodate over
time to personal, social, and environmental change. We call this
kind of couple pattern cocreating. Couples in distress do not
generally come in for treatment already equipped with the necessary set of characteristics or skills to function in this way. Fortunately, however, most of them are able to learn how to become
a cocreating couple by practicing the set of cognitions and behaviors described here that therapists can help them to master.
The cocreating couple is actually more a process than a static
set of behaviors belonging to a definable entity. These kinds of
couples may look different, each with their own unique pattern
or identity, depending on the needs and creativity of the partners.
Although it is made up of two individuals, the cocreating couple
is greater than and different from the sum of its two individual
parts. It is a way of being to be created, rather than a specific goal
or set of behaviors to achieve. It is about creating new possibilities
continuously, not so much meeting any particular ideal. The
cocreating couple is creating their relationship together as they
go along, instead of striving to achieve a specific type of relationship. The cocreating couple is continuously able to develop their
own way of being that meets their changing needs, rather than
following any set pattern or expectations.
Individuals in this kind of couple see options beyond what
their culture presents them, so they are more able to get past
the obstacles to couple that exist in our society. If one of them
loses a job, for example, they work together to come up with a
creative solution. Rather than either one of them feeling pressured to handle the situation in a way that they think they should,
they find options togethereven if it takes added time and
effort. This kind of flexibility enables them to deal with change
effectively. They accept that things change, instead of living from
one crisis to the next. When things become difficult, they work
together to handle it rather than blaming themselves or each
other for the problem.

THE COCREATING COUPLE

43

Extreme case examples often help to elucidate a point. A powerful example of a couple's need to be flexible and overcome
blame is dealing with the death of a child. A traumatic event
like that has a strong negative impact on the well-being of the
individuals and the couple, often leading to divorce. It has been
shown that the effects of such a loss are ameliorated with spousal
support (Broman, Riba, & Trahan, 1996).
Helen and Jamie, a happy couple for 8 years, experienced a
traumatic impact on their lives when a drunk driver hit the car
Helen was driving, killing their only child. Both partners were
emotionally shattered by this crisis. They each worked on their
grief individually, sharing with therapists and friends. At one
point, they considered splitting up but, instead, looked for new
ways to relate to each other. They had the idea of getting in
touch with old friends who had known them early on in their
relationship. These old friends could help them remember and
reconstruct their original couplebefore they had a child. This
helped give them enough strength to heal, grieve together, and
create new options. They used this process to build a new vision
and possibility for their coupleincluding having more children
(eventually having three more).
Couples like Helen and Jamie operate with flexibility. They
are able to deal with change by looking at what is possible rather
than what is wrong, and by living with a focus on the future
rather than the past. What enables cocreating couples to maintain
the quality of their relationship over time is their ability to see
their couple as an ongoing processnot a static end point to be
reached. These kinds of couples realize that the commitment to
their relationship does not end with their wedding vows, at
which point in time they will automatically live happily ever
after, as in a fairy tale.
The cocreating couple is constantly evolving and adapting
realistically to changing circumstances. That is why we call it
cocreating, not cocreative, which implies a static state. Each of the
partners realizes that what is at stake is being happy and fulfilled
in the relationship most of the time. Helen and Jamie's marriage
would certainly have died with their child if they had not had
the stamina and vision to create something different for their

44

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

couple in the future. It took a great deal of courage as well as

confidence in their ability to create a powerful new way of being
as a couple. Their newly created relationship would not be based
on what was expected from the past, but rather what was possible
for the future. They did not have to settle for just surviving but
could work together to fully heal their couple and each other.
To keep their love and their couple alive, Helen and Jamie
needed to work through their grief and get beyond their own
individual needs to see the value and possibility of their couple
as a whole. They had to acknowledge their individual pain while
staying connected to each other and to the potential of their
couple as a unit. When they lost their child, it might have seemed
easier to end their marriage and just start over, focusing on their
own individual pain and their own separate goals. This kind of
solution, however, would have ended the connection and support they could get from their couple and would have increased
the me-you individualistic oppositional forces between them.
The solutions of the cocreating couple are more consistent
with a collectivist view: "autonomy and connection are viewed
... as complementary essences (e.g., from the Chinese Taoist
conceptualization of yin and yang) that contribute to the relational
whole" (Ting-Toomey, 1994, p. 53). A collectivist view of the
couple is crucial to overcoming external circumstances and pressures from the environment. The members of any couple are
constantly pressured by two conflicting forcesthe urge for
independence and the desire for a lasting partnership. The commitment to their couple as an entity is what enables them to
withstand the pressures of staying together as a couple over time.
The members of a cocreating couple derive a great deal of
what they need to make their relationship work by committing
beyond individual goals to common ones. It is the therapist's
job to help them envision what they might see as the higher
purpose of their couple, one that constantly re-creates itself.
Individual goals and perspectives are shared not to strengthen
one's own case but to contribute to a mutual view of what
will preserve and nurture the relationship. This sharing requires
getting past each partner's individual wants and needs to help
the couple develop a joint vision that assimilates their separate
perspectives. Existing rigid couple interaction patterns, described

THE COCREATING COUPLE

45

below, may also inhibit the move to collectivist thinking and

cocreating processes.
The skills available to a cocreating couple are similar to those
needed for operating as a team. The members of a couple identify
themselves as a unit or team, with each partner (player) making
a valuable contribution toward the goals of the couple as a whole.
They function like the poles of a teepeeeach one strong in their
own right leaving space for the other to function, while being
mutually supportive of the whole. They operate as partners all
of the time, even when they are not doing the same thing. They
are not just with each other; they are for each other. Even though
one or both partners might be in a bad mood or under stress
one day, they know they will work things out somehow. When
they cannot agree on what to do, they take turns generating
solutions, or they originate a new plan. If one of the team players
is sitting on the bench, as Helen was when she was in the hospital
after the car accident, the other one pinch-hits for the couple
team. Jamie made the effort to ask their friends to help care for
Helen and support their couple at the same time. That commitment to their team helped to keep their couple in the gameas
well as keep Jamie out of getting deeper into his own depression.
Helen made sure to ask their friends to get Jamie to talk about
his feelings. As members of the same team, they saw that each
of them was responsible not only for their own performance and
well-being but also for the other player as well.
In this sense, working together as a team and maintaining a
cocreating couple is not a 50/50 proposition; it is a 100% /100%
endeavor. Each partner in the couple takes 100% of the responsibility for the outcome and is 100% committed to doing whatever
is best for the couple as a whole, no matter how challenging. In
this way, the couple cares for their relationship as if it were their
child. The partners or "caretakers" of the couple do not think
of abandoning their creation just because they disagree on what
to do. They do not ignore the entity they have created just because
it is not their turn to be responsible. If communication problems
arise, the therapist shifts the focus from blaming each other to
taking on the conflict as if it were the child belonging to the
couple, not the individual. A solution involves asking what the
couple can do, not waiting for each individual to do his or her

46

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

50% share. It is not "She needs to change" or "If only he would.

. . . " Instead, it looks like "How can we understand each other
better?" or "How can we support clear communication without
blaming each other?"
A young intercultural couple, Carol and Ravi, demonstrated
the power of a cocreating relationship when dealing with his
parents in India who opposed their engagement and marriage.
The pressure was so great that they had considered breaking
up. By getting clear about their commitment to their couple,
Carol was able to give up her expectations about how she thought
her in-laws should act and Ravi committed to making it work
for both their couple and his extended family. It was a difficult
but ultimately successful effort. In cocreating their relationship,
they were able to see that what really mattered was pursuing
their larger vision, rather than meeting their current idealized
expectations of themselves, each other, or their families. They
were able to stop judging and start supporting each other, their
families, and their couple as well. When they stopped testing
each other on how they were doing, they could give all their
energy to making it work.
After a trip to visit Ravi's parents in India, Carol and Ravi
gave 100%/100% to getting past feeling misunderstood by each
other. Each of them felt like the other had been unwilling to step
into the other's world and see the other's difficulty. Rather than
staying stuck in being right about their own individual thoughts
and feelings, however, they were able to take on the issue as a
team, with both of them together responsible for the outcome.
From this place, they acknowledged each other for their commitment to the relationship, rather than blaming each other for their
problems. They continued to reach out to his parents as couple,
returning to India 2 years later with their new baby for another
visit, still working as a team to keep couple and family alive
and well.
Many cocreating couples share the characteristics of flexibility
in managing their lives. This flexible behavior enables them to
overcome the various obstacles to couple that they encounter
along the way. For example, rather than adhering to any fixed
gender stereotype, they are able to assume either male or female
gender roles when needed. People exhibiting this kind of an-

THE COCREATING COUPLE

47

drogynous behavior have reported the greatest levels of marital

satisfaction and personal adjustment (Cooper, Chassin, & Zeiss,
1985). The couples described above all displayed androgynous
behaviors. Carol often took a proactive role in problem solving
and administering details for their wedding when Ravi was busy
with his visits to India. Helen, normally very much in charge,
was able to let herself be taken care of when she was recuperating
from her injuries. In a similar manner, Helen's husband Jamie
was able to be sensitive to the physical and emotional health of
their couple, taking on the role of calling their friends for support,
taking care of the house, and performing other nurturing behaviors. The key here was the flexibility of these individuals to
adapt to the circumstances confronting their couple as the need
developed, regardless of previous patterns or role expectations.

Characteristics of Fixed Couple Patterns

Very few couples enter therapy with many cocreating characteristics. They generally exhibit a particular pattern of behavior
with distinctive inflexible or fixed features. Over nearly 3 decades
of treating couples, we have observed some familiar, recurring,
and recognizable patterns of behavior. We see these not only in
the individual partners, but also in the style and characteristics
of the couple interactions themselves. It is a useful operational
model to view couples as having distinct styles of relating over
time. Several authors have described common functional and
dysfunctional patterns in relationships (Scarf, 1987; WeinerDavis, 1993). It is consistent with the notion that a couple represents an entity distinct from its component members to assert
that the couple has a cohesive set of traits or characteristics of
its own. Couples come to therapy in varying stages of functioning
and development. The evolution of any particular couple may
result in different possible couple identities or patterns at different times in the life of a relationship. We refer to these couple
characteristics as identities rather than diagnostic categories, because we do not necessarily see these as illnesses or dysfunctions
but as behavior patterns with their own unique strengths and
limitations.

48

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

It is important to distinguish the flexible way in which cocreating couples like Carol and Ravi and Jamie and Helen worked
with each other to handle the issues in their couples from traditional behaviors common in other types of relationships. These
traditional behaviors often represent the rigid pattern of expectations or attitudes of an individualistic culture that limits the
adaptability of couples over time. These behaviors may be a
developmental stage that couples pass through or expectations
that result from cultural or familial experiences. These recognizable patterns become problematic when they prevent more flexible alternatives from becoming possible.
Couples often experience one or more patterns of interaction
over time. They may, in fact, manifest several of these throughout
the course of their relationship. Sometimes they are stuck in a
particular developmental phase and cannot progress. For example, a partner might say, "Everything is great between us, except
he does not seem willing to commit to marriage." Recognizing
and understanding the most frequently occurring couple patterns and working to create additional, more expanded or healthier ones makes therapy much more efficient and effective.
Here are three examples of patterns or identities that we have
observed in couples in our clinical practice over the years. We
have noticed that these patterns often correspond to typical manifestations of the paradigm of individualism in relationships. Each
of the following three examples may limit the spontaneous emergence of new cocreating behaviors within the relationship. A
brief description of these couple patterns and how they differ
from the cocreating couple follows.
The Romantic Couple
Romance is a basic characteristic of a healthy couple. For some
partners, however, this romantic aspect of their couple becomes
their dominant and nearly exclusive way of operating over time.
When people first get together, they may experience infatuation
and intense physical and sexual attraction, as well as a desire
to be with the other person all of the time. These couples often
describe themselves as "lost in each other." It is as if they are
so wrapped up in each other that they lose sight of anything or

THE COCREATING COUPLE

49

anyone else beyond their immediate relationship needs. They

spend time just being together and investing great amounts of
energy staying awake and together. Couples of this type often
appear very much in love but experience fatigue at some point
from the constant arousal of their union. Romantic couples often
idealize the image of their partner. This idealization often acts
as a barrier to knowing the other person in any other way. This
pattern may represent an immaturity of individuals who use the
cultural stereotype of the ideally attractive mate as a guide for
selecting a partner.
Although many relationships typically begin with romance,
some continue to function with these feelings and behaviors
as paramount. Sometimes this pattern develops from a need
for refuge or escape, and it may contain nearly obsessive
behaviors of hypersexuality, overdependency, and neediness.
Some romantic couples develop this way of relating as a result
of an overwhelming physical attraction, whereas others may
manifest it out of a failure to broaden their relationship to
include dealing with other aspects of commitment or everyday
problems. For instance, a couple may use sex to distract themselves from having to make a deeper commitment to emotional
as well as physical intimacy, or they may settle arguments
by having sex instead of truly resolving ongoing conflicts or
incomplete issues. Wile (1981) stated the following about this
sort of relationship:
The advantage of romantic love ... is that it allows individuals who are capable of it ... to develop a feeling of love
almost regardless of what is happening in the relationship.
The disadvantages are that the relationship can be impersonal
(the individual is having a relationship with the fantasy of
the partner) and unstable (the love may turn to hate if the
partner does not provide the minimum required to maintain
the fantasy), (p. 77)

As most people discover, this sort of relationship often loses

its intensity after a year to 18 months. It tends to rise and fall
on the quality of physical attraction and interactions. Over time,
the partners may become bored and seek a new partner to arouse

50

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

them again. They may also change physically (i.e., during or

following pregnancy, as a result of aging or disease, or as a result
of the side effects of medication); they may wish to end their
relationship or open it up to include multiple partners either
separately or together. This latter solutionsometimes called an
"open marriage"usually ends up creating more problems and
jealousies in the end.
In working with couples stuck in the romantic pattern,
therapists must address the fact that the obstacle to a longlasting and cocreating relationship (and the establishment of
a couple entity) may be the partners' desire for the other to
be ideal or perfect. When the achievement of this desire seems
possible during the first blushes of romance and infatuation,
the relationship appears to be healthy. Later, however, when
perfection is no longer present, the partners question the selection of this person, desiring instead to find a more perfect
companion.
Case example. Consider the following case. Jared and Jan had
been together for nearly 3 years. When they met on a blind date,
he was a medical student, and she was working in the office of a
large accounting firm. They were both dedicated to their careers.
From the beginning, they described an overwhelming chemistry
between them; after 2 months, they decided to live together. At
first, they couldn't seem to get enough of each other. She would
come to the hospital for lunch, and they would sneak off to a
motel on many occasions.
They spent most of their time together and less with friends
and family members. They were clearly in love and very happy.
After 2 years, they got married. He began to spend more time
at the hospital, and she would come home from work and wait
up for him. He worked long hours; when they were together,
they were by themselves. Six months later, Jan became pregnant.
Although they were not planning to start a family just yet, they
were pleased to be expecting a child. Jan reduced her working
hours to part-time, and she began spending time shopping and
planning for the new arrival. He continued to work late shifts
at the hospital, and she was often not there when he arrived
home during the day for a few hours of sleep. At the same time,

THE COCREATING COUPLE

51

according to each of them, there was a precipitous decline in

their sex life and other physical intimacies. They hugged and
kissed less and rarely held hands in public. They didn't feel
happy together anymore.
Jan and Jared came to a therapist 6 weeks after he admitted
that he was having an affair at work. He said that he didn't love
Jan anymore and that the thrill was gone from their relationship.
She was extremely upset about his behavior but acknowledged
that she had also been having second thoughts about their relationship since she got pregnant. They wondered whether they
could go on together. He was unclear about whether he was
willing to give up his new relationship.
Comparison with the cocreating couple. Although Jared and
Jan experienced "true romance" at the beginning of their life as
a couple, they were obviously unable to sustain these feelings.
They are a romantic couple that have lost their feelings of closeness. The problem with this type of couple is that either the
intensity of their early feelings burns them out or they are unable
to make the transition to a new cocreating way of relating and
committing in their partnership. Then one or both of the partners
may go on to find another romantic relationship with a new
partner.
Although romantic feelings are definitely a part of the cocreating couple, it is not their all-consuming passion. A totally lovesick couple would have a difficult time dealing realistically with
outside pressures. Like Romeo and Juliet, they might naively
and inadvertently destroy the relationship by failing to create
more options for behaving. By contrast, Carol and Ravi, the
cocreating couple mentioned a bit earlier, while very much in
love, were still able to deal with the obstacles and transitions in
their lives in an effective manner. Rather than isolate themselves,
as many romantic couples do, they invited family members and
friends to support their couple. They created a balance of time
together and time separately to deal with their own families and
needs. Instead of dwelling on feeling jealous when Ravi spent
time with his family without her, Carol supported it as part of
their couple vision and worked on her own individual and their
joint projects.

52

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

The Role-Defined Couple

Many couples begin their relationship with a sense of mutual
purpose and teamwork. After a while, however, the roles they
play may not be to their liking. This situation is most commonly
often reflected in a common couple pattern that we call roledefined; it is marked by the individual roles of one dominant
member supported by the other partner behind the scenes. One
person agrees to support the other in return for some present
or future consideration. When one spouse is involved in politics,
the business world, graduate school, or professional or even
recreational sports, the other member works to maintain the
household financially or domestically so that the other can concentrate on making his or her impact in the world. This way
of relating often persists over a long periodeven a lifetime.
Sometimes he is the CEO of a major company and she is "the
hostess with the 'mostest,'" or she is the world-renowned physician while he stays home to raise the children. These couples
often appear to be traditional in that it is usually the wife who
is called on to provide the support, putting her husband through
school or staying at home with the children. Our culture tends
to force individuals into these roles. Parents may teach girls to
grow up to "stand by their man" and may use themselves as an
example: "You know, I wanted to develop my own career, dear,
but I knew that my job was to support your father like my mom
supported my dad's business, even though she didn't want to."
Role-defined couples often lack a basic understanding about
the level of cooperation and mutuality needed to establish their
couple as an entity in and of itself. The goals and needs of one
person are placed over those of the otherand they are often
accompanied by a sense of unfairness and sacrifice. One person
is sacrificing, not for the couple, but for the goals and aspirations
of the other. It is as though one partner is standing behind the
other, being supportive but with his or her own progress blocked
or impeded.
Role-defined couples may present to the therapist in a number
of ways. Some have had a supportive relationship for many
years before concerns alerted either of the partners they were in
trouble. This couple often comes to therapy when the rules have

THE COCREATING COUPLE

53

changed, an agreement has been broken, or an unspoken dissatisfaction has come to light. The supporting partners may realize
that the agreement to switch roles at some point (to go back to
school or work on a career) is not going to happen, and they
feel cheated or betrayed. In other couples, the supporting person
had expected to be able to remain supportive indefinitely, but
has had a change of heart or become burned out. In any event,
the supporter may no longer be willing to toil without acknowledgment or appreciation. On some occasions, the supported partner needs the other now that they have renegotiated their goals.
This kind of couple may have difficulty and want to change
the "rules" to make the system seem more fair. Consider the
following case:
Case example. Marion and Zack met as undergraduates during college. They dated for 2 years and were married following
graduation. Zack enrolled in medical school, and Marion took
a job in a day-care center to help pay the bills and pay Zack's
tuition. The medical school experience was difficult and timeconsuming for both Marion and Zack. They both worked hard
and tried to spend as much time together as they could. Although
Marion wanted to continue her own education by getting an
MBA and starting a business career, she deferred her plans to
support Zack. He promised then that when his residency was
finished and he had more time, she could then return to school
while he was making enough money to support them. They
decided that they would postpone having any children until
Marion was out of school and working in her career.
Marion and Zack came into marital therapy following their
seventh anniversary. Marion said that if he did not come with
her to see a therapist, she was going to leave. She was angry
and impatient. Zack had finished his residency and was working
in a practice. He was gone long hours, but felt that after a few
years he would be established enough to cut back on his schedule.
Marion felt that Zack's work was more important to him than
their relationship and that he had broken his promise to her. He
said he had only deferred his promise for a few extra years. He
said she was being selfish and that she liked her current job
anyway. Marion felt hurt and betrayed. She did like her job, but

54

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

it was not the career that they agreed on when they got married.
She had supported him all these years and wanted her chance
now. He tried to get her to compromise or give up her threats
to leave, but she would not. She said that his refusal to keep his
promise about her further education made her question her love
for him.
Comparison with the cocreating couple. Unlike the role-defined couple, cocreating partners cooperate and support one
another in a common task: to continually establish the goals of
the life they share together. Cocreating couples live, work, and
play cooperatively together, continuously discovering new
things, evolving and experimenting with what is possible for
their couple. They are defined by an ability to be adaptable and
flexible. They see that expectations about their respective roles
can be changedif they choose to do so. They can create trust
or new possibilities by agreeing to do so together, rather than
depending on expectations from the past.
The Independent Couple
Increased emphasis on individualism has led to increased desires
to remain independent and self-sufficient, while still being in a
meaningful relationship. The combined wish to be together and
independent at the same time has given rise to what we call the
independent couple pattern.
Professional or dual-career couples often exhibit this kind of
pattern. They may be supportive of each other's endeavors but
are primarily committed to their own. It is as though they stand
back to back: They lean on each other to help each other be
successful in the world but rarely turn to face one another or be
together in an intimate way. To those who observe them from
afar, they may appear to be productive, competent, and resilient.
Within their relationship, however, they may feel distant, cold,
and disconnected.
The independent couple may be a dual-career couple in the
same or different fields, with individual career aspirations. Two
athletes, for instance, may not compete head-to-head in the same
sport, but they lead competitive lives, each trying to be successful

THE COCREATING COUPLE

55

in their own right. Although the relationship may involve some

cooperation, in the end it is the values of the individual that are
preserved. The same is often true for couples in which each
member desires to be successful in his or her own line of work.
These couples often have two very successful members who
perhaps do not even live together for periods of time while
pursuing their careers and get together only periodically. They
may share a house together but keep separate homes near their
place of work.
These kinds of relationships are often indicative of a failure
to commit to the couple as an entity. Some partners fear that
they will eventually be disappointed, so they develop an independent life of their own in case their relationship does not work
out. Each may experience the freedom of having his or her own
friends and his or her own accomplishments as a substitute for
experiencing intimacy with each other.
Even in distress, independent couples are often too busy to
seek treatment or support. They may also be concerned about
not upsetting the fragile balance with their partner that allows
them to stay together and get most of their individual needs
met; they may fear that therapy might force them to be more
dependent and threaten their individual identities. When they
do come for help, it is often because they have grown too
far apart to gain much pleasure from each other's company, or
one wants to move farther away to meet an individual career
need.
Case example. Cal and Judy, married 5 years, were in the
same profession. They had met in graduate school and trained
to be anthropologists. Their expertise within the field was somewhat different, but from the beginning they both wanted to teach
college. They were initially attracted to each other because they
were both smart and quick-witted. She loved his sense of humor,
and he loved her ability to think deep and penetrating thoughts.
While writing their dissertations, they lived together in a small
apartment near campus. They had very little money and very
little space for their possessions. Judy described it as "romantic
poverty." They would envision their future when they would
be married and teaching together and doing research abroad.

56

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

Each worked diligently on his or her dissertation, trying to

support the other while concentrating on his or her own work.
Although they intended to finish at the same time and graduate
together, Judy completed her research first. Cal became concerned that he might be left behind; but by working incredible
hours at the last minute, he just made the deadline to graduate
with Judy. When they came to couples counseling, Cal said that
it was at that moment, when he felt the fear of being left behind
and not being able to catch up, that he worried she might leave
him because he didn't measure up.
Following graduation, Cal and Judy began their search for
jobs. They had always intended to get jobs in the same part of
the country, get married, and settle into their dream life together.
As fate would have it, Judy got an excellent job offer in a city
where Cal could get only part-time work; Cal got an excellent
offer to teach in a different city where there was no job for Judy.
They came to therapy by mutual agreement to decide what to
do. Judy felt that if they lived in different cities, their relationship
could not survive. Cal was less sure about that but more worried
about the current state of their couple. He did not want to risk
losing a good opportunity for the sake of a shaky relationship.
He felt that the warmth and intimacy between them was far
less than he had experienced when they first got together. They
decided to take jobs in separate cities, found it difficult to stay
connected, and eventually divorced.
Comparison with the cocreating couple. In a cocreating couple, individual accomplishments are still valued but are enjoyed
by the couple together. If Carol and Ravi, for instance, had operated as an independent couple, they would likely have found
other mates who would match their own needs, rather than keep
on working to create new possibilities and solutions together.
However, operating as a cocreating couple, Carol and Ravi had
two wedding ceremonies, one in the United States and one in
India, and invited his parents to both. If his parents would not
attend either ceremony, they planned to visit them later in India.
Out of their commitment to their couple, they resolved to keep
creating new options and work on them together.

THE COCREATING COUPLE

57

In Helen and Jamie's case, it might have been easier for them
to avoid their painful memories and start their lives over independently after the death of their son. Instead, they worked
through their grief together and looked for a way to get support
for re-creating the excitement they had for their relationship
before they had a child. By contacting people who knew them
in the romantic stage of their relationship, they kept the primary
focus on their couple rather than on their individual goals.

The Treatment of Common Couple Patterns:

The Cocreating Perspective
As mentioned earlier, none of the three couple patterns described
above is necessarily dysfunctional. Most couples take on the
above-noted behaviors of each of these three identities or types
of patterns at various times in their relationship. Similar to
individual disorders of personality, a couple pattern becomes
problematic only when it becomes rigid and limits the range of
possible behaviors.
Like Darwin's notion of requisite variety, those species with
the greatest range of possible behaviors are more likely to survive
by learning both flexibility and choice. Cocreating couples learn
to use a repertoire of ways of being together, depending on the
situation or on what they would like for themselves and their
couple. Any one of the couple patterns described above may be
a viable option for the cocreating couple at a particular time.
Understanding the rigid constraints of the romantic, supportive,
or independent patterns of operating is important in helping
couples to free themselves from getting stuck in the repetition
of these common behaviors. An awareness of the variety of
common patterns provides therapists with a foundation for helping couples develop a broad range of choices and possibilities
in their lives together.
Implementing the couple power model with any type of couple
requires a unique perspective on the part of both the therapist
and the clients. It might help to think of the cocreating couple
as a designer relationship, created uniquely, step-by-step, by the

58

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

two partners, with each of the elements manifesting in a way

that is distinctive for each couple. Although neither the couple
nor the therapist is necessarily striving to achieve any particular
type of relationship, the partners are engaged in continually
creating their life together as they go along. The new perspective
or paradigm shift required may take some time to understand
and follow. Both the therapist and the couple need to implement
and maintain this change in perspective. Once this conceptual
shift has been accomplished, the therapist must then help the
couple learn how to design their relationship and to adapt it
over time to meet their changing needs.
Perhaps the key element of developing cocreating behaviors
through the CPT model is the existence of a positive perspective.
This approach is somewhat different from traditional notions in
psychotherapy of psychodynamically oriented therapists and
even behaviorists who focus primarily on maladaptive symptoms, mental disorders, and psychopathology. The popularity
of the term codependent speaks to this point. It has the connotation
of a passive, fixed, and negative pattern. The couple power
model, however, embodies the active, positive approach of
relating inherent in the term cocreating couple. Consistent with a
more recent movement toward positive psychology, the focus
in CPT is on the strengths rather than the weaknesses in the
couple (de Shazer, 1991; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
The couple's natural tendency toward healthy interactions is
emphasized, rather than their inabilities or presumed deficits.
Therapists who choose this point of view have the ability to
operate from a position of "unconditional positive regard" for
the couple (Rogers, 1961); then they can transmit the concept that
the couple has the potential to choose to learn how to function in
a cocreating way. As therapists we have a choice about the basic
stance we wish to adopt: "To see people in terms of pathology
or to see them in terms of competence is a matter of choice rather
than of truth" (Durrant & Kowalski, 1993, p. 108).
Rather than trying to fix what is "wrong" with the relationship,
therapists with this perspective are able to look for what is possible and use what is going well for the couple. It is not about
making a "bad" relationship into a "good" one, or making a
"good" relationship better. Rather than concentrating on what

THE COCREATING COUPLE

59

is missing in the relationship, the therapist focuses on clearly

identifying what goals the couple has and what they are willing
to do to achieve them together. Obstacles that may be in the
way of accomplishing their vision are identified and normalized
as part of everyday life. They are not considered to be the cause
of their problems. In fact, obstacles or other difficulties do not
need to be described as problems at all. If therapists focus on
the solution to a problem, the problem is still present in the
background. Speaking in terms of possibilities enables the couple
to bypass the negative space of a problem-focused mindset and
create a clean, blank slate to work from together. This channels
the energy in a positive direction within the couple and for the
therapeutic process as well.

Chapter

3
Commitment
he cornerstone of CPT is the establishment or reaffirmation
of commitment to the relationship. Without a solid commitment, none of the other tasks of the Four Cs are truly accomplished. Without this commitment, the best a therapist is able
to do is act as a mediator between two separate parties. Like
Erikson's (1950) first stage of development, basic trust, commitment is essential to the continuing growth of the couple. As the
cornerstone of individual development is built on basic trust,
so almost all positive functions in couple derive from a basic
commitment. Without it, the health and life of the couple are in
jeopardy. Embarking on a relationship without a strong commitment is like going on a major expedition without a reliable map:
The travelersboth the couple and the therapistare likely to
get lost.
The truth of the matter is, however, that many of the couples
we see in therapy, even those who have been together a long
time, have never accomplished this primary task of establishing
a strong base of commitment. People are usually not even aware
that they need to have a map, or committed direction, for their
relationship, or that they should consult it regularly to make
sure they stay on their desired path. When this kind of commitment exists in a couple, both the therapy and the couple relationship stand a much higher likelihood of success. As Cordova and
Jacobson discovered in their research, "If the couple is committed

63

64

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

to each other, and to trying to work things out, the prognosis

for the success of therapy is good" (1993, p. 489). If they are still
testing out their partner's qualifications as a mate, they are likely
to run into trouble.
Traditional couples treatment often begins with the question
of the partners' commitment to one another. However, as mentioned in the introduction, if not managed properly, this may lead
to unproductive expressions of doubt about feeling sufficiently in
love with each other. The couple power model, however, operates less from the issue of feelings about commitment to the
individual and more from the perspective of a shared commitment to what is possible for the couple as a unit. The focus is
more on creating commitment to the single entity couple than
on just meeting the needs of the individuals. "Each individual
act is a couple act. The individuals, in coming from their being
as couple, acknowledge the presence of the other in their being,
thus in everything they do" (Huber, 1993, p. 5).
The commitment is conceived of and presented in CPT as
dedication to the couple as an entity, not to the individual person.
This is consistent with John Welwood's notion of a couple's
"conscious commitment" that "emerges organically from the
relationship's own ripening" (Welwood, 1990, p. 88). Without a
sense of common purpose, the couple is at risk. The lack of a
joint commitment may, in fact, be the reason that cohabitating
couples report low levels of satisfaction and do not tend to
survive (Nock, 1999). They may put their idealized expectations
of each other over their dedication to the relationship.
The commitment task of the Four Cs is not designed to keep
couples together no matter what the cost. That is codependency,
not cocreating. Sometimes, after working hard on the relationship
in good faith, even cocreating couples find the best choice for
them is to dissolve their union. The intention of the couple power
model is to give people every opportunity to examine all the
possibilities for preserving their relationship, rather than just
giving up on it as so many couples do.
People often get into a destructive pattern of serial marriages,
trying over and over again without ever really knowing how to
commit to make a relationship work over time. The task of

COMMITMENT

65

commitment in CPT provides an alternative for serial relationships and gives support for dealing with the inevitable difficulties
and frustrations that arise in a relationship. As Hudson and
O'Hanlon (1991) stated, "We encourage couples not to stay together and be miserable, but to work actively on making their
relationships satisfying while staying through the times when
they feel discouraged" (p. 167).

Background Work: The Concept of

Commitment to the Couple as an Entity
As we have explained, commitment is a necessary condition for
successful couples therapy and for a couple to be healthy and
high-functioning. The first goal in treatment is to make sure
that partners are committed to their couple as an entity and
committed to therapy as a way to establish and maintain commitment. Commitment is the stable platform for the rest of treatment.
The perspective of the couple as a committed unit is crucial to
any further work, so this issue must be handled early on in the
therapy. Without commitment to a joint vision, the couple is
likely to get caught up in notions of unrealistic expectations
about the "perfect partner." They may start destructive discussions about what's wrong with themselves, each other, or the
relationship. Rather than trying to find the ideal partner, the
focus should be on creating the ideal relationship.
Consider the example of Beth, a middle-aged wife and mother
of two teenagers, who came into therapy to deal with the
issue of her lack of sexual desire. She had been through several
years of relatively unproductive individual therapy, which she
described as "a crutch to help her get over things." Real progress
occurred only when her husband came in with her for couples
therapy, and they created a commitment to examine and work
on the issue of sexuality in their relationship as their joint responsibility. She told her husband that she felt guilty and hopeless,
and he shared that he felt angry and confused. Once they took
on their sexual life as a committed act of their love for each other,

66

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

rather than as her problem, they were able to make progress with
sex and many other areas of their life. They went through a
program of sex therapy together, and Beth began to initiate and
enjoy sex more often.
As couples therapists, how do we get our clients to take on
the perspective of couple and create commitment to couple as
an entity? First, we need to create our own commitment and
vision for the couple; without this, the therapy is likely to drift
on, without a clear direction. An important question to ask at
this point is how to tell if there is genuine hope for a couple.
(By this, we mean a real possibility rather than passive hopefulness.) One clue is the feelings expressed by each partner. If there
is a great deal of sadness or ambivalence expressed about ending
the relationship, this is often a sign that the partners are open
to considering some other possibilities for the couple. The next
step is to clarify early on in the therapy the importance of being
committed by asking each member of the couple to verify his
or her commitment to the relationship and to the therapy. If
either person is unsure about committing to the relationship, he
or she may agree to work in couples or individual therapy for
a certain period on what might be possible for the relationship
and to deal with their own anxiety or resistance. The more committed partner should also be supported in exploring ways to
enroll his or her partner in the therapy. The couple might begin
to develop a sense of commitment just by agreeing to work
together in the therapy.
The crucial step of committing to the therapy as couple may
require one or both of the partners to give up something that is
in the way of making such a commitment, such as drugs, alcohol,
work and recreational priorities, or a current affair. It is our
experience that if addiction or an affair is currently a factor for
either partner, a true commitment cannot be made. The therapy
is sabotaged from the start. So it is important to ask about affairs
and addictions and to discuss the effects of such behaviors on
the relationship. Then the therapist needs to be clear with the
couple about what the therapy entails and about the commitment
that it requires from them. If an addicted partner agrees to get
treatment for an addiction, the couple entity supports the treat-

COMMITMENT

67

ment and may work simultaneously in couples therapy on

other issues.
What sometimes happens is that one partner may agree to the
conditions for the therapy and the other will not. The therapist
and the couple both have the choice then of whether to continue
the couples therapy or to continue in an individual formator
not at all. Consider the case of Terry, a problem drinker and
single mother in her 30s with two children. When her partner,
the father of her second child, refused to stop taking and dealing
drugs, the therapist continued to work with her. She stopped
drinking and was treated in a combination of individual and
group therapy. The client continued to work on couple as well
as individual issues in the context of her own therapy, making
slow but steady progress.
As with the couple described above, the therapist may need
to focus on one or both partners individually for a while, in
either individual or couple sessions, before the partners make a
clear commitment to the couple as a unit. We would not go so
far as to caution the marital therapist against "asking questions
about love and commitment . . . until we clear away the problems" (Hudson & O'Hanlon, 1991, pp. 156-157). However, problems from an individual's past and unfinished business between
the partners or from previous relationships may need to be addressed briefly before work on the couple's joint goals begins.
Closure about feelings of loss from a failed relationship may
need to be accomplished. One or both partners may need to
work on issues from their family of origin, such as abuse, loss,
or shame, to create a foundation strong enough to generate a
commitment to the couple. In addition, one partner may need
to apologize and be forgiven for some transgression by the other.
Other individuals may need to strengthen their feelings of selfconfidence and self-differentiation in order not to fear being
swallowed up by the relationship.
A case in point is the young couple, Uri and Margot, who had
been married for 5 years when the wife suddenly announced
that she wanted a divorce. In exploring their feelings during the
first few sessions, Margot revealed that she felt unimportant to
Uri, similar to how she had always felt with her alcoholic father.

68

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

T: Margot, Uri seems very surprised by what you just said

about wanting a divorce. Describe your feelings.
M: Uri seems so busy and concerned with work. He doesn't
even notice me most times when he comes home. He just
seems to ignore me when I am upset. He is my husband,
and he shouldn't ignore me. If I am crying like last week, he
should at least say something.
U: I didn't realize this was such a big thing for you, Margot.
When I was growing up people were always crying about
something or other in my family, my sisters especially. I
learned the best thing was to let them alone until they could
get it together.
T: What does being left alone mean to you, Margot?
M: No one in my house growing up ever listened. Dad was
always drinking; Mom was never around. When I saw Uri
act like that, ignoring my pain, I decided that was enough
for me, I wanted a divorce.
U: Margot, I was leaving you alone to help you. I am so
sorry. I didn't know that hurt you. I thought I was doing
what was best.
T: Margot, it looks like you were both acting on the basis
of something from the past in your families. Do you believe
Uri when he says he thought he was doing his best and
is sorry?
M: Maybe I am a bit oversensitive about this. I believe him
when he says he is sorry.

Margot gained a new understanding of what was brought up

from the past for both of them, and they were then able to
continue working on the commitment to their relationship in
the therapy.
Whenever individual work is included in the therapy, it is
crucial that the couple understand that it is being done consistent
with joint commitment to the couple as an entity. It is like the
metaphor of a teepee in the cocreating couple, with both partners
working to be strong enough to contribute powerfully to the
support of the total structure. Consider the case of Beth described

COMMITMENT

69

earlier. After working on her sexual issues in couples therapy,

she felt empowered to continue on her own in group therapy,
which she had been uneasy about doing before. Now she saw
herself "helping the couple by going to the therapy group/'
which provided support for them both throughout her time in
the group.
Addressing individual issues in a couples session requires
each partner to listen attentively to the other, with the intention
of completely understanding the other's experience. Teaching
some additional communication skills may be required to accomplish this step (see chap. 5, this volume). If the couple is still not
willing to commit to the possibility of working together as a
couple entity after a few sessions, it may be necessary to eliminate
couples therapy as the treatment of choice at that time. However,
our experience shows that though the partners may seem reluctant in the beginning, they are usually able to deal with the issue
of a joint commitment to the goals of the couple. Moreover, we
also find that even the background and unfinished-business work
are generally most productive when approached in the therapy
from a committed base of the couple as an entity.
A case involving an initial inability to commit to the therapy
is that of Carl and Jane, childhood sweethearts who had been
married nearly 20 years and were now on the verge of divorce.
They came in for therapy shortly after their daughter discovered
that Carl was having an affair. Jane was furious with Carl, especially after he admitted to having affairs off and on during their
entire marriage. They worked for a few sessions on the possibility
of committing together as a couple to recreate their marriage;
however, Jane did not feel that Carl had expressed his remorse
sufficiently for her to commit to the couple or the therapy. Carl
continued in individual therapy for a few months, working on
his family-of-origin issues, particularly his longing for acceptance
and warmth from distant parents who never said "I love you."
The therapist coached him in how to invite Jane to come back
into the therapy with him, and they then worked together with
the couples therapist on establishing their commitment to the
relationship. They continued their work in a couples therapy
group, where they eventually recommitted to their marriage in
a new and healthier way.

70

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

Couple Visions and Statements

Once the individual background work has been accomplished
and the commitment to therapy as a unit has been established,
the next step is to generate a powerful vision for the couple as
soon as possible. This vision is a specific statement of what the
individuals are committed to as a couple entity. Some couples
come for therapy without much need for preliminary work on
themselves as individuals and are prepared to begin working
together on creating a vision for their relationship right away.
They may just lack the skills and direction to accomplish this task.
Most people, however, are either confused or unrealistic about
how to create or sustain a vision of a successful relationship.
Some are fortunate enough to have parents or grandparents who
serve as positive models of couple. More often than not, however,
these models do not apply to their current situation, or they may
exist only as a negative representation of what the couple wants
to avoid. They may have had parents who stayed together "for
the sake of the kids" or out of duty to family or religious obligation, living lives of quiet or not-so-quiet desperation. No wonder
they may not see much possibility in fostering a committed
relationship, even with psychotherapy. Neither are many positive, realistic models presented in the popular media; rather, the
media often act as an obstacle to couples by presenting either
overly idealized models or tragic stories on talk shows, reality
TV, soap operas, or films (see chap. 7, this volume).
With this deficient cultural standard, couples often marry out
of idealistic hope and focus on what is missing rather than on
creating a positive vision of what is present or possible for
their relationship. This results in the partners being unable to
describe what the couple as an entity really means to them. Most
marital therapists also lack the training or knowledge of how to
direct couples toward accomplishing this crucial task of describing their couple vision. However, putting the couple's vision
into words is a simple process to learn and is vital to the success
of the therapy and to the relationship. As Welwood (1990)
pointed out, "now that our society provides dream-fantasies
instead of workable guidelines, each couple must forge their
own vision to guide and inspire them to move forward ... a

COMMITMENT

71

vision t h a t . . . is a much stronger bond than any hope or obligation" (p. 100).
Successful businesses know the value of a mission statement
for any project the organization undertakes. In a similar manner,
the goals of an individual are much more likely to be accomplished if a clear statement of goals has been made ahead of
time. The same kind of inspiration is possible for couples in
proclaiming the goal or vision they are committed to reaching
for their couple. Several clinicians have recently noted the importance of stating a vision in the practice of psychotherapy (Markus
& Nurius, 1986). Marital therapists have found that "Making
statements that highlight mutuality and connection. .. can create
the same positive expectations that a good report from a physician creates" (Hudson & O'Hanlon, 1991, p. 44). Some authors
focus on developing a vision of what to commit to work on in
the therapy, either in a specific solution-oriented way (de Shazer,
1985) or in a more general, possibility-focused manner (Waters
& Lawrence, 1993). The additional component in CPT that is
crucial for the design and maintenance of the cocreating couple
is that the partners continually create powerful statements of that
vision themselvesin words that are unique and motivating to
them as a couple.
The cocreating couple is brought into being through the use
of language. The power of language is the cornerstone of the
couple power model. The statement of their goals is a verbal
affirmation of the vision that the couple has for themselves. The
focus on language is consistent with modern theories of narrative
and brief therapy (Epston & White, 1995; Watzlawick et al., 1974;
White & Epston, 1990) as well as neurolinguistic programming
(Bandler & Grinder, 1979). It is also similar to the declaration
process used in Couples Coaching Couples (see chap. 6, this
volume).
Using analogies from the couple's own experience can be useful
in illustrating to them the power of language. For instance, biblical
writings declared, "First there was the word." In the Emancipation
Proclamation, Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves just by declaring
their freedom. Declaring it to be so, brings it into existence. Such
powerful statements inspire actions that might not otherwise have
taken place. In the American Declaration of Independence, the

72

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

Founding Fathers declared "these truths to be self-evident" and

created a nation by writing it down for the world to see. Just as
these documents proclaimed new truths to which supporters
were committed, a couple proclamation has the power to create
couple in the same way. President John Kennedy in 1962 declared
the U.S. would have a man on the moon by 1969. His making
this statement caused people to act to be sure this vision would
be fulfilled. The positive effects of such inspiring statements have
been demonstrated, in fact, to be "mirrored in actual changes in
brain activity" (Van der Kolk, McFarlane, & Weisaeth, 1996).
The act of creating a statement of the couple vision distinguishes what is true about the relationship for the partners. It
enables them to be committed in the therapy to a common goal
on which they have both agreed. The statement declares the
partners to be couple. The proclamation of couple is not something to be accomplished by the therapist or the couple, but
something for the partners to commit to and act in accordance
with. Couple itself is looked at as something not to be achieved,
but to be stated. Couple is not found or discovered through
therapy; it is generated by the partners together from the beginning of treatment. It is not a thing to have, but a process to
engage in. The creation of a couple vision is also an example of
the practice of expanding from doing to beingthe concept at
the core of the couple power model. The proclamation is not
designed to describe a set of behaviors or something to do; rather,
it creates a positive vision and a way of being for the couple to
"live into" together. As with other aspects of couple as an entity,
this aspect of the commitment is sometimes difficult for clients
growing up in Western culture to understand. The pressure of
Western society to be productive at all costs creates a challenge
for most couples (see chap. 7, this volume). "In the West, everything is so solid.... It has to be so concrete. In the East the world
is more mysterious. ... Presence and existence can be more
pervasive" (Wangyal, 2001, p. 271). Such a quality of pervasiveness allows for more openness and receptivity to visions and
experiences that are less concrete.
Once the couple's commitment is established through the development of a joint proclamation, a vision for their future is
created. Such powerful statements inspire actions that might not

COMMITMENT

73

otherwise have taken place. The therapist can help the couple
reach their goal by keeping the focus on the words of the vision
they have proclaimed. Keeping this dream in sight allows the
partners to overcome short-term difficulties by looking at longterm possibilities. After all, civil rights activists do not abandon
the goals of the Emancipation Proclamation whenever they encounter prejudice or injustice. They keep the greater vision alive
to overcome the immediate problems. Couples with proclamations are able to do the same. Their commitment to being happy
together is not derailed during or after therapy because of occasional setbacks.

Restating the Marriage Vows

The therapist may point out that the first experience many couples have of proclaiming their vision and commitment to each
other together out loud is their marriage vows. (Unmarried committed couples may have created similar statements.) They may
have recited the traditional words used in weddings by countless
numbers of couples: "To have and to hold, for better or for worse,
in sickness and in health, till death do us part." Other couples
create their own personal statements, speaking the words with
sincerity and passion on their wedding dayand perhaps never
again after that.
However, for many people, the wedding marks the end of the
romantic relationship, rather than the beginning. For example,
a young married woman reported in a session that after reciting
their vows and kissing each other, her new husband said, "Thank
goodness I won't have to do that again!" The marriage vows
become obsolete memories, existing afterward as a sign of the
paradox of marriage: The commitment made at the start of the
relationship, to be connected and together forever, is continually
questioned and often sabotaged by the very people who made
it. Monica McGoldrick (1999) referred to this "[greatest] of all
dilemmas of the life cycle [as] the existential dilemma" of coupling. "Marriage is the only family relationship that we swear
is forever and the only one that we swear is exclusive; yet it is

74

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

the one relationship that is least likely to be either exclusive or

forever" (p. 231).
One way to address this ironic dilemma is to invite the couple
to remember and rediscover their wedding vows as part of the
process of creating a couple vision in therapy. This may be done
while reviewing the history of the coupleincluding how they
met and what attracted them to each other. No matter how
negative they may feel at that moment, recalling these events
usually brings back positive feelings for each other. In this way,
the therapist helps the couple get in touch with the attraction
they originally had for each other. Then the partners identify
the particular words in their vows that contributed to creating
a positive commitment for their future together. A powerful
method for working with marriage vows is to have the couple
recite the vows and reenact that part of their wedding ceremony
during a therapy session.
A middle-aged couple, Fred and Donna, recovering from the
wife's jealousy over a recent infatuation of the husband's, went
a long way toward healing the anger and guilt by renewing
their original marital vows in a session. The couple designed the
ceremony and practiced their vows at home. Everyone, including
the therapist, dressed up for the occasion and they went through
the ritual in a formal way, ending with wine and song. Planning the ritual and restating their marriage pledge in the structured therapeutic setting brought an added significance to their
words. Their experience is consistent with the power of creative
ritual as used in a variety of contexts: "When we use ritual to
assist us through change, we gain authority not only from the
enactment of the ritual, but also from the intentional planning
process . .. increasing balance and connection within ourselves,
with each other [and] the world" (Beck & Metrick, 1990, pp. 6,9).

Exercises and Assignments

The use of exercises during therapy, either in sessions or as
homework, is very helpful in teaching all of the Four Cs. Several
examples are presented here and in other chapters in this volume.
Many therapeutic techniques include the use of exercises (Gor-

COMMITMENT

75

don, 1993; Gottman & Silver, 1994; Hendrix, 1988; Werner-Davis,

1993), but it is also important that the therapist create the proper
context for the exercise (Hudson & O'Hanlon, 1991). Which of
the four tasks is the exercise designed to address, for example?
Is the timing right for the exercise or does the task need to be
addressed first? Is the couple clear that the exercise is not designed to fix something that is wrong, but to give them a tool
to use responsibly for their continued well-being? Is there some
other issue or obstacle underlying the current discussion that
needs to be addressed first or that has caused failures in doing
homework in the past? Have a clear commitment and proclamation been made? Has the couple "presenced" their proclamation
before doing their homework assignment? Once such questions
are answered and the intent is clear, exercises prove to be quite
useful both during and after treatment. It may be because they
get people into action. Hudson and O'Hanlon (1991) stated,
... when people spend their time and money to come in for
a session, they deserve to have something to do differently
when they walk out. We also think that therapy has been
long on insight and understanding and a bit short on helping
people take action to change their situations. Because of these
views, we have both been adamant about giving task assignments to couples to carry out between sessions, (p. 68)

If they have been inspired by the rediscovery of their marital

vows, the couple can be instructed to repeat them at home on
a regular basis to reinforce the power of their commitment to
each other. They could be given the assignment of noticing how
they feel after saying and hearing the vows repeated aloud, and
then sharing their experience with each other. The homework
could include looking for parts of the vows that still inspire
them, and which words don't seem to fit anymore. Some couples
find that their original marital proclamations now sound like
obligation (or even sacrifice), rather than vision or inspiration.
At this point, the therapist may help the couple to identify and
discard any limiting statements in their vows and create a new
proclamation of their joint commitment.

76

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

A first step in developing this new proclamation may be to

suggest that the couple update and rewrite their wedding vows
in a way that more powerfully supports their relationship in the
present. This was done with a young couple, Gwen and Jeff,
both of whom were in psychotherapy for the first time. They
had been married for only 3 years, but this was Gwen's second
marriage and Jeff's third. Jeff complained that Gwen had been
demanding and irritable over the past few months. She said she
did not feel close to Jeff anymore. They argued constantly over
every little thing and could not remember the last time they had
fun together. The tension at home was so great that neither of
them wanted to come home from work. When they were at
home, they avoided eye contact and retreated to separate parts
of the house.
T: I know that you have been together for 3 years. That
might seem like a long time. Do you love each other? [Both
nod tentatively, looking at each other.] So what seems to be
the problem now?
J: I'm pretty sure we still love each other and we do communicate [they were sitting, however, at the opposite ends of a
large couch], but we seem to argue so much. It is discouraging
that we can't seem to get along.
G: I don't feel close to Jeff anymore. Things have really
changed. I am always afraid we will wind up fighting.
T: So if things have changed, it must have been different
before. Why did you get married in the first place?
J: When we got married, we were in love and imagined
spending the rest of our lives together. Everything seemed
so exciting and positive.
T: At that time, what did you expect your marriage to be
like in 3 years?
G: I thought we would share everything and be intimate
and show our love.
J: We would be having a lot of fun doing things together,
going on trips, picnics, spending Sunday mornings in bed
snuggling and reading the newspaper.

COMMITMENT

77

As they spoke of the dreams they had when they married,

they began to smile. The mood in the room began to lighten.
Somehow, they had gotten sidetracked from the vision they
shared only 3 short years before. When they decided to get
married, Jeff and Gwen shared a commitment to the future they
would have together. Partly because of a history of other failed
relationships, they began to fear that the future they wanted
would not come to pass. They wondered now if they had made
a mistake in getting married. As they felt less commitment to
each other, they questioned each other's behavior. Was he really
committed to her or just passing time? Did she love him deeply
or was she just using him for money and security? They began
to doubt each other, and themselves. Once they listened to each
other to feel assured, but now they were suspicious of motives
that might be behind what was said.
T: It sounds like you had a great vision of what your marriage would be, but somehow you got off track. As you got
away from your dream, you lost trust and doubted your
commitment. What if you could re-create those feelings or
create a new marriage for yourselves?
G: Maybe we could start over, maybe knowing each other
a little better.
T: Let me suggest that for homework you create some new
vows about how you want to be with each other now. Write
them down this week and read them in the next session.
J: I am not sure it would work, but I think I would write
different vows now. I have a different feeling about what is
important in a relationship.

Before the next session even began, the change was noticeable.
They entered the room arm in arm and laughing. The therapist
led them through an in-session ceremony. They told the therapist
how much fun it had been to rewrite new vows as they ate cake
and removed rice from their hair. They agreed that they would
like to do this exercise regularly, perhaps every week.

78

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

Designing a Couple Proclamation

Even if the couple is satisfied with their original wedding vows,
the next step is to create a new vision, or couple proclamation. We
define a couple proclamation as a brief statement of commitment
agreed to by a couple that is unique to their relationship and
that regenerates a powerful vision for their life together through
a clear, forceful, and authoritative statement used in Couples
Coaching Couples. A couple declaration is a similar type of statement (Huber, 1993; Couples Coaching Couples Manual, 2001). Proclaiming the couple into being is the groundwork and life force
of the cocreating couple. It is the expression of commitment,
the First C. When a couple's commitment is not present, it is
evidenced by an inability to create a proclamation. Focusing on
creating this statement early in the course of therapy is essential
to move forward in treatment.
To accomplish this step, the therapist must prepare the couple
to engage in a joint venture to create a single entity called couple.
The process can be compared to giving birth to a child, a being
that they are conceiving through language rather than biology.
It begins with an experience of excitement and anticipation. Over
time, they will care for this being they have createdcherish it,
nurture it, support and empower it to stand on its own as a
unique entity. In this sense, it is "every bit as real as a body,
and we should treat it so and respect, acknowledge, and care
for its being properly" (Huber, 1993, p. 2). Proclaiming a new
vision for a relationship may be likened to what Eric Berne (1961)
referred to as creating a "psychological remarriage," the object
of which is "to preserve the formal contract if possible, while at
the same time allowing each party to obtain as much satisfaction
as possible.... As each spouse emerges in a new form, an opportunity is offered for a psychological remarriage if they both desire
it" (p. 236).
The therapist guides the partners through the steps of giving
birth to their new couple entity. Like a midwife, the therapist
coaches the couple to use their own strengths to manifest their
unique creation. This approach assumes that any unfinished
business that may be interfering with the commitment to this
process has been completed. Any new issues that may inter-

COMMITMENT

79

fere with fulfilling the task of commitment will need to be addressed as they emerge. Following are the basic principles and
procedures for assisting the couple with the design of their
proclamation.
Positive Statement for the Present Moment,
Not Wish for the Future
The first step in creating a proclamation is to explore a description
with the clients of their ideal couple for the present moment. To
help them move from using their original wedding pledge to
creating a new vision and proclamation for their life together,
the therapist has to orient them to focus more on the present
and less on the past or future. The idea is not to try to fix or recreate what the couple envisioned in the past, but rather to create
a whole new possibility. The proclamation may be viewed as a
dream come trueone that is happening right now.
One way to access the couple's dreams is through asking the
"miracle question" (Berg & de Shazer, 1993). For example: "If a
miracle occurred in your relationship now that enabled it to be
exactly as you wanted it to be, what would it look like?" The
therapist brainstorms with the couple together during the session. Later, at home, the couple shares about both their individual
and joint visions for their relationship.
Responding to the miracle question was the turning point in
therapy for an elderly couple, who were both married for a
second time. They were so discouraged about their relationship
that all they could do was talk about divorce. In discussing what
a miracle would look like for them, they both came up with the
same answer almost immediately. They saw themselves loving
and supportive of each other as they faced the current difficulties
in their lives. Tears came to their eyes, and they very quickly
moved to creating the powerful couple proclamation "We are
soul mates for each other."
In brainstorming the content of their proclamation, be sure to
steer the couple in a positive direction. They need to frame their
vision in terms of what they appreciate about each other and
their couple, rather than what they want to avoid. Studies of
hypnosis have shown that the brain does not respond to verbal

80

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

cues given in the negative form; instead, the brain registers everything but the not of a statement, thereby reinforcing the negative
message (Bandler & Grinder, 1979). So a couple should proclaim,
for example, "We are joyful" rather than "We are not angry."
This positive direction for the vision statement can be facilitated
by having the couple first acknowledge what they appreciate
about each other.
The therapist should also direct the couple to keep their proclamation brief and to the point, that is, one relatively short sentence.
If it contains too many words, it will lose its impact, and the
couple is likely to forget it. The therapist could assist the couple
in phrasing their proclamation by taking notes during the session
of particularly powerful words and phrases that they use while
sharing their acknowledgments and exploring the description
of their vision. These are then offered back to them for possible
inclusion in their final statement. For example, during a session
with John and Linda, a young couple in the middle stage of their
therapy, the therapist tracked the following process: They were
feeling "up against the wall," like they needed to "get over a
major hurdle." In looking for inspiration, they recalled a friend
who had "climbed to the summit" of a mountain. The therapist
read these phrases back to them, and they came up with the
statement "We're climbing to the summit." When they tried
repeating that statement together, they said it felt like they were
too far away from reaching their goal. They then modified it
and came up with the proclamation "We're at the summit."
Other sources for a proclamation could be important projects
that the couple wants to accomplish, or particular areas of their
relationship they would like to impact, such as sexuality or finances. The partners might also be encouraged to think of songs
or poems or other couples that inspire them and look for what
it is about them that they find exciting. The notion of a dream
come true may also be used more literally by exploring the
couple's night dreams, looking for clues that they might not
notice in their waking life. By sharing their dreams, the couple
may get ideas for a proclamation that their conscious minds may
have overlooked. We have noted elsewhere that dreams can
truly open up new awareness about feelings for loved ones and

COMMITMENT

81

provide powerful metaphors for couple proclamations (KochSheras & Sheras, 1998).
One hard-working young couple, Claire and Ron, found this
to be the case when they were looking for ways to relax and
have fun with each other. After Claire shared a dream with Ron
about seeing him wearing a pink shirt and tickling him as he
giggled, they created the proclamation "We are tickled pink."
They went out together, bought Ron a pink shirt, and repeated
their proclamation daily, creating more fun and spontaneity in
their lives than they had experienced in months.
Whatever way a couple may access the content of their proclamation, the goal is to come up with an inspiring and clear description of their joint vision or current intention. They should be
encouraged to state it as existing in the present momentas a
declaration of fact, rather than as an unfulfilled desire from the
past or wish for the future; for example, "We are soul mates for
each other" rather than "We want to be soul mates for each
other." Often couples begin by saying what they want rather
than affirming who they are, or what they have or can do together. They can be reminded that the Declaration of Independence is grounded in the proclamation that "All men are created
equal" rather than "We want all men to be created equal." A
statement loses its impact and creates tension between what is
and what could be when it is expressed as a wish or hope for
the future; making a proclamation as a commitment in the
present tense circumvents the unfulfilled desire and allows for
effective action in the moment. Couples often recognize that the
intention and effect of this way of speaking is similar to what
many people call an affirmation, that is, a strong, positive statement that something is already so.

Couple Rather Than Individual Focus

The focus of the proclamation is on the couple, not the individual.
A key element in producing an effective proclamation is to make
sure the couple phrases it in terms of the perspective of we
not I. Although the statement does not necessarily have to include
the word we, the use of the plural pronoun clarifies that it reflects

82

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

the intention of the couple as an entity, rather than a task for

either individual alone. No matter what issue or project they are
dealing with, the proclamation empowers them to support each
other in accomplishing it as a couple. Both partners take full
responsibility for the situation and its resolution. This is the
essence of the second of the Four Cs, cooperation, discussed in
the next chapter. With this kind of collaboration, each individual
may be able to accomplish things as a couple that would be less
likely to happen if they tried them alone. What really matters
is not the individual's success, but the results the couple has
committed to create together. This way of viewing themselves
may at first have some individuals feeling threatened by a loss
of personal freedom or resentful of additional burdens; in fact,
once the proclamation is made, we have found that each partner
experiences his or her individual identity and commitment as
even stronger than before.
Sharon and Ron (who came in for therapy to deal with Sharon's
anger and depression about feeling overwhelmed with taking
care of their two children and his mother and grandmother) are
a good example of the power of a couple versus an individual
focus. After Ron joined the therapy, they quickly moved on
to establishing the existence of their joint commitment and the
creation of a couple proclamation. Even though Ron was not as
disturbed by the presence of his extended family as Sharon was,
they created a proclamation of "We back each other up one
hundred percent." Immediately they both felt more hopeful and
positive about their situation and their relationship. They were
now in a strong position to begin exploring alternative possibilities together for caring for their children and relatives in more
productive ways. Up until that time, they had made / statements,
such as when Sharon had remembered saying to herself, "How
am I going to handle it with a second child?" With the creation
of their proclamation, they developed a new kind of speaking
during the therapy session that we called couple-ease: ease created
with a couple, not an individual, focus.
A similar situation occurred with a married graduate student
couple who both felt stressed about completing their doctoral
dissertations. After that they sought help individually, they became more frustrated with their own work and with each other,

COMMITMENT

83

so then they got help to work on their situation as a couple.

They created the proclamation "We are creative and successful"
and took on both dissertations as a joint responsibility, operating
as if they were each coauthors of the other's dissertation. Then
they were able to move forward and complete their work, without either one feeling resentful.
Just as there is a wide range of couple personalities and goals,
there is an endless variety of "we statements" that couples can
create for themselves. Various powerful couple proclamations
that couples with whom we have worked have created over the
years include the following:
n
D
D
D
n
a
D
D
n

We value and appreciate each other.

We trust our couple.
We are a playful dance.
We are simply irresistible!
Our couple is our source of love and acknowledgment.
You are everything to me.
The magic is back!
It's a privilege being a couple.
We are a winning team.

Expression and Tone of the Proclamation

Once the couple have settled on a proclamation that works for
them, the next step is to have them state it together in the session.
They should be directed to face each other, look into each other's
eyes, and possibly hold hands while stating the proclamation
with sincerity. The purpose of saying the proclamation together
during the session is twofold. It is imperative to see if the proclamation is, in fact, the most effective statement for the couple at
the moment. The second purpose is to enable the couple to
experience the proclamation powerfully as a joint creation in the
moment, one that they can believe in and relate to as genuine.
It's not just what they say; it's how they say it. The therapist
can reassure the couple that for the sake of the effectiveness of
the proclamation, it is fine to speak as if the statement is true,
or to "fake it till you make it." Encourage them to try it on like
a new coat and see how it feels before they buy it. The therapist's
own enthusiasm will motivate the couple to get excited about it

84

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

and to overcome their discomfort or skepticism. Neurolinguistic

programming emphasizes the importance of the therapist's role
in this regard. "Your ability to see a difference depends on how
forceful you are in amplifying what you are getting. ... The
more expressively you access, the more expressively they will
respond" (Bandler & Grinder, 1979, p. 106).
The couple will know if they have stopped struggling and
have "made it" regarding their proclamation when it inspires
and empowers them in the moment to see new possibilities for
their relationship. The therapist will be able to verify that an
acceptable proclamation has been achieved when both partners
appear visibly moved or excited by it, and do not appear to be
repeating it automatically or just to be going along with the other
one. A good measure of success is asking the couple, "Does this
light you up?" They may be instructed to say their proclamation
together several times, emphasizing different words in turn each
time and noting which version has the most mutual impact.
Specific signs and cues in the partners' verbal and nonverbal
behavior indicate when they are most directly experiencing the
power of their proclamation. As the couple states their proclamation together, the therapist should look for sudden signs of elation, being moved, or dramatic changes in physical posture, such
as the face changing color, the tone of voice changing, or the
body shifting or moving forward in the chair. Emotional cues,
such as smiling or crying, and signs of renewed affection, love,
or calm contentment in the couple as they repeat their proclamation are revealing as well. Any of these behaviors could be an
indication that a new reality for the relationship is being created,
beyond the normal way of operating for the couple. The therapist
will probably notice a perceptible shift in his or her own internal
experience during this exercise as well. This experience has been
described as "a certain 'presence' in the room" when the proclamation that is being stated is "the one" (Couples Coaching Couples
Manual, 2001, Section 3.2).
If either the therapist or the couple is not convinced of the
power of their proclamation, the clients should be instructed to
keep working on it until that power is present in both the words
and the experience of how they are in the moment. It is important
that neither the clients nor the therapist accept an inappropriate

COMMITMENT

85

or unexciting statement just to have one, as doing so will solidify

old patterns and retard progress on the subsequent tasks of the
Four Cs. Sometimes it does not become clear until later on,
when the therapy is not progressing as well as expected, that
the proclamation is not appropriate. When this happens, work
with the couple to modify or completely change their proclamation. During the process, it may be necessary to complete some
unfinished business that emerged in the course of working on
the proclamation. The procedure of creating a vision together
often uncovers some regrets or resentments that need to be clarified before a genuine commitment and an authentic statement
can be found. Once these feelings are shared, the process of
creating the couple proclamation generally moves forward
quickly. It may take several attempts, but having a proclamation
that works is crucial to the success of the entire treatment.
It was necessary to make several modifications before finding
the right proclamation for Carl and Jane, the couple described
earlier that came to therapy after the discovery of Carl's affairs.
Their first proclamation, "We are a faithful, fulfilling, fun couple/' felt like "too much of a leap," they said. It also contained
the subtle connotation of fixing something that was wrongthe
infidelity. That problem eventually sabotaged both the proclamation and their progress. They changed it the next week to "We
put each other first." A few weeks later they reported, "We didn't
feel like saying that one either." After some inquiry in their
session, Carl revealed that he had never heard "I love you" from
his parents. They then added the phrase "We love each other"
to the beginning of their proclamation. That worked for them
for quite a while. A few months later they decided they wanted
to emphasize the power of couple in their proclamation, finally
coming up with "We are a couple who comes first." This proclamation sustained them through many difficult times in therapy,
as well as in their life together at home.
Jane had a history of using sarcasm and making very cutting
remarks to Carl. He often felt accused and cut down, especially
when remarks were made in front of others. He reported feeling
isolated, blamed, and unloved when that would happen. Whenever that happened, he had the desire to find love and support
in other places and with other people. "I just don't want to be

86

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

near her," he would say. With the help of their therapist, they
were encouraged to repeat their proclamation to each other before going out with friends, and whenever he was feeling isolated
or hurt by her remarks. They reported that the exercise helped
them to feel more like a couple taking on the world together.
Once the couple achieves a powerful statement of their proclamation, it is useful for the therapist to help them identify the
physical experience of the excitement that it generates. This may
feel awkward or difficult at first for both the therapist and the
couple, as "most people are not oriented to learn from their
internal experience, their somatic history" (Keleman, 1982, p. 95).
However, after working with the process of creating proclamations for a while, both therapists and clients become more sensitive over time to the power of expression, both verbal and nonverbal. Therapists could help their clients locate their physical
sensations, describe them clearly in words, and then use the
particular sensation associated with the proclamation as a physical reminder of their commitment. The positive sensation, such
as warmth or tingling, may subsequently be used as a cue or
anchor to recall and reinforce the proclamation. "You can't not
anchor. It's only a question of whether you do it in a useful way
or not" (Handler & Grinder, 1979, p. 103). Both the couple and
therapist may unwittingly be anchoring or reinforcing the couple's pain and suffering by giving more attention to it. The emphasis needs to be on the possibility of creating a positive vision
together. The design and maintenance of couple proclamations
provide a systematic way to access and anchor the pleasant
versus the unpleasant states of being a couple.

Keeping Proclamations Alive:

Additional Exercises and Assignments
Once a powerful couple proclamation has been established, it
must be reaffirmed regularly to keep alive the commitment behind it. The couple must be helped to see that what keeps their
relationship fulfilling is not that a proclamation was stated, but
that it continues to be repeated over time. The statement of the
commitment to the relationship must be represented as not the

COMMITMENT

87

end of the work on the relationship, but as the beginning. Like

most any skill it will take ongoing repetition and practice of the
behavior to keep it working effectively. The analogy of an opera
singer learning an aria, for example, may be used: It is not enough
to just sing it once; it needs to be rehearsed over and over again
to keep it fresh and powerful. It takes hard work, but it is what
the singer loves and is committed to doing. In a similar manner,
the couple should be guided and encouraged by the therapist
to find several simple ways to reinforce their proclamation as a
labor of love. Some basic principles and suggestions for keeping
proclamations alive and effective in a couple's life are included
below.
Repetition and Practice
Once a couple proclamation is created, the therapist may have
the partners state it at the beginning of each therapy session. It
is helpful to have them repeat it any time during the session
when the experience of being couple is not presentsuch as if
one partner is blaming the other or feeling resigned about the
relationship. Doing so enables them to see the possibilities of
using the proclamation outside of sessions as well. Remarkable
results were achieved this way for Sharon and Ron, the couple
struggling to deal with having Ron's mother and grandmother
living in their home. After returning from their vacation, Sharon
started a session by saying that she felt like giving up on their
relationship.
S: It really makes me mad that after all this therapy things
don't seem to be getting better.
T: What do you mean, Sharon?
S: Well, this past weekend we spent time with our families,
and it just seems like there is no respect for anyone. Maybe
I notice most that Ron does not seem to respect me.
R: I noticed it too. All we seemed to do was complain about
other people.
T: I want you two to stop for a minute and see if you think
couple is present. Are you taking this issue on as couple?

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

S: I'm not sure what you mean.

T: Try saying your proclamation together.
R & S: We back each other up one hundred percent.

Repeating their proclamation immediately shifted their perspective to a cooperative joint inquiry into possible solutions. During
the next session, they reported that they were saying their proclamation daily and that they were really listening to each other.
As a result, they started talking about different living arrangements for Ron's mother and grandmother. They were truly living
out their proclamation "We back each other up one hundred
percent."
In addition to reciting the proclamation together in therapy,
the therapist should give the couple assignments to bring the
act of speaking it into the routine of their daily lives. For example,
they could recite it together in the morning and evening, or leave
it as a message on each other's answering machines and e-mail.
It may seem awkward at first, but with continued practice it
soon becomes a part of the couple's ongoing vocabulary and
behavior. They may come to see it as a daily affirmation or
mantra, a phrase or word spoken repeatedly during meditation.
The repetition gives a renewed sense of calm, consistency, and
stability. Just as brushing one's teeth works best if it is done
daily, the same is true with saying a couple proclamation. Saying
the proclamation is not a matter of whether or not they feel like
doing it; it's a matter of choice and commitment to couple. The
partners can choose to be controlled by their feelings or by their
vision. Choosing to follow their commitment rather than their
feelings creates couple power. By taking committed action, the
partners eventually come to see their feelings as something they
have, not what they are (e.g., feeling depressed versus being
depressed or feeling angry versus being angry). Rather than
waiting to feel something before they say it, they are encouraged
to say it first (proclaim it) and take action, knowing that the
feelings will follow.
It is important to point out during the course of therapy that
to maintain therapeutic gains and their cocreating relationship,
couples will need to create new proclamations continually over
the life of their relationship. This ongoing practice will support

COMMITMENT

89

them in keeping their commitment alive and meeting the challenges they will inevitably face. Once is definitely not enough
where the commitment to couple is concerned. Some couples
may feel that they shouldn't need to do this, especially if their
couple has already made progress. Their romantic ideals will
tell them that once they have worked things out, they should
just live happily ever after. They may also think that they are
saying something is wrong with their relationship if they need
to keep re-creating their commitment to it. We have found, however, that once they start creating new proclamations on a regular
basis, they soon come to see that the opposite is the case: The
more attention they give to revitalizing their relationship, the
more it strengthens and reinforces the power of their commitment. Variety is definitely the spice of life here.
This was the case with the couple discussed earlier, John and
Linda. When their original proclamation ceased to inspire them,
they created "We're at the summit" as their second proclamation.
The clue that they needed a new proclamation was when they
started a session saying they "didn't know what to talk about
today." They were still having a lot of difficulties in their relationship, and it became clear that they felt, in their words, "up against
the wall" and needed a new proclamation to motivate them to get
past this impasse. Just the process of creating a new proclamation
reenergized and motivated them to commit to get past their wall.
Several months later, they hit another impasse and created the
proclamation "We are moving forward." Only then did they
really begin to open up and go deeper into the more difficult
areas of their relationship, such as issues involving drug use
and sex.
A couple in their late 40s, Ray and Laurie, began to consider
divorce when Laurie decided to go to graduate school on the
other side of the country. They used several proclamations over
the next year to get through that challenge. They first created
the proclamation "We are home for each other," which reinforced
their commitment and enabled them to feel comfortable with
their plan of having Ray stay in the home they loved during the
first semester of Laurie's time away at school. A few months
later, they created the proclamation "We are creative, fearless
adventurers" to support them in figuring out ways to manage

90

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

their long-distance relationship until they could live together

again. Later in the year, they created the proclamation "We are
an expansive couple and proud of each other." Each of these
proclamations helped them to keep the possibility of their relationship alive during that difficult time of separation in their
lives.
Concrete Representations: Activities and Exercises
Once the couple has learned to verbalize their proclamation
regularly in a meaningful way, the therapist may want to help
them add some kind of concrete representation to it. Adding
some cues for touch, smell, taste, or sight will potentially increase
the power of the proclamation in the couple's life. Without such
practical reminders, the couple's visionlike a dreamis likely
to disappear. People seem programmed to remember negative
events or feelings for a long time; positive incidents and experiences, on the other hand, are too soon forgotten. Systematically
creating a variety of ways to foster and enhance positive experiences is thus vital for maintaining satisfying relationships
over time.
Research and clinical observations have shown that people
use a variety of sensory modalities in relating to the world,
with one or more modalities more highly developed than others
(Bandler & Grinder, 1979; Lankton, 1980). Although reciting
the couple proclamation aloud is important to do, the auditory
modality will not always be people's "primary representational
system" (Cameron-Bandler, 1985). Particular tastes or smells activate associations and memories of past events for many people;
a special kind of touch or image may also evoke strong feelings
or memories. When these sensory responses are used systematically, they are a powerful resource for keeping couple proclamations alive. The therapist should carefully observe the behaviors
and words used by the partners to see which modalities they
seem to prefer. Even without special knowledge of specific sensory patterns, the therapist may encourage the couple to explore
a wide range of possible ways to make concrete representations
of their couple proclamation.

COMMITMENT

91

A simple but effective addition to a verbal proclamation, for

example, is including some kind of touch or other nonverbal
action along with the statement. One couple added a wink and
a high five, another included a hug, and others have held hands
and looked into each other's eyes when repeating their proclamation. Food is also particularly significant to some people. One
couple, for example, made a regular practice of going together
to a special Indian restaurant that the husband loved as a way
of reinforcing the power of their commitment and proclamation.
Some couples also look for a special kind of music, flowers,
perfume, or scented massage oil that relates to and enhances
their proclamation.
The visual sensory modality provides the most possibilities
for concrete representations of proclamations. Most people rely
on sight for a great deal of their information, and "out of sight,
out of mind" definitely applies here. Creating some kind of visual
display of their proclamation will help the couple keep it present
in their lives. It could be something simple, such as sticky notes
with the proclamation displayed around the house, in the office
or car, or on the screen saver of personal computers. A more
elaborate display might take the form of a picture or collage
the partners create together, using favorite photos, mementos,
quotations, or magazine cutouts. Encourage them to bring it in
to the next session, describe its significance, and then display it
in a special place where it can inspire them at home. Just the
process of working on the display clarifies and reinforces the
couple's vision. It may also give them some more ideas of how
to express their proclamation in a concrete way. One young
couple with the proclamation "We are a safe harbor for each
other" made a collage representing their proclamation and then
got inspired to plan a sailing trip together. They also found in
a catalog a plaque depicting a calm harbor, ordered it, and hung
it in their entryway. Another couple included their 4-year-old
daughter in the process of making a collage together about their
proclamation "We are artists in everything we do"; they then
hung it in their dining room, and all three recited it together
every dayoften at the instigation of their daughter. The therapist could also suggest that the couple create their display in the

92

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

form of a mandala, a collection of symbols drawn or pasted

inside a circle symbolizing wholeness and unity. This will further
reinforce the notion of the couple as an entity.
Another more internal way in which couples may bring the
visual modality into play is to create a powerful image of themselves acting in accordance with their proclamation. This imagery
technique has been described elsewhere as directed or creative
visualization (Gawain, 1979) and guided imagery (Koch-Sheras
& Sheras, 1998). In working with their couple proclamation, the
partners develop a clear picture of what it looks like, "giving it
positive energy until it becomes objective reality . . . experiencing] it as if it is already happening" (Gawain, 1979, p. 3). This
process gives the couple a powerful shared context for their
vision and builds confidence in what is possible for their future.
One couple who were dealing with power and control issues
came up with the proclamation "We are King and Queen ruling
over our realm together." To get them started, the therapist had
them visualize in the session being on their thrones jointly ruling
their family as a single royal entity with shared power and
benevolence. This image stayed with them as they continued to
explore new ways of being couple.
Any format or object for representing a proclamation that
supports the couple's joint vision may be useful. No matter how
the couple's commitment is phrased or represented, it is crucial
that this essential step of creating a powerful statement of the
couple's commitment is taken before moving on to the next task
of the Four Cs.

Assessing Commitment
Evaluating a couple for therapy is essential to determining if
couples work will be effective and where to begin it. The questions in each category below are designed as guidelines to help
the practitioner determine what work needs to be done in helping
couples complete the task of commitment. The clinician may
delete questions that are not needed or add others that may be
useful for specific couples. The basic questions are those that are
felt to be essential for evaluating the completion of the particular

COMMITMENT

93

task; the additional questions are included to help the therapist

evaluate progress toward completing the task. Questions can be
answered individually at first, then by each person with both
present, and finally answered together as a couple. This procedure is similar to that followed in a traditional sex therapy interview (Masters & Johnson, 1966). Similar guidelines and questions
are included in subsequent chapters for each of the remaining
Four Cs.
Basic Questions
1. Describe your commitment to your relationship;
describe your partner's commitment to the relationship.
2. What does commitment mean to you?
3. Describe how committed you are to working things
out with your partner.
Additional Questions
1. Do you believe in divorce?
2. Have you ever considered leaving your partner?
Why?
3. How long have you been together?
4. How long does it feel like you have been together?
5. Do you wonder what it would be like to be in a
relationship with someone else?
6. Are there things you could never forgive your partner for?
7. Are you able to trust your partner?
8. Do you believe in love at first sight?
9. Do you think wedding vows are silly or useless?
10. Do you often express your love for each other?
These questions can be quite helpful in determining where to
start therapy with a couple. If commitment is not present, for
instance, it must be established first. Dalia and Max came to
therapy not knowing whether or not they wanted to stay together. They had been dating ever since they met in college and
now, 4 years later, were still unsure. During the Four Cs interview

94

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

they said they were committed to the relationship no matter

what. It surprised them a little to hear themselves say that. When
a relationship appears to be a committed one, the next steps can
be determined by examining the status of the couple's ability
to cooperate, their communication skills, and the possibility of
community support.

Conclusion
If therapy moves prematurely into issues of how the partners
are cooperating or communicating before the existence of commitment and the statement of vision are clear, progress will be
limited. It may be necessary to redirect the therapy back to
clarifying the couple commitment or proclamation at various
times during the therapy. Even if nothing else is accomplished
in the therapy other than the couple clarifying their commitment
to their relationship, they will still have created a more productive way of relating. Sometimes couples realize from this process
that one or both of them is not truly committed to a long-term
relationship with their partner. This realization or admission
helps them be more honest and realistic about their relationship,
enabling them to either separate or redefine their couple in a
healthier way. Sometimes creating a new proclamation helps a
couple recommit to their relationship.
This was the case with the couple who had the proclamation
"We are King and Queen together." They returned to their therapist several years after they terminated marital therapy when
they were entering retirement and having doubts about staying
together. The therapist helped them clarify their commitment
and create a proclamation consistent with their current concerns:
"We are relaxing happily together forever." Bolstered by their
proclamation, after just one session, they felt confident and motivated to take on their couple and the world again together as
a team.
When a couple creates a proclamation of their joint vision, they
construct an arena where they are free to realize their potential
together. If they cannot construct a joint vision, the couple likely
will not survive. Therapists using the four Cs are not just apply-

COMMITMENT

95

ing techniques to fix a dysfunctional relationship in the moment;

they are fostering an ongoing, cocreating process. Rather than
just giving clients fish to eat, as the old proverb goes, they are
teaching them how to fish and nurture their couple with skills
learned together.

Chapter

4
Cooperation
stablishing commitment to being couple is only the beginning
E
of treatment. The next major task for a relationship and for
therapy is putting commitment into practice. This behavior manifests through cooperationthe second basic component of the
Four Cs and of the structure for a lasting relationship. Cooperation is a concept well known to many couples, but though it may
be simple to talk about cooperating, it may not come naturally or
be easy to accomplish. People think they know how to do it, but
they usually do not. People are generally socialized more toward
self-interest than cooperative action in our culture. Contemporary society's emphasis on individualism undermines the practice of cooperation. Competitiveness or the desire to be right
often stands in the way of true teamwork. Cooperation, however,
is a necessary part of a happy and healthy marriage or relationship. Helping clients learn how to cooperate effectively is an
essential part of CPT.
Many couples believe that compromise is a desired goal or
outcome. However, as we discussed in chapter 1 (this volume),
compromise usually means that one or both participants must
give up something that they want. The fear of having to give in
or lose causes resistance to cooperation. They become resigned
to compromise as a dire necessity and end up resenting it. True
compromise can be a form of cooperation, however, when a
couple focuses on developing new behaviors that are mutually
97

98

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

gratifying and positive. Giving something up then is seen as

creating something new and different. Neither person feels that
he or she has been exploited or used. This sort of cooperative
compromise leads to creating new possibilities and the proverbial
win-win solution.
Cooperation means more than just agreeing, compromising,
or getting along. In the CPT model, cooperation is the particular
skill that allows people to act powerfully to facilitate the accomplishment of a shared goal. It includes (a) practicing teamwork,
(b) being able to count on the other person to make and deliver
on his or her promises, and (c) developing a facility for making
clear requests, openly and without hidden meanings or expectations. Some of these skills come naturally to one or both partners,
but couples who wind up in a practitioner's office often need
help learning how to cooperate in a satisfactory and productive
way. The procedures for facilitating the development of this skill
in therapy are described below.
As is the case with commitment, the partners' feelings are
less significant than the "bond, which is forged through the
development of shared goals" (Powers, 2000, p. 128).
Marital teamwork is directed toward goals or ideals that go
beyond the feelings the partners have for each other, but the
couple's aims still include and enrich their feelings for each
other. When spouses work cooperatively toward some end,
or to fulfill some purpose, their cooperation draws them
together and enhances their emotional experience. At the
same time, their shared goals give their relationship a direction and a significance that transcends their emotional experience, (p. 129)

Background Work: The Concept of Teamwork

It may sound simplistic to say that something as important as
a marriage or committed relationship has a great deal in common
with playing a game, but true partnerships have many similarities to teams. The word game does not imply superficiality, only
the fact that games have goals and rules. A game involves certain

COOPERATION

99

objectives and rules that direct how they can be achieved, and
teamwork practiced according to the rules moves the couple
toward success. Adherence to these rules determines many successful outcomes. During dating and relating as a couple, rules
are often not clear or explicit, so success may not be easy to
attain. Understanding the rules and having them set out in a
clear and understandable way enables the couple to develop
effective "plays" and facilitates more positive outcomes.
Making sure that the goals of the game, as well as the rules
and plays, are clear to all members of the team is essential for
success in any team endeavor, especially in a relationship. Yet
therapists consistently see members of a couple who do not want
to tell their partners what they expect of them in relation to
meeting the goals of their relationship. This situation is often
caused by the fear of finding out that there isn't much agreement
on the goals of the union, which threatens the commitment; or
the couple may realize that there are less positive feelings between them now than when they started their relationship. For
instance, a couple may come to realize that one partner wants
children and a family whereas the other may not. Their ability
to cooperate regarding financial planning or even deciding where
to live and the choice of a lifestyle may then be compromised.
Failures in cooperation may be seen by the therapist as symptomatic of problems in commitment to a common goal. If that is the
case, the focus of therapy first needs to be on commitment to
a joint vision before exercises are done to enhance the ability
to cooperate.
Goal Setting
It is important to realize that good teams have goals, short term
and long term. Goals for successful teams have to be explicit, or
success will be elusive. Goals may be problematic not only if
they are hidden, but also if they are abstract. Marital therapists
Hudson and O'Hanlon (1991) stated,
We have found that the more abstract we have to be with the
couple to find mutually agreeable goals, the more likely it is
that it will be a treatment challenge. If the only commonality

100

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

you can identify at first is not wanting nuclear war, you know
that you are probably going to see the couple more than two
or three sessions, (p. 45)

Goal setting becomes the first order of business in therapy

once the concept of being a team is established. Like a good coach
who writes the words national championship on the blackboard in
the locker room, the therapist will help the couple to define
the goals and vision they have for themselves. Unlike sports,
however, there is more to being part of a successful couple than
just winning the game. Goals may be complicated and change
over time. Helping clients focus on who they are being as a
couple entity cooperating to achieve their goals is an important
part of the therapeutic relationship.
Practice
For a championship team to reach its goals, the team members
need to be motivated to practice together. This is true in relationships as well. Teamwork requires awareness and rehearsal. Many
therapists ask couples to do homework to practice the skills of
cooperation they learn in sessions. These skills of cooperation
include listening skills or sharing insights and feelings with each
other. Like a championship team, a healthy couple needs to learn
new things from time to time and adapt to new physical and
emotional conditions. Practice is essential to this process. Many
couples do not think they need this sort of practice, or they
believe it to be a sign that they are weak or in need of remediation.
In fact, this sort of rehearsal is essential to good learning. In
sports, it has often been said that players always want to win a
championship, but no one wants to go to practice. A good work
ethic with support from the therapist is extremely helpful in
creating an ongoing relationship that is flexible and alive.
Teaching people to be persistent in the face of adversity helps
them to reaffirm their commitment and gives them a tool that
may be necessary to survive difficult times together. Incorporating practice into regular rituals is one way to ensure that practice
occurs. In this sense, practice has at least two meanings. The first
refers to repeating activities to gain mastery (such as practicing a

COOPERATION

101

jump shot in basketball). The second refers to the ritualized or

regular performance of an activity, such as a meditation practice.
Practice requires dedication, repetition, and persistence whether
it is for mastery, meditation, or marital harmony.
The therapist should make assignments for the couple to practice, and identify with them those behaviors that benefit the
couple most. Designing a proclamation and stating a vision are
examples of this kind of practice. Cooperation is needed to work
on a couple vision. Practicing the couple proclamation is a basic
homework assignment of CPT. Have the couple repeat their
proclamation to each other dailybefore they leave the house
in the morning, at the beginning of important discussions, when
they come home in the evening, at bedtime, or all of the above.
If the proclamation is powerful, it may lead to a ritual practice
that enhances the couple's daily life and establishes behaviors
that are of ongoing therapeutic worth.
Coaching
Coaching is the third component of a good team and constitutes
an essential part of teaching cooperation. Coaching is the act of
teaching and supporting a person or team with a particular
outcome or goal in mind. Therapy is more than just coaching,
of course, but many of the principles of a coach-player relationship are useful to understand when working with a couple.
Coaching might take place between the therapist and the couple,
between the partners, or between the couple and others in the
community, including friends, family, or support groups. (These
options are discussed in detail in chap. 6 of this volume.)
Coaches are effective when they are 100% committed to the
team's goals. The couple being coached must be willing to follow
the suggestions without argument or complaint. Tom Landry,
legendary Dallas Cowboys football coach, said that "Leadership
is getting someone to do what they don't want to do, so that
they can achieve what they want to achieve." A coach who just
tells players what they already know how to do is of little use.
As a therapist and coach, you teach a couple to function as a
team and encourage them to practice the skills they are developing. More than just a cheerleader, the coach is a teacher and a

102

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

confidant, using personal observations and what is said by the

couple to achieve positive results.
Coaching skills involve listening and observing on the part of
the therapist and then by the couple. Couples, especially those
interested in sports and fitness, are usually quite open to the
notion of operating in their couple like a team. The therapist
acts as the model for committed listeningthat is, listening to
the couple with the intention of making sure that they will
achieve their goals together. The therapist encourages each partner to practice coaching the other on small or large individual
endeavors in which they participate together as a team. It is
useful for the therapist to give an example by helping them select
a project they might coach. For instance, the wife might coach
the husband on a business project, or the husband might coach
his wife on her tennis game. The therapist might lead them
through the coaching steps of setting a goal and measurable
milestones to achieve, and setting up a schedule for coaching
time.
The most difficult part of this phase of therapy then becomes
teaching each person in the couple to request coaching and then
to be coachable. As mentioned earlier, for many individuals,
accepting coaching means asking for help and showing weakness. It is important to point out that coaching is not necessarily
remedial. In fact, most professionals, athletes, singers, and even
physicians are constantly engaged in coaching or supervision
not just to be good, but to be continuously better. The goal of
coaching here is to increase the skill of both partners to be the
best they can be as individuals and as a couple team.
Clarifying Roles
Clarifying the roles of each partner on the couple team is another
vital component of teamwork. Coaches must make certain that
the goals to be achieved are clear to all members of the team.
On a good team, for instance, each player is not expected to do
everything well. In baseball, good pitchers do not have to be
good hitters, and good hitters may not be the best fielders. In
basketball, each player won't score the same number of points
as everyone else. Players have roles based on their particular

COOPERATION

103

skills, each making his or her own contribution (e.g., power

forward or shooting guard). The same is true in a committed
relationship. Not everyone can be as smart, skilled, talented,
organized, articulate, or outgoing as everyone else. If the goal
is for the players to win as a team, however, the players will
perform their roles more willingly. If what they are expected to
contribute is clear and acknowledged, they will act out their
roles more efficiently.
In couples therapy, clarifying expectations and roles within
the relationship is essential to positive outcomes. Surprisingly
enough, many partners have never discussed each other's
strengths and weaknesses frankly and openly. The only context
they may have for understanding their roles is "the enculturated
lens of gender polarization" (Bern, 1993, p. 143). These traditional
gender roles do play a useful part in establishing the parameters
or script for how men and women should interact. They may
help to give couples a sense of what to expect in a relationship
and a framework within which to operate, but these expectations,
too, often become an obstacle to couples. They may become
exaggerated into rigid notions of masculinity and femininity that
manifest in dominant and submissive roles that show up in a
variety of unproductive ways, particularly regarding housework,
child care, elder care, and decision making (Hochschild, 2003).
These roles tend to become exaggerated after marriage, again
after the birth of children, and with income differentials between
spouses. Extreme notions of feminine passivity and masculine
aggression may lead to gender role tensions over time, and may
even result in domestic violence (Sanchez-Hucles & Dutton,
1999). According to McGoldrick (1999), idealized and unrealistic
notions about the roles in a traditional marriage are causing
women in particular to

view traditional marriage as a bad bargain... producing such

profound discontinuities in the lives of women as to constitute a genuine health hazard. ... The ideal itself costs us all
a tremendous amount in terms of our ability to be ourselves
and find harmony in our relationships with each other and
support the tasks of family life. (pp. 232-233)

104

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

So a couple must do more than devise ways to satisfy the

responsibilities of their preconceived gender roles. It is equally
important for them to look for ways to coordinate (or even rethink) these roles to achieve true cooperation. Rigid gender roles
result in stereotypical behavior and create inflexibility that inhibits a couple's ability to operate as an effective team able to adapt
to a changing world. Without flexibility and cooperation, couple
is weakened. Therapists must be on the alert for how couples
may automatically drift into acting out traditional ideals and
rigid gender roles without questioning them.
Jim and Susan's 13-year marriage began quite traditionally,
with Jim earning a salary while Susan kept house and raised the
family. With their two young children in school, Susan started
a small home business that soon blossomed into a profitable
graphic design studio. When they discovered another baby was
on the way, they experienced anxiety and conflict, which brought
them into therapy. Once they were helped to see the gender trap
they were falling into, they agreed that Jim would take a leave
of absence from teaching. He would become a full-time father
for a time so that Susan could develop her business, which was
netting a considerable profit. Jim's willingness to set aside the
notion that "father equals breadwinner" enabled the couple to
succeed. Family life ran smoothly and each member of the couple
found fulfillment. Susan's income generated enough money so
that they were both able to cut back on their work.
The expectations of a particular role often become a reality
for couples, limiting their options and their ability to cooperate
as a team. For example, if Susan had accepted the "reality" or
stereotype that women are the primary caregivers at the expense
of pursuing other interests, she would have been extremely frustrated. She probably never would have been able to help achieve
financial stability for their couple. In abandoning the notion that
it is unmanly to change diapers, Jim found he was able to enjoy
their children more and relate to Susan more fully. He was not
just a friend and romantic partner, but a fellow parent within
their couple. Both Jim and Susan acknowledged each other frequently for the unique contribution each of them made to the
successful operation of their new family.

COOPERATION

105

Identifying Respective Strengths and Contributions

Identifying strengths is a crucial component of a powerful team
of any kind. Even though there are often complaints about what
is not done, there isn't enough appreciation of what has been
contributed. Teams with good coaches are rewarded for their
successes and strengths, as well as criticized for their weaknesses
and failures. Defining roles and expectations and identifying
strengths and contributions are part of establishing a basis for
cooperation in a couple. The therapist must coach the partners
to be clear about their respective roles and to acknowledge each
other for fulfilling them. Likewise, the couple as a team must
be clear about their goals as a unit, as the entity couple. Is their
primary focus happiness, intimacy and sex, family or financial
well-being? The therapist can assign homework for this purpose,
asking the couple to cooperate on projects and learn from each
other's strengths.
Carrie and Lonnie often argued over family decisions. Married
for 8 years with three small children, they did not buy a new
car because they could not agree on whether to get a minivan
or an SUV. Lonnie said he had much more skill in making the
decision because he had a degree in engineering. Carrie said
that she spent most of the time with the kids and knew their
needs for a vehicle better. He didn't like the van she picked
because it was not well built, and she did not like the SUV he
liked because it was impractical and uncomfortable. He felt that
she was ignoring his expertise, and she felt he was not paying
attention to her responsibilities as the child caretaker.
Working with their therapist, Carrie and Lonnie were encouraged to take on a cooperative project of buying a car, using their
individual expertise and experiences together. After creating the
couple proclamation "We are a loving team," they were given
homework to define their expectations for the new vehicle, to
recognize each other's concerns, and then to plan for evaluating possible selections. She identified his strength from past
experience to do the safety analysis, and that she had a need
for convenience concerns to be met. Together they wrote down
the characteristics they were looking for in the new car. Then

106

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

they went together online to look for something that met both
their expectations. Within a week, they had made a selection
that pleased them both. The process of teaching them how to
cooperate on the project made the couple more able to acknowledge each of their contributions. Soon they argued less about
many things.
Team Spirit
The final component of a successful team is team spirit and
enthusiasm. Learning cooperation is both enjoyable and exciting.
Teams are usually formed within the context of playing a game
for fun. Even though many couples come to treatment for very
serious problems, learning to cooperate reminds them that contributing together to meet a particular goal is a lot of fun. It is
possible for planning a vacation, drawing up plans for an addition to a house, buying a bedroom suite, or having a baby to
become enjoyable, rather than just stressful, experiences. Resolving an old issue often clears the way for new activities to happen.
For example, removing fears of abuse or violence may make
room for a return to trust and playfulness. The therapist may
foster this enthusiasm and team spirit by also being playful and
engaging. Watching a couple return to an earlier feeling of love
and togetherness is quite rewarding for the practitioner as well
as the couple. In many cases, the sessions that are the most fun
for the therapist are also experienced by clients to be the most
engaging and useful. These experiences represent a departure
from the despair or frustration they often felt in interactions with
each other. Team spirit becomes an important part of goal setting
and problem solving because it increases a couple's interest in
therapy and their motivation to explore new possibilities with
each other.
A spirit of cooperation is especially needed in blended families
where children may come from a variety of past relationships,
and current relationships may include other parents or siblings.
Conflicting alliances and "invisible psychological bonds are the
Ghosts at the Table" (Bray, 1998, p. 4) that often make it difficult
to create a new viable structure or maintain couple as an entity.

COOPERATION

107

For example, Anna and Jerry, a couple in their early 50s, married,
with each of them bringing children from previous marriages.
They were presented with many conflicts when they tried to
negotiate "my children" and "your children." When they agreed
to take on the project of parenting and family building as a team
and saw all the children as "our children," the conflicts between
them began to disappear. It took a while for everyone to make
the adjustment, but eventually their new family began to operate
as a team.
Cooperation, even among divorced parents, has been shown
to be the most effective parenting arrangement. Bray (1998) referred to this as cooperative coparenting, which is "a cooperative
postdivorce relationship and a mutual commitment to working
together . . . sharing the same ultimate goal: the well-being of
their child or children" (p. 232). This is a good example of goal
setting being a function of the couple's commitment to being a
couple entity.

Delivering on Promises
Many conjoint, behavioral, and brief therapies are predicated
on goal setting and the accomplishment of agreed-upon aims.
Couples often complain that their partner does not do what he
or she said he or she would do. In therapy with couples, it is
important to see that mutual goal setting represents not merely
agreeing, but creating a promise or contract to continue to work
on the goals together. Sager (1976) spoke of written documentation of such contracts made between members of the couple. It
is not only the content of the goal but also the mutual agreement
to respect and deliver on the contract that becomes an invaluable
part of treatment. For many married couples, a breach of trust
has broken the original marriage contract. This may have been
an extramarital affair, the breaking of an agreement regarding
careers, or a feeling that the implicit trust they had regarding
loyalty has been broken. Creating a new contract and pledging to keep it may restore trust to a troubled relationship.

108

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

Making Contracts: The Power of Witnessing

Contracts are especially powerful if written or spoken in front
of witnesses. It is a common technique for a therapist to ask that
a contract be made during sessions, or that the clients speak
their agreement to each other as a proclamation. Partners may
hold hands and look at each other when speaking, or create a
unique ritual to remind them of their pledge to keep their contract. Many options for rituals are available in couples therapy,
where witnessing is particularly powerful (see also chap. 6, this
volume). Such rituals might be verbal or nonverbal. A wink at
each other, a kiss or a hug, or any agreed-upon sign will serve
to remind them of their intention.
Contracts are most effective when they are connected to the
couple proclamation made by the partners. This connection emphasizes that the contract represents a vision for the future, not
just a change from the past. It is more efficient and effective to
see contracts as statements about possibilities for the future,
rather than remediation of prior mistakes. Contracts need to be
focused on creating something together, not fixing an individual.
For instance, a contract for one member of the couple to stop
drinking or smoking or lose weight is an attempt to fix one
person. An agreement that they will cooperate on attaining a
joint goaleven if it is focused on one partner's projectis an
example of a couple contract. To be an effective part of the
therapy, a contract for a couple project must meet at least six
criteria. It must
n

D
n

D
0
n

be something that both partners see the benefit in an4

commit to doing;
be stated positively;
have an observable or measurable result both will be able
to see;
be reasonable;
be challenging; and
be completed during the time of therapy (with the possibility of being renegotiated if necessary; Sheras & KochSheras, 1998, p. 94).

COOPERATION

109

Working on these projects as a couple fosters a cooperative

way of being while doing something significant together. Once
one or more contracts to satisfy goals have been established, the
therapist measures the progress made in achieving the content
of the agreement. The therapist will also assess how well the
partners are doing at reestablishing their trust and feelings of
mutual respect and accomplishment.
Joint Project
Our favorite example of a cooperative couple project comes from
the life of Dan and Mary, who had been married for nearly 10
years. It was a second marriage for each, and they had worked
very hard to be in a relationship and still maintain their autonomy. Each felt that they had been submerged in the personality
of their previous spouse. Following their wedding, Mary began
to gain weight. Now, 10 years later, she was more than 25 pounds
heavier than she wanted to be. Over the years, they had discussed
her desire to drop a few pounds, and he had offered to help.
He had shared that he found her more attractive when she was
thinner. Mary always felt that it was up to her to go on a diet
and that, though Dan was verbally supportive, he still went out
and bought chips and snack food that were just too tempting
for her. She thought he was almost challenging her to stay on
her diet in the face of this temptation.
Through couples work, Dan and Mary finally came up with
a proclamation about their weight and an idea to cooperate on
a joint project to have her lose the weight. They would both take
on her diet together. Dan (a big overweight himself) agreed that
it was as important to him and their couple as it was to her. As
part of the agreement, they went together to a local weight loss
clinic and signed up for a diet program. Every week they set a
goal for weight loss together, not just for her but for their couple
as a team. They set a goal with each other and the weight loss
clinic to lose at least 40 pounds as a couple. Each week when
they went for a weigh-in, they asked the staff to tell them how
much weight their couple had lost togetherand not to give
them individual weights. Over a period of months, they were

110

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

able to diet successfully through cooperation and commitment

to meet the goal set in the contract they made.

Requests and Agreements

A major barrier to generating contracts and cooperating is one
or both members of the couple not knowing how to ask for what
they want in a clear and effective manner. What many couples
describe as poor communication is actually the fact that one or
both may be afraid to ask their partner for what they want. A
common theme in couples therapy is that one person never
expresses what he or she wants, and the other seems always to
be asking for more. Many relationships may suffer from poor
verbal communication because of the partners' difficulties in
dealing with simple requests made of each other. Very often one
person will either withhold the complete expression of a want
or need from the partner, or speak these desires as complaints
or demands.
The problem here is not poor communication skills necessarily,
but little experience or training in how to make requests of
another person that will lead to cooperation. Some clients pride
themselves on never asking for anything, never feeling the weakness of asking for help, or they expect others to just read their
mind. What frequently occurs, then, is that no request is made,
so no request is met. Therefore, no cooperation is achieved, and
resentment often builds up, which leads to demands rather than
requests being made.
During the session described earlier in which Sharon came in
saying that she felt like "giving up on the relationship," she and
her husband, Ron, discovered that cooperation was what was
missing between them. Although they had been saying their
proclamation "We back each other up one hundred percent"
fairly regularly, Sharon was not being clear with Ron about what
she needed from him. The therapist helped them to see that what
they were calling a commitment issue was not really the problem
at all. Instead, they were just not cooperating very well. The
therapist helped them to see that they were stuck in the area of
the second C, cooperation. They were given homework to make

COOPERATION

111

requests of each other and to practice listening and cooperating.

At the next session, they said they were working on things more
as a couple and had spent some time planning a project to do
around the house as well as a vacation together. Sharon reported
they were now feeling happy and calm.
As Sharon and Ron demonstrate, couples may be taught how
to make requests and how to respond to them in a way that
promotes cooperation. Requesting may be taught and easily
learned in therapy sessions. First, the therapist must let the clients
know the usefulness of making requests and promises. Second,
when couples work together on a project, knowing what is expected of oneself and others is crucial. Likewise, being able to
ask questions and gain information about the other person's part
of the agreement is essential to the success of the endeavor. If
neither partner is clear about what is happening or what the
other person needs to accomplish a task, one of them must make
a request. A request is made respectfully, with a sincere desire
to further the agreed-upon goal.
Because most couples carry a great deal of history and resistance regarding asking their partner for something, it is often
useful to have them express their wishes or complaints in the
form of a clear request. For instance, "Dear, I would like to make
a request that you do the grocery shopping this week so I can
finish painting the bedroom." Resistance or defensiveness may
be caused by earlier experiences in the family of origin, fear
of retaliation, or low self-esteem, to name a few reasons. Such
experience may lead a person to avoid talking about certain
subjects or mis-hear them. Clearly stating what is requested is
a way to make sure that the message has been received by the
partner and to begin to address any resistance.
The response to a request is usually a statement regarding
whether or not the other person will agree to it. Honoring a
request is really making a promise to do what is asked. The
partners are encouraged to see it as a gift rather than an obligation
or compromise. In response to a request, the other person has
some freedom in how to respond. A request might be followed
by one of four statements: (a) an agreement or a promise ("I
will be happy to do the grocery shopping this week"), (b) a
modification ("I can't do it this week, but if you can do the

112

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

painting next week, I will be able to shop"), (c) a counterproposal

("I hate to grocery shop, but I would be glad to do the painting
myself if you shop"), or (d) a refusal or declination ("I decline
your request"). If a request is declined or refused outright, the
request could be rephrased.
Agreements or promises must include a specific description
of what is to be done and when it will be done. If it becomes
clear that an agreement cannot be met, then the therapist needs
to have the couple take responsibility for that and to renegotiate
when the agreement will be accomplished. This is essential.
Agreements cannot always be kept. A person who feels that he
or she must keep all his or her promises is less likely to make
any. What is important is that the agreement or promise be made
in good faith and that the couple take it on as a team.
As mentioned above, this process of making requests and
agreements should be practiced in therapy sessions and also
given as homework. We often ask couples to make a certain
number of requests of each other every day. It is not important
to start with the most significant request. We give them the
helpful hint that sometimes practicing on little things gives a
person the confidence and momentum for taking on bigger issues
later. Being able to make requests and agreements and honoring
them rebuilds trust in the couple and allows them to feel generous and good about their ability to cooperate. Practice during
sessions or as homework will allow the partners to explore the
obstacles they have to making requests. Including this exercise
of daily requests helps to reveal underlying problems that may
then be addressed. The exercise also involves making requests
and agreements respectfully, lovingly, generously, and out of
commitment to common goals for the relationship.
We often use the analogy of making a request of a person who
has packed your parachute. "Would you be willing to make a
request and get over feeling insecure if your life depended upon
it?" If you have a question about how your partner packed your
parachute before you jump from a plane, are you more concerned
that your partner might be offended that you have questioned
his or her skill, or more worried that you would die if you did
not ask?" It is safer to make the request, knowing that both

COOPERATION

113

partners have the same goal (safely using the parachute), than
to worry that the other person might be insulted.
Metaphors involving other species are also useful. Cooperation
appears to come more naturally or instinctively to many animals.
Geese, for instance, instinctively share the duties of breaking the
wind on long flights at the head of a V-formation, thus allowing
more tired birds from their family to rest at the rear where the
air is less turbulent. Donkeys, when climbing steep grades, lean
on each other to gain support and traction. Couples can sometimes understand these simple models for cooperating that they
might otherwise have overlooked.

Facilitating Cooperation With Humor

Relationships have the power to make people very happy or
extremely sad. As therapists, we often encounter people at their
saddest, most frustrated, angriest, and most hopeless time. What
is characteristic of these states is that they tend to be selfabsorbing and encourage little outside perspective-taking. The
goal of effective therapy is to get the clients to look outside of
themselves at the system that surrounds them and see that moving to a larger box, as described earlier, would be more beneficial.
When self-absorbed and self-indulgent, clients are least able to
understand the consequences of their behavior in the outside
world or to learn about cooperation, which requires a larger view.
Working with couples in this state is often very discouraging to
the practitioner, partly because we may focus too much on the
clients' feelings and not enough on the bigger picture.
The use of humor and playfulness allows the couple to see
their situation more clearly and flexibly. This has been the experience of many of our colleagues and certainly our own (Hudson
& O'Hanlon, 1991; Pittman, 1995). Cooperation often requires a
change in perspective from just looking at the individual to
looking at the larger context. Helping couples see the occasional
humor in their own behavior, as well as laughing at oneself as
a therapist, serves as a tool to change the perspective in a positive
way. Think of all the television and radio sitcoms based on couple

114

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

relationshipsfrom The Honeymooners to Friends, from The Odd

Couple to Will and Grace. Each portrays everyday problems of
relationships in a lighthearted way that almost everyone can
relate to. It is important that couples learn to laugh with each
other, not at each other. The same is true for therapists. We often
secretly see the humor in a situation. Sharing such humorous
insights in a gentle and playful way is very helpful to our clients.
Marty and Noreen had been dating for nearly 3 years and
living together just over a year when they came to see a therapist.
It was Marty's idea. He said that he was tired of doing everything
that Noreen wanted all the time and still feeling like she thought
he was inadequate. Every time she would ask for something, he
would get it for her. If she wanted to do something, he would
change his plans to accommodate her. She said she loved him
but that he was inconsiderate and insensitive to her needs. After
a number of sessions with the therapist, they were able to explore
the issue of commitment to their couple. They agreed that they
were committed to each other, but everything always seemed
to be so serious.
T: How did things go last week for your couple?
N: I don't really see any improvement. Marty still doesn't
really do all the things he should be doing.
T: Marty, do you know what Noreen means when she says
you aren't doing enough?
M: I am not sure. What I have noticed is that everything at
home seems so serious. It is like she is watching and waiting
for me to screw up.
T: Do you remember the proclamation that you generated
together last week? Can you say it together?
N & M: "We have fun together"?
T: Yes, that's right, but can you say it again looking at each
other and saying it as you would say a proclamation, not
a question?
N & M: "We have fun together!"
T: Now if you were "being fun together," how would you
be acting this coming week?

COOPERATION

115

M: I am not sure what you mean.

T: Well, what would the fun couple you proclaim yourself
to be, be like. What might you be doing?
N: I guess we would be having fun.
T: Could you have a project or an assignment this coming
week to have fun? What might that be?
M: Well, for starters we could make each other laugh more.
We used to do that a lot.
N: I think some weeks go by that we don't laugh at all.
Maybe we could work on making each other laugh more.
T: So, if you were true to your proclamation, maybe you
could arrange to make each other laugh regularly. How about
once a day?
M: At least that sounds like more fun than we have been
having.
T: So that is your assignment. Say your proclamation once
a day and make each other laugh once a day.

After a week, they came to the next session and told the stories
of what had made them laugh. Following the description of a
food fight they had at dinner the evening before, they said that
they felt better about each other and more excited about their
relationship in the future. During the session, they laughed uncontrollably, and so did the therapist.

Exercises and Assignments

Accomplishing the task of cooperation is a skill to be acquired.
As such, homework or exercises definitely can be useful. In the
area of cooperation, there are three common types of exercises:
the creation of cooperative projects, practicing requests and
agreements, and creating a vision of the future together.
Homework for projects involves asking the couple to create a
joint project together, preferably outlined in writing. Then they
set up the tasks that need to be accomplished, how they will
divide up the work, and when they expect to complete each

116

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

part of the project. The contract must also include what the
measurable outcome will be and how to evaluate its success.
The therapist needs to encourage the couple to meet weekly
about their project, review their progress in sessions, coach them,
and encourage them to coach each other.
As mentioned earlier, practicing making requests and agreements also makes a good weekly assignment. Tell each of the
partners to make a request (or a number of requests) of each
other every week. Have them begin by saying, "I would like to
make a request. My request is ..." The other is to respond by
agreeing to grant the request by a certain time, modifying the
request, or declining it. Have them start with small requests and
work up to more significant ones.
Creating a vision as a homework assignment involves asking
the couple to design a cooperative future together in concrete
terms. Such a task might be to have them plan their retirement or
to create a family vacation. Ask them to be specific in visualizing,
drawing, or writing down what that future will look likefor
example, if they plan to buy a boat and go on a sailing trip, they
can bring in some pictures of the boat they will buy and some
maps showing proposed routes. When a vision is created, the
impetus to cooperate to achieve it is much greater. Writing it
down or being explicit makes the commitment to it stronger.
Jenny and Bob came to therapy after living together for 3
years. They were clear that they were in love, reported great
and frequent sex, and thought that they would get married some
time soon. Over the past 2 months, Jenny had been feeling more
and more left out of Bob's life. Her job had her traveling frequently, whereas he worked locally and was home every afternoon by 5:30. Often he had friends over and partied a lot while
she was gone. Jenny was afraid to tell Bob that she wanted more
of his time for fear that he would say that he was having too much
fun and didn't need her. He often seemed to make demands of
her to cook and clean for his friends. She was becoming more
resentful, but didn't want to sound like a complaining, nagging
girlfriend. Although they seemed committed to being together,
she did not know what else to do except bring him with her to
see a marital therapist.

COOPERATION

117

The treatment of Bob and Jenny involved them envisioning

their future together and teaching her to make requests of him.
She found out that they could easily design a future together,
including a family and friends for both of them. She could stop
traveling and work from the house, and he would help out more
at home when the kids were little. When they could both feel
good about this cooperative vision, she was able to make requests
of him, because she was assured that he was not leaving. He
saw that he could make requests of her as well. In this case,
commitment was present, and cooperative skill building allowed
them to continue a happier life together as a couple. By the end
of treatment (about 6 months), they were engaged to be married.

Assessing Cooperation
As with assessing commitment, assessing cooperation in a couple
can usually be accomplished by asking some basic questions of
a couple. Below are some of the common basic questions to ask
and some follow-up queries as well.
Basic Questions
1. How well do you cooperate with each other?
2. Can you do some things better together than you
do individually? What are those things?
3. How do you respond together during a crisis? Give
an example.
Additional Questions
1. What activities are you involved in together?
2. Are you competitive with each other? Who usually wins?
3. Are you engaged in team sports together?
4. Who is in charge in your relationship? What is this
person in charge of?
5. How often do you argue? About what sorts of
things?

118

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

6. To solve a problem, does one of you usually have

to give something up?
7. Do you believe that there is always a way to work
things out if you try together?

Conclusion
The importance of cooperation cannot be overstated. Many people think that they are cooperating merely because they seem
to be getting along or because there are few major arguments
or altercations between them, but they may miss seeing what is
possible from the art of cooperation and being a team. What
makes a team truly great is that they go beyond the goal of
cooperating to avoid losing; they go all the way to being champions together. This component of a couple produces a sense of
being more than just reasonably happy; rather, a couple becomes
something really exceptional. For a therapist, true cooperation
in a couple he or she treats is a beauty to behold, gratifying
and joyful.

Chapter

5
Communication
f you ask couples why they have come for therapy, most say,
"Our major problem is communication." One or both of them
generally feels misunderstood, insulted, not heard, or ignored.
Both couples and therapists alike, in fact, often think that learning
to communicate better is the primary task of therapy. The therapist must be cautious, however, not to just listen to couples
complain about their problems and then go directly into teaching
communication skills. Without the proper context, the couple
may do more harm than good with their speaking. In the name
of communicating, they may attack, blame, berate, and hurt each
other, serving only to reinforce the battle lines between them.
Rather than getting trapped in the cross fire, the therapist must
provide protection from the fallout by stopping this kind of
destructive communication until the structure for a more positive
way of relating is created.
It is axiomatic in virtually all treatment approaches that effective communication plays an important role. Good communication, however, is not enough to maintain a well-functioning
couple; it is of little use in bringing about effective change unless
the members of a couple are committed to being together and
cooperating to reach a mutual goal. "Therapists might be more
effective if they could help couples to identify and cultivate
underlying character strengths necessary for good communication" (Powers, 2001, p. 327). Those underlying strengths include

119

120

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

commitment and cooperation, the first two Cs of CPT. The

strengths or skills necessary to accomplish the third C, communication, are described in this chapter.

Background Work: The Context of Partnership

To communicate effectively, a true couple partnership must be
strong and competent; it must be based on shared visions, commitments, and agreements. In the kind of relating typical of a
cocreating couple, disagreements are an expected and necessary
part of continued growth and fulfillment. The crucial variable
is not so much whether the person is male or female. In general,
men and women often have different perspectives and styles
of communicating (Gray, 1992; Tannen, 1990), but problems in
communication exist in same-sex couples as well. It seems actually less a matter of gender, then, and more a matter of context
the context of a true partnership. This context is created out of
language, as aptly described by Montuori and Conti (1993):
Partnership is created in dialogue, and dialogue is created
in partnership. This does not mean that in a partnership
dialogue we just nod and smile a friendly smile and agree
with each other at all costs. A partnership dialogue involves
both parties listening, questioning, probing, exploring, but
also trying to build something together, (p. 266)

Couples may be taught to engage in partnership dialogue, but

the process must first be carefully developed and monitored for
it to work properly. As mentioned above, some couples may
need individual or extra help with communication skills to accomplish the first two Cs if they have significant communication
deficits. In most cases, however, once the basic tasks of the first
two Cs have been established, the practitioner needs to monitor
and teach the couple some specific communication practices,
techniques, and behaviors for maintaining commitment and cooperation. A therapist may already be familiar with some of
these methods or have some personal favorites; others presented
here will be new. The core of the couple power model involves

COMMUNICATION

121

two basic components that we call dedicated listening and dedicated

speaking. These aspects of the model and methods for achieving
this kind of communication with couples in therapy are described below.

Dedicated Listening
Couples therapists are trained to be good listeners to be effective
with clients. It is also important that practitioners teach listening
skills to the couples they treat. The ability to listen is essential
for powerful communication. However, though it might seem a
simple thing to do, most couples do not know how to listen to
each other effectively. Most clients do not pay attention to the
fact that communication is a two-way process, requiring both
speaking and listening. They are so concerned with saying the
right thing that they forget to pay attention to hearing the right
thing. People usually remember only a small percentage of what
is being said. Perhaps this is because listening tends to be seen
as a passive behavior in which one is given an answer or just
waits for a turn to speak.
For the cocreating couple, the key to communicating effectively
is what we call dedicated listening. It means being fully present
and attentive to the speaker's experience. This is similar to what
has also been referred to as active listening, nondefensive listening, reflective listening, or listening "with the heart" (Welwood,
1990). The listener's job is to be committed or dedicated to knowing one's partner completely and to understanding fully his or
her experiences. The partners will learn to do this as they go
deeper into committing to each other and their couple as an
entity. This particular aspect of communication is crucial for
conflict resolution, as "simply listening to each other is the most
important step ... [especially] in relationships between the
sexes" (Montuori & Conti, p. 265).
Listening Exercises
To teach and test the couple's commitment to dedicated listening,
the therapist may guide the couple through a variety of exercises

122

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

specifically focused on enhancing the partners' ability to hear

and understand each other better. These exercises should be
done both in the office and as homework. The simplest and most
basic exercise to start with is to have the listener feed back or
echo what he or she heard their partner say; the speaker then
listens to make sure that he or she feels completely understood.
It is important to point out that the intention is not only for the
listener to understand the message but for the speaker to have
a sense of being heard. Both members of the couple should be
encouraged to keep going until they agree that the communication is complete; otherwise they may engage in mind reading
assuming (sometimes erroneously) they understand what each
other thinks and feels. When that situation occurs, the therapist
can have the couple use a feedback exercise (e.g., "What I heard
you say was .. .") or do a "mind check" (i.e., ask permission to
check out and verify one's assumptions). Mind checking (Bach
& Bernhard, 1971; Gordon, 1993) gives partners a way to let each
other know they care about the other's feelings, while checking
out the inferences they are making about them.
A dramatic example of the consequences of not being heard
is evident in the young couple, Uri and Margot, described above.
When Uri left Margot in the bedroom crying, he assumed that
she wanted to be left alone. Margot said that she assumed that
he was being cold and callous. After they had recounted the
incident, the therapist noticed that Uri did not look at her when
speaking. The therapist asked Uri to take Margot's hands in his
and look at her while doing a mind check.
T: Margot, what are you feeling right now?
M: Uri, I feel that it doesn't matter to you that I am upset.
I think that you don't really care about me, that you are
cold and callous and that's why you leave me alone when I
am upset.
T: Uri, can you repeat back to Margot what you heard
her say?
U: Margot, what I heard you say was that you thought I
didn't come to support you while you were crying because
I was being cold and callous. And that I don't care about
you when I don't come to support you. Is that right?

COMMUNICATION

123

M: Yes. (Her expression softened as she looked at him.)

T: Uri, I want you to tell Margot what you were thinking
while she was crying in the bedroom.
U: I knew that she was upset and I didn't want to bother
her. I thought she would need some time to sort out what she
was feeling and then she would ask for my help or support.
T: So you thought that you knew what Margot was thinking
and you acted accordingly?
U: I guess that's exactly what I did.
M: Uri, how could you possibly think that?
T: Margot, hold on just a second while we try to get to the
bottom of this. Uri was acting based on what he thought you
were thinking. He was reading your mind in a way. So Uri
thought he was 100% correct in understanding why you were
crying. Margot, you have heard what Uri thought. What
percentage of that was accuratefrom 1 to 100%?
M: About 25%.
T: Tell Uri the 25% that was accurate and the 75% that
was not.
M: What was true was that I did want to pull myself together and work through my feelings. What was not true
was that I wanted to be left alone. In times like that I want
physical support. I want you to be there.
T: Uri, echo back to her what you just heard.
U: What I heard you say was that I was right about your
wanting to sort out your feelings but I was wrong that you
wanted to be alone. You want me to be with you when you
are upset.
T: Margot, was that pretty accurate?
M: Yes, it was.

This was an eye-opener for him as he repeated back her feeling

that she felt he didn't care. The therapist noticed the change in
their nonverbal behavior as well. When he requested that Uri
take Mar got's hands in his, she seemed quite stiff, almost as

124

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

EXHIBIT 5.1

//1 Were Alone

Complete the exercise individually and then listen to each other's responses.
Think: If you weren't in a couple right nowno shared responsibilities or child-care dutieshow would you like to spend your time?
Do: On a blank sheet of paper, list 10 things you would do this week
if you were not in a relationship. Have your partner make a separate
list of 10 things he or she would do.
Discuss: Compare your lists. Do you have any things in common?
What things are different? Talk about the differences between your
lists. Are there things that you thought of that you would do alone
that you might do with a partner? Why or why not? Do you see
things on your partner's list that you would be willing to participate
in with him or her?

though she would pull away. After she heard him echo what
she said, she began to lean toward him and listen carefully. Just
the process of hearing him acknowledge her feelings allowed
Margot to feel understood and supported. Uri described his
experience about how private the people in his family and country of origin were with their feelings, and she was able to understand him a bit better. This helped Margot to forgive him for
that incident as well as several similar occurrences. The therapist
also pointed out the change in their nonverbal behavior of softening and leaning toward each other. They smiled when he mentioned it.
The therapist may have couples work to overcome obstacles
to effective listening and to develop their verbal skills by doing
some written exercises as homework and then sharing their experiences with each other. We have designed two exercises for
couples: "If I Were Alone" and "Changing Places" (see Exhibits
5.1 and 5.2). These exercises focus on identifying obstacles to
sustaining couple (see chap. 7, this volume) and on opening up
new possibilities for communication and cooperation. Once the
couple has completed the exercise individually and listened to
each other's responses, encourage them to share their thoughts

COMMUNICATION

125

EXHIBIT 5.2
Changing Places
Complete the exercise individually and then listen to each other's responses.
Think: What things do you do each day in relation to your couple
and family that are identified with your gender? Consider this question with regard to such areas as housework, errands, child care, social life, and decision making.
Do: Write down some of the gender-related tasks you perform in
one or more of the areas described above. Pick a day this week or
next week to change places with your partner to perform these tasks.
Note: You can vary this part of the exercise by taking turns doing the other
person's tasks with him or her for a while.

Discuss: Talk about what you have learned. Did you feel at a disadvantage because of your gender? Would it be possible to share certain
tasks or to divide responsibilities differently should the need or want
arise?

honestly in the next session. Each one is asked to listen uncritically and with an open mind. Make sure they are not trying to
give the right answer, or responses designed just to please their
partner. Even if they don't agree with what the other person
says, they should focus on accepting their partner's responses
as a contribution and an opportunity to cocreate new possibilities together.
Manuel and Annette, married for 5 years, had no children
and each had very successful individual careers. Both traveled
frequently for their work; the time away was disturbing at first
but now seemed commonplace. They each reported growing
apart from the other. Their therapist asked them to remember
what it was like when they were first married, but neither was
able to recollect what they felt that seemed so wonderful back
then. She then asked them to do the "If I Were Alone" exercise.
Each was to keep track every day of things they did that involved
their partner and think, "What would I be doing now if I were
by myself and not married to my spouse?" After the first week,
Manuel reported that he was surprised at how many things he
did, even by himself, that involved Annette. Sometimes he would

126

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

wonder what she would like for dinner when he was grocery
shopping. After another week of doing the exercise, Annette
reported thinking about Manuel when she was out of town, and
wishing that he were there with her. The importance of being
couple became clearer to them. They saw that they had both
been afraid of being rejected and had been anticipating iteven
though they didn't really want to separate. This experience began
a process of spending more time together and developing trust
in the relationship without the fear of abandonment. Even though
they were a committed couple when they began therapy, sharing
and listening to each other's insights helped remove some doubts
and insecurities that had threatened to destroy their relationship.

Dedicated Observing:
Listening for Nonverbal Communication
A crucial aspect of dedicated listening that goes on constantly
is nonverbal communication. Too often it is ignored by clients
and therapists alike. Therapists are generally trained to do talking
therapy. Some approaches do include how to pay attention to
and make use of nonverbal cues. These include neurolinguistic
programming (Bandler & Grinder, 1979), brief dynamic psychotherapy (Davanloo, 1992,1999), and somatic-emotional methods
(Keleman, 1979; Weir, 1975), all of which have proven to be
extremely effective in forwarding the therapeutic process. Much
of human experience is internal and unconscious, and a great
deal of that experience is expressed nonverbally through body
language. Bandler and Grinder (1979) pointed out, "When you
make a statement or ask a human being a question they will
always give you the answer non-verbally, whether or not they
are able to consciously express what it is" (p. 18). For many
people, in fact, processing the world nonverbally is their primary
representational system (Cameron-Bandler, 1985). Nonverbal
cues include gestures, body position, facial color and expressions,
movement, eye contact, touch, crying, or laughing. Often voice
tone and volume communicate as much or more than do words
themselves. A picture is, indeed, worth a thousand words.

COMMUNICATION

127

Paying attention to physical expressions during therapy is

highly instructive and gives clues about the relationship to both
the therapist and the couple. Carl and Jane, discussed earlier,
clearly demonstrated this during a session by uncharacteristically
sitting on opposite sides of the couch. The therapist noticed this
and inquired about it. Jane leaned back and said that she felt
like her usual seat was the active seat and that she was tired of
doing most of the talking. She said she was going to sit back
and let Carl be in the "hot seat" and do more of the work
that daywhich he finally did. This observation of nonverbal
behavior thus helped to promote their verbal communication in
ways that might have otherwise been missed or ignored. Switching usual seats is also very instructive in a group setting. A
couples therapy group spontaneously chose one day to have all
the women sit on one side of the room and all the men on the
other. This led to some powerful bonding among the sexes and
sparked an interesting discussion about gender issues.
It is important that both couples and therapists become adept
at the aspect of communication that we call dedicated observing
of specific nonverbal behaviors. Hudson and O'Hanlon (1991)
called this element of marital therapy videotalk, that is, channeling
what the clients say into actions that could be both seen and
heard if you "were watching a videotape of whatever they are
talking about" (p. 23). The authors give a striking example of
such videotalk in describing a couple that had a problem with
the husband's violent acting out behavior. They were instructed
to look for "early warning signs of impending violence" (p. 79),
and the wife reported that when the husband got angry, he
would fold his arms and purse his lips. They then agreed that
they would use this new perceptual cue to initiate a cooldown
period, which reportedly stopped their cycle of violence. Making
an actual videotape of a session and having the therapist or
couple view it during or after therapy is also extremely useful
for picking up things that may be overlooked.
Pointing out to Uri and Margot their nonverbal messages made
a big difference in what Uri was trying to communicate. Leaving her alone in the bedroom gave an unintended nonverbal
message of unconcern and coldness. When he was explaining
how concerned he was about Margot when she was crying in the

128

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

bedroom, he at first looked only at the therapist. When the therapist pointed this out and suggested he direct his remarks to
Margot, Uri took her hand and looked into her eyes while speaking and listening to her. Only then did she begin to cry and
respond warmly to him. It is important at intimate moments like
this in the therapy for both the couple and the therapist to respect
the power of nonverbal communication and remain quiet while
experiencing the intensity in the room.
Nonverbal Exercises
Several exercises involving nonverbal experience are widely
available for use as homework or during a couples therapy session (Bach & Bernhard, 1971; Gordon, 1993). The intention of
many of these nonverbal experiences is to foster trust. One of
these includes taking turns doing a blind walk, in which one
partner closes his or her eyes and is led silently on a walk by
the other.
The purpose of this exercise is to experience being led and
leading in the context of a "trust test"a way of checking
out feelings of relying on one another. ... After the "Blind
Walk" partners share their observations and feelings. Were
you a responsible, trustworthy guide? Did you feel comfortable being led? The relationship between power (dependency) and trust may be discussed. (Bach & Bernhard, 1971,
p. 90)

It is often surprising to notice the strong feelings, both positive

and negative, that arise out of doing such exercises.
Such was the experience of Gail and Norman, a couple in their
30s who had been married for 5 years and were in conflict around
the issue of whether or not to have children. Although they had
been ambivalent on the issue when they married, Norman now
felt strongly about wanting to start a family. Gail had just received an important promotion at work and felt that Norman
was pressuring her and disregarding their previous agreements.
Talking about it didn't seem to be getting them anywhere, so

COMMUNICATION

129

the therapist suggested that they do the blind walk exercise

as homework. The following week they reported joyfully that
Norman had blindfolded Gail and guided her through a beautiful
trail in the mountains. When he took off the blindfold, Gail felt
that she could trust him to "create beauty" in their life together.
Next, Gail had taken him back to their house and walked him
lovingly around their favorite places. She wanted him to know
that she valued their home life as much as her job; he then felt
that she could now hear his needs. This exercise opened up a
conversation about the possibility of having children from a new,
more positive perspective than they had ever had before.
Another aspect of a couple's life for which nonverbal exercises
are particularly useful is the area of sex. Sexuality is often a
difficult subject for both a therapist and a couple to address. This
is not surprising, given the many barriers to sexuality present in
our culture. We hardly even have a language to speak about it
that is not medical, euphemistic, or crude. Fortunately, however,
when the therapist is comfortable dealing with sex, the couple
is usually relieved to have someone help them confront it. So,
it is important that the therapist develop an openness and ease
in dealing with sexual issues and inquire about them during
assessment. Giving the clients physical exercises to do for homework often makes it easier to address sexual issues and allows
the couple to identify problem areas and discuss them. Exercises,
such as massage and sensate focus, are a standard part of sex
therapy treatment (Kaplan, 1974; Masters & Johnson, 1966).
While doing these exercises oriented around progressive nondemand touching, couples are able to learn to experience and
appreciate each other's bodies and share their physical reactions
more openly.
These kinds of sex therapy exercises are particularly useful
with a couple like Beth and Sam, discussed previously. Beth
found it very difficult to talk about sex, let alone have it. She
was always worried about "saying something stupid" or not
measuring up to his expectations. During the traditional sex
therapy exercises of showering together and sensate focus, the
nonverbal response technique for indicating pleasure or displeasure allowed her to get past her inhibitions enough to participate
fully and begin to enjoy herself sensually and sexually.

130

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

EXHIBIT 5.3
The Body Journey Guided Fantasy
Read this fantasy to your partner. Then have your partner read this fantasy
to you. When you have both finished, share the reactions, memories, and
messages that you got from the various parts of your bodies.
Prepare to take a journey. Just close your eyes slowly and relax. I will be
your guide. This journey is very close to homethrough your own body.
Begin now by paying attention to the sensation of your body resting in the
chair. .. . Notice any parts of your body that you feel yourself tensing or
numbing. Pay attention to those parts of your body. . . . And now, let me
guide you as you go through each part. .. . Pay attention first to your head.
(The guide mentions all the parts of the head next, and then goes through
every other part of the body, including the genitals, down to the toes.) Now
that you have traveled through your whole body, notice any part of your
body that may still feel tense or numb. .. . Go to that part of your body
now, and have it give you a message. . . . Take whatever you get. . . . And
now take a deep breath. As you inhale, feel yourself breathing energy into
those parts of your body that feel numb or deadened. .. . Take another deep
breath. As you exhale, feel yourself releasing tension from those parts of
you that feel tense. . . . As you complete your journey, thank the parts of
you that have communicated with you, and let them know that you will
make use of their messages, even if they don't make sense to you now, to
help yourself and your partner now and in the future. .. . Notice the sensation of your body resting against the chair. ... Imagine the room you are in.
. .. Take a few deep breaths, and on the count of three open your eyes.

Guided fantasy, similar to guided imagery discussed above,

is another powerful nonverbal technique that may be used to
facilitate sexual awareness as well as gain insight into other areas
of the couple's life. The experience involves having someone
relate a story or event, either live or on tape, while another
person actively visualizes and embellishes the images silently.
The therapist may guide the couple through a fantasy in session,
or put it on tape for them to do as homework; one partner could
also read it to the other at home and then switch roles. One such
fantasy exercise called "The Body Journey" (see Exhibit 5.3) helps
couples get more in touch with their bodies and their sexuality,
and provides material for discussing their feelings in a concrete
way. After going through this fantasy, the couple shares the
reactions, memories, and messages that they got from the various

COMMUNICATION

131

parts of their bodies. They are instructed to listen attentively,

never expressing disapproval or criticism of any of their partner's
reactions. Just sharing the fantasy itself often enables the partners
to overcome inhibitions and increase their sensitivity to their
own and each other's physical reactions. Sometimes memories
and submerged feelings emerge about physical or sexual abuse
that they have not recalled or shared with each other before. This
often leads to increased insight and intimacy in the relationship.
A couple in their 60s, Brenda and John, both married for the
second time, came to therapy for help with their sexual relationship, which had deteriorated since John's prostrate surgery.
Brenda was particularly put off by the leakage of urine John had
during coitus. She was now reluctant to have sexual relations,
which was a great source of distress to both of them, especially
because sex had been a very important part of their relationship.
They were guided through "The Body Journey" fantasy and
Brenda recalled a sexually abusive situation from her childhood
involving urination that helped them both understand and overcome their problem.
There are many other nonverbal guided fantasies or creative
visualizations that the therapist can suggest for couples to enhance their sensitivity, awareness, and intimacy (Gawain, 1979;
Koch-Sheras, Hollier, & Jones, 1983; Koch-Sheras & Sheras, 1998).
Guided fantasies are effective when used as homework, during
a session, or in a couples therapy group. If the therapist is comfortable with the technique, fantasies can be particularly useful
as part of a group experience. In a group, a couple can gain
insights from other members' comments and experiences that
may help them understand more fully what their own reactions
mean for them and their partner.

Dedicated Speaking
For communication to be effective, the therapist should teach
the couple to balance nonverbal awareness and dedicated listening with verbal expression and dedicated speaking. It is not
enough just to verbalize one's wants or desires, however. To be
heard, each partner must operate from the intention to talk to

132

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

each other, not at each other, in a way that both of them can be
understood completely. This requires the couple to commit or
dedicate themselves to the task of cocreating the conditions for
productive speaking in the relationship. Following is a description of these conditions and how to facilitate them in couples
work.
Taking Responsibility
Perhaps the most difficult thing for couples to learn in achieving
effective communication is to take full responsibility for the current status of their relationship. Rather than looking at their
couple communication as something that just happens, each partner must operate proactively from a joint vision of how he or
she wants it to be. As they did with dedicated listening, the
couple needs to practice dedicated speaking, which means being
fully aware and responsible for what each of them says as well
as how it is perceived. The therapist must teach the partners
what is likely for them to be two new ways of thinking about
responsibility. The first is a recognition that what is communicated arises from the individual's own unique world view and
not from the way things just are. The second is based on a
perception of the self as an active agent rather than as reacting
to the control of others.
Most couples enter therapy maintaining a passive attitude
toward their relationship, depending on their partner or the
therapist to fix it. Instead, the couple needs to be encouraged to
take responsibility for creating a new vision and possibility for
their couple. This is done, initially, through the use of language.
Having the partners declare their commitment out loud in a
powerful and positively stated proclamation (see chap. 3, this
volume) teaches them to take responsibility for the condition of
their relationship early on in the treatment. By supporting the
couple in this task, the therapist instructs them to see that they
are not the victims of circumstance but the directors of the fate of
their relationship, continually creating new possibilities through
their speaking.
Teaching this kind of responsible behavior is easier said than
done. Our culture and our language are not set up to support

COMMUNICATION

133

people in taking responsibility for the success of their relationship. Having been taken care of since birth, people often continue
that expectation into adulthood, arriving for therapy with a desire to have their partner or the therapist take the role of a parent.
That arrangement may work well for some people up to a point,
such as with the role-defined type of couple (see chap. 2, this
volume). Eventually, however, one or both partners may get
tired of that arrangement, which leads to conflict. They develop
stories from their own point of view to explain the conflict, based
on their own interpretations rather than a joint commitment to
the couple. The goal of treatment is to have the couple "take
their stories less seriously or generate ones that support their
relationships and help them resolve their conflicts" (Hudson &
O'Hanlon, 1991, p. 20).
Even more challenging than the partners taking joint responsibility for the condition of their couple is having them take individual responsibility for their own part in the state of the relationship. In working on the second C, the task of cooperation, the
couple learns that being couple is not a 50/50 proposition; it
requires operating from a place of 100%/100%. In accomplishing
the third C, the task of communication, each partner takes on
full responsibility in speaking and behavior for the current state
of the couple.
A direct but challenging way to accomplish this responsibility
is to have the partners make I statements rather than you statements to each other. The use of I statements is one of the most
commonly used methods for enhancing communication (Gladding, 2002; Hahlweg, Baucom, & Markman, 1988; Satir, 1972). It
requires constant vigilance on the part of the therapist and couple
to monitor the wording of each sentence spoken to or about
one's partner. This process enables the individual to take responsibility for his or her own perceptions, rather than projecting
them onto the partner. This kind of language and perspective
helps to avoid blame and guilt, as no one person is at fault. It
also creates an opportunity for the partners to be generous to
each other. They gradually gain greater insight into their own
motives through the responsible use of language. This way of
speaking, referred to by Weir (1975) as percept language, states,
"I discover my uniqueness by taking ownership of myself and

134

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

my experience and by assuming responsibility for my behavior"

(p. 309). An advantage of this aspect of the couple power model
is that the therapist is not put in the role of being a mediator
or judge, but serves as a guide or coach to hold each person
accountable for acknowledging his or her part in the relationship.
This approach allows for much more flexibility, ease, and power
for the therapist and eventually for the couple.
The Hidden Payoff
When there is reluctance on the part of either partner to take
responsibility for some problem related to the couple, the therapist needs to help the client realize the hidden payoff of holding
on to that problem. This payoff is similar to what Freud referred
to as secondary gainsomething powerful on an unconsciousness
level that keeps another behavior from occurring. "There is always a payoff in everything we do; otherwise we wouldn't do
it" (Gawain, 1979, p. 117). In a couple, usually that payoff has
something to do with justifying one's own position and blaming
one's partner for the difficulties in the relationship.
It may sound difficult to accomplish, but couples will achieve
significant progress by discovering the underlying payoff of their
behavior and acknowledging their own responsibility for the
relationship being the way it is. This process works particularly
well when one partner feels wronged in some way by the other,
such as in the case of an affair. Carl and Jane, the couple described
above who were dealing with Carl's affairs, are a striking example of how this kind of dedicated speaking works. The therapy
was at an impasse, even after Carl's extra individual sessions,
with Jane still waiting for Carl to "express his remorse sufficiently." The therapist asked Jane, "What is the payoff for keeping
yourself and the relationship in such a stuck, unhappy place?"
Finally, Jane could identify and admit the payoff of punishing
Carl for what he had done by holding on to her anger for years:
"I have blamed Carl for my life," she said. "Now I can give up
making him wrong and tell myself that it's okay to be happy."
This soon led to her acknowledging how her own demanding
behavior toward Carl had likely contributed to his infidelity.

COMMUNICATION

135

Soon after that, she accepted Carl's apology and was able to
express her forgiveness to him.
Expressing Forgiveness
The expression of forgiveness, as seen above relating to the issue
of infidelity in the case of Carl and Jane, is often crucial to the
resolution of conflict between the members of a couple. In fact,
"Clinical experiences . . . indicate that forgiveness has significant
value in diminishing the betrayal and pain and enabling couples
to work at resolving emotional conflicts that predispose their
marriage to infidelity" (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000, p. 212).
The therapist needs to help the clients realize that forgiveness
involves forgiving oneself and one's partner as well as asking
for forgiveness for one's own actions. The precondition for forgiveness (which literally means giving as before) is usually a genuine apology of some sort. Although it may seem relatively simple
to do, as in Carl and Jane's case, unfortunately it is often very
difficult for couples to apologize and forgive each other to both
partners' satisfaction, especially in Western culture. "American
society allows people to manifest a substantial amount of anger.
Not forgiving is socially acceptable" (Enright, 2001, p. 13). One
or both partners may be holding on to their hidden payoff and
be reluctant to let the other person off the hook. They may also
believe in the romantic notion that "Love is never having to say
you're sorry" (Segal, 1970). The therapist must help the couple
get past that illusion by reminding them of the importance of
taking responsibility for the state of their relationship through
their dedicated speaking. In The Art of Forgiving, Lewis Smedes
(1996) pointed out the important connection between responsibility and forgiveness:
When we forgive, we get new courage to recall what happened even though it wounded us badly and even though
it was done by the ones in our lives we most trusted to do
us good. We also dare to recall our own responsibility for
what happened to us ... and what we did to add to our
pain. (p. 173)

136

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

Another way to facilitate the couple's taking responsibility

for attaining forgiveness is through the fair-fight training ritual
called the "Doghouse Release" (Bach & Bernhard, 1971, pp. 189190). This exercise is designed to give the couple a concrete way
to let go of holding on to hurt feelings from the past by giving
"a specific, time-limited penance" (p. 189) that the offending
partner can do to be forgiven. It works best if the punishment fits
the crime. For example, one couple used a "Doghouse Release" of
having the husband cook them a gourmet dinner after he stood
up his wife at a restaurant to work late. It must be clear, however,
that the purpose of the ritual is for the couple to agree to forgive,
not to undo the original act (which, of course, would be
impossible.)
Therapist Accountability
No discussion of responsibility in communication should omit
the therapist's part in accountability for the effectiveness of the
therapy. Too often lack of progress in couples work is attributed
to resistance on the part of one or both partners. In many cases,
however, it may be a matter of the therapist failing to foster
a positive, productive interaction between the partners in the
treatment. Bandler and Grinder (1979) took therapists to task for
this failure in no uncertain terms:
You take the fact that what you do doesn't work and you
blame it on the client. That relieves you of the responsibility
of having to change your behavior. Or if you are slightly
more humanistic about it, you "share in the guilt of the
failure" or say he "wasn't ready." (p. 13)

As a therapist, sometimes simply acknowledging to yourself

and communicating to the couple your own part in the lack of
progress during therapy has the power to shift the direction of
the treatment to a more positive level. It opens up the possibility
for exploring new solutions and provides the couple with a
model for dedicated speaking and accountability.
Les and Lana came to therapy as a last resort before speaking
with lawyers to begin divorce proceedings. Even though they

COMMUNICATION

137

had been married for nearly 10 years, they could not remember
ever getting along or agreeing about anything. When the therapist would suggest that they do something or gave them an
assignment, they would argue about it at home or even during
sessions. After a few weeks, the therapist became frustrated and
thought the couple might be untreatable. He shared his disappointment with them and acknowledged that he had been drawn
into their story that they could never get along. He said that he
was committed to their experiencing cooperation and creating
a new possibility for their couple. He asked for the couple's help
in doing that and asked their advice. They asked that he remind
them frequently about the potential he saw and not to give up
on them. Over the course of the next 6 months in treatment, the
therapist did remind them frequently that he saw possibility for
them as couple. Slowly they began to report they felt more hopeful and began to speak the possibility of staying together.
Accepting Conflict and Negative Feelings
A crucial part of taking responsibility for conflict in a relationship
is acknowledging that it exists. Couples need to be reassured
that conflict is not only inevitable but also necessary for the
maintenance of a fulfilling relationship. The therapist should
help them learn to look at it as an opportunity to create new
methods for meeting their needs and taking their couple to a
higher level of communication. It is helpful to let couples know
that their level of discomfort over a conflict between them is, in
fact, commensurate with the level of their commitment to their
relationship. Many people avoid facing conflict, however, for fear
of losing their partner or of being hurt emotionally, physically, or
economically. They then suffer the costs of playing it safe
losing intimacy, honesty, joy, passion, and satisfaction in their
relationship.
Many couples are afraid to acknowledge their negative feelings
of anger, hostility, jealousy, or aggression. They may be concerned about maintaining their own level of control or about their
partner's reaction. Often they will go outside the relationship to
complain or get support from someone else. It may be useful
for the therapist to point out that when members of a couple

138

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

look elsewhere for a confidant, intimacy between the partners

usually suffers. One of them often feels shut out and excluded
from the other relationship that is not part of their activity as a
couple. It is unclear whether the development of an outside
confidant occurs because of failures within the couple, or occurs
first and contributes to a decrease in communication and weakening of the relationship. In any event, research shows that it results
in reduced intimacy and a lingering sense of disappointment,
emptiness, and occasional jealousy:
Choosing one's spouse as a confidant is associated with the
highest levels of marital satisfaction.... However, the lowest
levels of marital satisfaction are found, not among those with
no confidant, but among those who confide in persons other
than their spouses. (Lee, 1988, pp. 281-282)

The outside confidant may seem, in fact, to compete with their

couple. This may be true for the therapeutic relationship, as well,
if only one of the members of a couple is involved in the therapy.
It may be helpful in these cases to include some couples therapy,
even if only occasionally or for a few sessions. This may prevent
premature termination and facilitate the couple sharing their
negative feelings and working together on therapeutic goals.
Clients often avoid conflict because they do not understand
the difference between impact and hostile aggression. Impact aggression is used to get the other person's attention while hostile
aggression is designed to hurt the partner. The former allows
for the constructive expression of negative feelings. "The instigation of fighting is by mutual consent, not just frustration; the
expression is governed by mutually agreeable fair fight rules,
and the objective of the fighting is change and catharsis but not
injury" (Bach & Wyden, 1970, p. 365). The therapist should help
to create a safe environment for sharing negative feelings by
encouraging the couple to deal with them directly and fairly as
soon as possible in the session. The creation of safety may require
teaching one or both members of the couple the self-restraint
necessary for a "fair fight": "When partners do not practice the
necessary self-restraint, their unfettered emotional volatility
makes it impossible for them to apply their communication skills,

COMMUNICATION

139

even if they have learned the techniques perfectly" (Powers,

2000, p. 105). To feel safe at home, some couples may need to
be instructed to take a "time-out" for a half-hour or so and then
resume their discussion. This helps avoid destructive escalation
while still keeping the partners engaged in resolving the conflict.
The therapist may point out to the partners that the longer
they hold on to their anger or strong negative emotions, the
more the resentment builds up. Unexpressed feelings (especially
resentments) from the past affect relationships in the present.
Therefore, it is important that the couple gets these feelings (the
"unfinished business") out of the way so that they are able to
concentrate on creating what they want for their relationship
now. A 35-year-old woman in individual therapy who had already decided to get a divorce had held onto her resentments
against her husband for years because, she said, "It wasn't fair
to hurt him." "All's fair in love and war" is a useful framework
for the couple if they follow the rules of a fair fight. In this
context, raising one's voice, which sometimes scares or puts off
a partner, can be framed for the couple as an expression of caring,
commitment, and passion rather than criticism.
Through fair fighting, Brenda and John, a couple discussed
above, were able to resolve a conflict between them that had to
do with Brenda's frequent visits to her grown children from
her previous marriage. John acknowledged his pent-up feelings
about her visits by sharing through the "Unfinished Business"
exercise (see Exhibit 5.4) what was the "hardest part for him
to take" about it. He could finally see the connection with his
abandonment fears left over from childhood, and she could hear
his shouting as a sign of his love for her. Once it became clear
that he needed to hear Brenda say she would not leave him like
his mother did, they were able to be couple about her visits and
support each other more fully.
As described above, once an area of conflict has been identified
but before a detailed discussion or exercise to deal with it is
begun, it is a good idea to have the couple re-create themselves
as a committed entity by stating their couple proclamation together. No matter how upset the couple is, it is important not
to go any further until this is done. A solid foundation of commitment and cooperation created by such dedicated speaking is

140

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

EXHIBIT 5.4
Unfinished Business (Modeled After Fair Fight Training; Bach &
Bernhard, 1971)
This exercise will help you learn how to share unfinished feelings from the
recent or distant past with your partner in a constructive manner. In doing
this, both the speaker and the listener will learn to understand each other's
feelings and gain important information for the couple.

Exercise
Each of you thinks of some unfinished business you have with your partner. You may start with the most urgent business or flip a coin to determine
who will be speaker first.
SPEAKER:

"May I share some unfinished business with you?"

Always ask permission to present unfinished business.

LISTENER: Agree or suggest another time within 48 hours.
SPEAKER: Describe the incident involved, giving the details of what
you remember as happening.
Stick to the facts. Do not make accusations or statements about your partner's motives.
LISTENER: Repeat the speaker's account of the event until your partner is satisfied that you have heard him or her accurately.
Feed back what you heard. Don't add, interpret, argue, disagree, or defend
yourself, even if you remember the incident differently.
SPEAKER: Tell how you felt about the event at the time and how
you feel about it now.
Take responsibility for your own feelings; avoid blaming your mate for them.
Use the word I to express how you feel, (e.g., "I feel angry" not "You
made me feel angry").
LISTENER: Feed back the speaker's feelings until your partner is satisfied that you have heard him or her accurately.
Just repeat what you heard. Use the process of mirroring what your partner
says to enable you to slow down your reactions and take in what was said
fully.
SPEAKER: Make sure the listener feeds back your feelings accurately. If anything was incorrect or left out, explain that now.
The speaker is just as responsible for the listener's understanding as is the listener. If you are not satisfied that your partner understands your feelings, keep
working at it until you are sure you have fully communicated what you felt.
continued

COMMUNICATION

141

EXHIBIT 5.4 Continued

If unfinished business is negative:
LISTENER: "What was there about what I did that you found the
hardest to take?"
Ask the speaker to describe what you said or did during the event that hurt
or angered him or her the most.
SPEAKER: Tell the listener what hurt or angered you the most.
Be as specific as you can, using I statements and avoiding blame. Share your
sensitive, vulnerable spot with the listener, so that your partner knows what
particular attitude or behavior bothers you.
LISTENER:

Feed back what you heard.

SPEAKER:

"Thank you for listening."

LISTENER:

"Thank you for sharing."

Sharing intimate feelings is a gift. You are thanking your partner for being
willing to share his or her inner experience, not necessarily the content of
what was shared.
If unfinished business is positive:
LISTENER: "What was there about what I said or did that you particularly liked?"
SPEAKER: Tell the listener what you liked most about what he or
she said or did during the event.
LISTENER:

Feed back what you heard.

SPEAKER:

"Thank you for listening."

LISTENER:

"Thank you for sharing."

It is advisable to wait a while before switching roles to avoid using the exercise as a rebuttal for the first partner's sharing his or her feelings.

crucial to the progress of the couples work. Otherwise, a negative

attitude about what is wrong with the relationship or with one
another is fostered in the name of communication. A couple may
feel overwhelmed by a particular conflict; but if they name it
and proclaim it, they can tame it.
With Brenda and John, the therapist had them stop and continue their discussion about her trip by stating their proclamation together: "We are soul mates for each other." The therapist

142

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

reminded them of their joint vision several times during the

session and had them repeat their proclamation again to keep
themselves on the right track. The couple was given homework
to continue this way of speaking at home, taking breaks from
dealing with the issue of Brenda's visits to her children and then
coming back to it, starting with their proclamation each time.
They reported that this procedure "kept things from getting
ugly" and allowed them both to feel safe while discussing the
issue, which they had been unable to do in the past.
Inquiring and Reframing
The practices involved in achieving the Four Cs are best accomplished through a spirit of curiosity and questioning by both the
therapist and the clients. Becoming a cocreating couple requires
an attitude of joint inquiry and discovery. Rather than blaming
each other or judging who is right and who is wrong, the couple
learns a new way to relate and communicate. Teaching the couple
how to question and accept the unknowns of a relationship helps
make their life together more interesting and opens up more
possibilities.
This process of inquiry creates a spirit of collaboration between
the partners and with the therapist as well. The therapist models
such collaborative behavior by exploring possible interpretations
and solutions with the couple rather than defining "the truth"
for them with "delusions of certainty" (Hudson & O'Hanlon,
1991, p. 17). Using the language of possibility and inquiry, such
as perhaps or maybe, invites the couple to cocreate solutions consistent with their own language and perspective. This approach
helps to bypass resistance and to build confidence, and it encourages the couple to take responsibility for participating in the
treatment. The practice of inquiry is particularly important when
dealing with the sexual issues of a couple. An attitude of experimentation and exploration, rather than "doing it right," is crucial
to the success of sex therapy exercises. It is also the core of the
initial history taking, which is a joint collaboration between the
couple and the therapist in discovering possible causes of sexual
dysfunction.

COMMUNICATION

143

Stating and repeating their couple proclamation is a simple

way for couples to stay on a positive track when dealing with
difficult issues. Another way to help couples deal with speaking
their negative feelings is through a technique called reframing
(Bandler & Grinder, 1979; Watzlawick et al., 1974). This procedure involves renaming something negative and dysfunctional
into something positive and functional, thereby shifting an old
paradigm into a new possibility. People use this powerful tool
to create stories or explanations about their own and others'
behavior; the problem is that then they get attached to these
stories as the truth. When couples use this tool to tell each other
what is wrong with their partner or their couple, it may be
honest, but it is very destructive to the relationship.
It is important to teach the partners to use language to promote
acceptance and cooperation, not blame and self-righteousness.
However, challenging clients' stories head on will often be met
with defensiveness. Offering other possible explanations through
various types of reframing is an effective way to get past these
feelings. As stated above, the therapist needs to continue looking
for ways to move through what looks like resistance. Accepting
the couple's reality, but also helping them to shift their perspective by translating their concerns into something less critical and
more hopeful, usually promotes more positive thinking and
speaking.
One way to accomplish this shift is to help the couple identify
the cultural barriers or external circumstances affecting their
current situation (see chap. 7, this volume). Then they can practice
reframing the problem into something resulting from those obstacles, rather than it being something wrong with each other.
(This is consistent with the technique of externalization used in
narrative therapy.) Sharon and Ron, the young couple described
above, responded immediately to a change in focus with a sense
of relief and hope. They came in to therapy initially exhausted
and hopeless, complaining about each other's lack of attention,
support, and appreciation. Their feelings were reframed by the
therapist as a normal reaction to the pressure of having Ron's
mother and grandmother living with them in the same house
with two small children for several years. They were then able

144

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

to look for new ways to overcome this obstacle in their life

together, rather than try to fix each other. This gave them something to do rather than just complain, starting with the creation of
the proclamation "We back each other up one hundred percent."
Another way to accomplish reframing for couples is to translate for them by "putting words in their mouths" (Hudson &
O'Hanlon, 1991) that "add positive, productive statements and
block critical, provoking, or blaming statements during the therapy session" (p. 41). Wes and Rhonda were a couple who had
been married and fighting for most of the 15 years of their
marriage (the second for both). Rhonda came to therapy one day
complaining that she was "tired of Wes coming home every
night complaining about work!" When the therapist reframed
this as his way of wanting to connect with her, she was able to
turn her complaint into a request for him to take time to be
together when he got home. This immediately defused her anger
and created a whole new possibility for their relationship.
The therapist may have the couple create their own reframe
of a negative situation by having them create several different
names for a negative event or behavior in their relationship. Carl
and Jane did this in their couples' therapy group during the
marital affair crisis in their life. Jane was questioning the
marriage and Carl's sincerity; Carl was talking about giving up
and "shoving it under the rug." The therapist asked the group
to come up with some reframes for what was going on for Carl
and Jane. One of the group members said it was part of their
struggle with the commitment that was so important to them;
another suggested that they were in the thick of negotiations
and needed a "total amnesty." This led to Carl and Jane agreeing
to work on developing a new couple proclamation, which they
then did.
The therapist might also help the partners reframe their complaints by having them speak in terms of making progress rather
than describing what is wrong. A partner can then reframe what
might have been seen as a complaint into an acknowledgment
that demonstrates paying attention to or caring for the other
person. For example, a therapist had the wife of a couple, even
though she was angry, acknowledge her husband for calling to
say that he was coming home late as a demonstration of their

COMMUNICATION

145

beginning to work together as a team. Reinforcing a partner's

desired behavior through acknowledgment of their attempts to
make things better increases satisfaction in the couple during
good times and decreases ill will during the difficult times. It
also shifts the partners' perceptions of each other as well as
themselves in a positive direction, which fosters intimacy and
strengthens the overall relationship. Teaching the couple to rename a behavior or cognition that had been negative or lifeless
into something positive and enlivening impacts the couple's experience in a proactive way. Giving it a new name can breathe
energy into it. Rather than staying upset, hoping for a change,
or blaming each other, the couple learns to create new choices
through powerful language. The skill of reframing is thus a must
for the couples therapist in helping the partners change their
perspective on each other's behavior and intention.

Acknowledging
Perhaps the most important element of creating true partnership
through dedicated speaking is the communication of acknowledgment, the process of noticing and appreciating something
positive that a person has said or done. This simple act of attention is what people need most, even more than love, to function
well (Barren, 1988). Basic principles of behaviorism have demonstrated clearly that rewarding and reinforcing positive behavior
is much more effective than punishing or trying to change unwanted behaviors: What is reinforced tends to reoccur and persist; what is ignored tends to disappear. Gottman (1994) has
demonstrated, in fact, that happy couples communicate positive
statements to each other five times more often (a ratio of 5:1
positive to negative statements made to the partner) than do
unhappy couples (a ratio of 1:1).
The dictionary definition of acknowledge is a good reference
point for assessing a couple's level of progress in achieving dedicated speaking and listening. If they are practicing acknowledgment in both meanings of the word, they are on the right track.
The primary definition given by Webster's Dictionary (1975) is
"to own or recognize by avowal or by some act." Although not
found in all dictionaries, this definition speaks about the essential

146

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

aspect of communication between couples that we have referred

to as taking responsibility for both one's own behavior and the
condition of the relationship. This active process requires avowal
through dedicated speaking or some specific action. So each
partner takes responsibilitynot blamefor his or her own behavior as it affects the couple. It is important that the couple be
directed to practice acknowledgment in the spirit of couple, using
it as an opportunity for generosity, not for punishment or selfrighteousness.
The second meaning of acknowledge is also crucial to the success
of the couple: "to express thanks or appreciation for; to show
gratitude for." As discussed above, just expressing feelings of
love is not enough to maintain a cocreating relationship. Principles of behavioral therapy have demonstrated that a little bit
of positive reinforcement for a specific act goes a long way in
producing desired behavior. Nowhere is this more obvious than
in couples therapy, where an expression of appreciation is able
to turn the entire couple system around on a dime, suddenly
shifting the context from negative to positive.
Frequent acknowledgmentthat is, continually noting and
communicating trust, respect, and caring attention to each other
is characteristic of the way close friends operate. It is quite
helpful, then, to teach couples to see their couple entity as a
friendship and to treat each other as they would their good
friends, rather than take each other for granted. It is also important that the partners recognize that any acknowledgment should
include the couple as an entity, not just the person acknowledged.
If acknowledgment is given or expected only in terms of the
individual, it may lack the power to support the couple as a
whole; if a partner desires appreciation for his or her part separately without awareness and acknowledgment of how it comes
from and contributes to couple, it will not have much lasting
value for the relationship. For example, if a wife wants to be
acknowledged for how hard she has worked to get a raise, she
must also recognize how her stay-at-home husband has supported their progress through his efforts with childcare and home
management. Then her acknowledgement may sound like "I
acknowledge us for working together to make it possible to get
a raise." Unlike the paradigm of individualism, this perspective

COMMUNICATION

147

is more similar to the Eastern philosophy of a nondual state of

awareness, operating from a base that is beyond individual ego
or identity. In the same way, partners can lose connection with
the base of their couple if they seek acknowledgment for themselves individually rather than from the context of their joint
vision.
It is not enough for the therapist to teach the couple to express
acknowledgment; the therapist must also monitor how an acknowledgment is received and experienced by the other partner.
The speaker must learn to express acknowledgment in such a
way that the listener can accept it. The therapist facilitates this
process by encouraging the couple to be clear enough in their
expression to create "videotalk" in the service of creating "meaningful praise" (Hudson & O'Hanlon, 1979, p. 33). On the other
side, the therapist needs to make sure the listener is accepting
the praise and letting the appreciation sink in. Often a partner
will avoid experiencing recognition fully out of embarrassment
or excessive humility; sometimes a person does not want to
experience the sadness that may come from feeling the acknowledgment that has been missed for so long.
The process of acknowledging is particularly significant at the
termination of treatment. The emphasis on being complete with
the process of therapy offers many opportunities for acknowledgment of the couple by both the partners and the therapist
and of the therapist by the couple. It is usually a good sign of
readiness for termination when the couple acknowledges each
other and the therapist directly for what has been accomplished.
It is also important to leave space for this important communication in the closing sessions of therapy. A powerful example of
acknowledgment during termination occurred at the last session
of an open-ended couples therapy group with all the couples
completing their work at the same time. While enjoying food and
champagne that the couples brought, everyone spontaneously
acknowledged their spouses and shared how much the community of the group had meant to them, and how much they appreciated the help and modeling of the therapists. Then, one of the
members of the group who had served in Vietnam and had been
reticent to share his personal feelings to his wife or the group
reported a dream he had had that week. He had never been a

148

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

very good dancer, and he and his wife had started taking dance
lessons a few weeks earlier. He told the group that in the dream,
he saw himself and his wife along with the rest of the group
dancing together, "coordinated in unison." Then he cried and
told those present how much he missed his Vietnam buddies
and how valuable the experience of being in the group had been
for him and their couple.
Opportunities for sharing positive attention and acknowledgment are prevalent. However, couplesand sometimes therapists as wellare often stingy with it at times when it could be
very helpful. Couples usually come in to therapy talking about
what they don't like or want in the relationship. Therapists often
reinforce this kind of communication by asking questions about
their complaints. This makes it harder to direct the conversation
toward acknowledging anything positive, let alone in a way that
has some real impact. If something positive is shared, it is often
expressed in such a vague or reluctant way that it is ultimately
ineffective in reinforcing the desired behavior.
Some practitioners may have learned in their clinical training
to see giving acknowledgment directly to clients as inappropriate; they may also not have received it personally in their own
supervision or elsewhere. Without some modeling and experience of acknowledgment in their lives, it may be difficult for
therapists and clients alike to include it in their repertoire of
behavior. Certainly, therapists need to be judicious and careful
about giving acknowledgment to clients or supervisees, but we
often fail to use its power when it can be most effective.
Exercises and assignments. From the perspective of the couple
as an entity, teaching and practicing specific exercises in acknowledgment is very powerful. Most couples have come into therapy
too angry, depressed, or distracted to take the time and attention
to acknowledge each other regularly. To overcome these tendencies, the therapist may ask the couple to acknowledge each other
every day for a week as homework, or they may build such a
practice into an ongoing couple contract or a proclamation. One
couple created a proclamation, "We appreciate each other,"
which reminded them to acknowledge each other every day.

COMMUNICATION

149

Acknowledgment is something that couples often overlook;

the lack of it may leave them feeling incomplete about some
important events or accomplishments in their lives. Both during
and outside the sessions, we suggest couples acknowledge each
other frequently for things they might normally take for granted,
such as doing the laundry, taking care of a sick child, doing the
driving, and so forth. They may make a list of such things and
share it at the end of the day or at the next therapy session. It
adds an element of playfulness and suspense for the partners
to keep their lists secret until the session, or for them to do some
special things for each other and see if they are noticed.
Whatever method is used, the therapist should make sure the
partners share by saying "I appreciate .. ." or "I acknowledge
you for . . ." rather than "I want (or would like) to acknowledge
you for..."a common colloquialism that dilutes the immediate
impact of the acknowledgment. The couple may also be encouraged between sessions to request acknowledgment for something
they said or did that may have gone unrecognized by their
partner. People sometimes argue that appreciation is worthless
if they have to ask for it. Reminding the couple that such a
request supports the couple and that the couple is the source of
the acknowledgment helps to counter this resistance.

Assessing Communication
Assessing communication skills is something that therapists do
as a matter of course. Most have training in identifying when
this skill is lacking, both verbal and nonverbal, though many
ignore the nonverbal and sexual areas. Below are a few guiding
questions to ask about the presence and the quality of communication in a couple.
Basic Questions
1. How well do you feel that your partner understands you?
2. How well do you communicate with each other?

150

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

3. How well do you communicate with each other

nonverbally, physically, sexually?

Additional Questions
1. Do you argue about little things?
2. Do you often guess what your partner is thinking?
3. Does your partner think he or she can read your
mind most of the time?
4. Are you embarrassed by your partner in front of
other people?
5. Does your partner berate you, put you down, or
talk down to you?
6. Are you completely honest with each other?
7. Do you often avoid conflict by being quiet?
8. Do you share your feelings and affection openly?
9. Are you satisfied with your sex life?
10. What is your favorite way of touching each other?

Conclusion
Many factors create obstacles to the effective expression of feelings both in and out of the therapy session. Thus, it is important
that therapists include some specific communication training
about expressing thoughts and feelings, both positive (acknowledgement and affection) and negative (anger and hurt), during
this third C phase of the therapy. Again, it is crucial that the
tasks of commitment and cooperation be accomplished before
proceeding in detail or depth with communication practices.
Without these cornerstones of the couple as a cooperative entity
in place, any communication may be resisted, fall flat, be ineffective, or even destructive.

Chapter

6
Community
he fourth component of a well-functioning couple, which is
rarely addressed in traditional therapy, is community. We
became aware of the importance of community for couples several years ago during interviews with people who reported being
happily married for long periods. A common theme that emerged
regarding their ability to stay together was that they all had a
powerful sense of connection with another couple or group of
couples with whom they were close friends. In many cases,
couples became friends with other couples, which led to the
development of groups of couples in neighborhoods or through
connections with extended families.
As significant as being a part of a community seems to be, we
have found that it is missing in the lives of a large number of
struggling couples. A number of factors seem to be involved.
The cultural preoccupation with individualism may contribute
to a breakdown in relationships both within and between couples. In addition, social and physical mobility make it difficult
to form stable ongoing relationships with other couples and
families. Changing jobs, neighborhoods, or geographical regions
makes it problematic to sustain the closeness necessary to maintain friendships. The high frequency of divorce and unhappy
marriages also adds to the problem of maintaining meaningful
ongoing connections between couples.

151

152

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

Even though the electronic communications revolution makes

it easier to stay in touch by e-mail or telephone, lack of physical
proximity to friends creates challenges to real intimacy. Especially for couples, it is more effective to get to know each other
by going to the movies or having dinner together than to send an
e-mail or even speak on the phone. Moreover, though individuals
may be able to make contact electronically in some ways, it is
more awkward for couples to do so. Group or couple interactions
are more difficult to capture through virtual means than are oneto-one interactions. In addition, activities for couples are not
always easy to arrange except in neighborhoods or through already established communities such as churches or work settings. Even when these meetings do occur, it is often only with
one other couple, or two at the most. Furthermore, gatherings
of couples often result in concurrent, gender-specific activities
rather than couple activities.
The problems related to lack of community for couples are
highlighted by the following case. Married for 9 years with four
sons aged 8, 7, 5, and 3, Ian and Rebecca came to therapy complaining of difficulty communicating. Ian said that his wife did
not really understand him and constantly berated him for being
a poor father and unresponsive lover. The therapist began by
helping them to examine their commitment to each other and
to their family. Both remembered a torrid courtship and fun
times together. They reported that their decision to have children
represented an acknowledgment of their deep love and care for
one another. The stress of parenting pulled them away from
each other as she stayed at home with the kids and he worked
harder to make a decent living for them. By focusing on the
warm and secure feeling of their young love experience, the
therapist helped them recommit to their relationship in the present and create a vision and the positive proclamation "We are
safe and secure together."
After working in therapy for nearly 6 months, Ian and Rebecca
felt much more confident about their relationship, their parenting
alliance, and their feelings for each other. They were able to
cooperate better in dealing with financial pressures and school
problems experienced by their oldest child. In addition, they
could discuss their feelings and fears frankly together, because

COMMUNITY

153

they knew that neither of them was leaving. As they discussed

the possibility of ending treatment, they reported how much
they were enjoying sessions; it was not just a place to report
problems but an avenue to express their progress. At a recent
neighborhood cookout, when asked by friends how their relationship was going (some had noticed their previous distress),
they said it was great. Although both Rebecca and Ian were
eager to share their happiness and progress with others, they
found that the other couples did not have much interest in listening. Instead, they preferred to complain about their own partners.
They were surprised that no one seemed to be interested in their
obvious happiness together. In fact, their community seemed to
be more curious about their problems than about their gains.
They noticed that they were not invited to the next neighborhood
get-together, and they were not that interested in going now,
even if they had been asked.
Because they lived in a rural area, somewhat isolated from
others, they now felt lonely as a couple. Therapy sessions were
a place to feel connected to their joy and a chance to talk with
someone who was really happy for them. Neither Ian nor Rebecca
had families of origin nearby. She was estranged from her folks
and his now-divorced parents and siblings were spread out
around the country. To address the lack of community support
in their lives, the therapist referred them to a couples therapy
group where they could share their feelings and create new
possibilities for their relationship with others. The therapist also
made another suggestion:
T: Now that you feel good about your relationship, what
else might you do to support enjoying being couple outside
of therapy?
I: Well, we do miss having friends. It is odd that we finally
enjoy being together more than ever, but we don't seem to
be with friends as much.
T: Why do you think that is?
I: Because many of our friends are not in really good relationships. When we get together they take us aside individually and complain about their partners.

154

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

R: Most of the people we know we met first as singles, or

Ian met them at work, or I did at my studio.
T: Do you have any friends you met as a couple?
I: What do you mean?
T: Most of the folks you spend time with are not in relationships. Why don't you go make friends as a couple with
another couple or two?
R: You mean find someone who seems to be in a good
relationship and do something together with them?
T: Yes. That way you can be in relationship with others who
already are valuing what you value. It would be like building
a small community where relationships are important.
R: That sounds interesting; let's try that.
I: OK.

Looking for potential friends who were already in good relationships proved helpful to them, and they rapidly found two new
families with whom they could share time and activities together.

Background Work: The Need for Community

As we discussed earlier, it is important for couples therapists to
remember that among the many cultural barriers individuals
confront when trying to sustain a healthy relationship is a tendency to support individualism and to disdain collectivism.
Amitai Etzioni (1993) clearly captured the importance of community or Communitarianism, as he called it, and its relationship to
individuality:
Neither human existence nor individual liberty can be
sustained for long outside the interdependent and overlapping communities to which all of us belong. Nor can any
community long survive unless its members dedicate some
of their attention, energy, and resources to shared projects.
The exclusive pursuit of private interest erodes the network
of social environments on which we all depend and is de-

COMMUNITY

155

structive to our experiment in democratic self-government.

For these reasons, we hold that the rights of individuals
cannot long be preserved without a Communitarian perspective, (p. 253)

Like the dialectical question regarding individualism and collectivism, once couple entities are formed, as illustrated in the case
above, cultural and social forces often still prevent them from
coming together in viable communities. Whereas facilities exist
to support individuals in forming couples, such as singles bars
or match-making vacation opportunities, there is an erroneous
assumption that once they have formed a couple, there is little
need for the support of a larger community. Honeymoon hotels
or romantic getaways are designed for a couple to be together
with one another and family resorts arrange communal activities
for children, but rarely are there collective venues designed for
couples to be together in association with other couples. Where
such opportunities do exist, such as in churches, in clubs, or
elsewhere, they appear to be educational programs to preserve
or fix relationships, rather than providing a chance to celebrate
couplehood together or just enjoy a larger sense of community.
They are designed to help couples survive more than to thrive.
Participation in community groups, civic activities, politics,
clubs, and even group recreation and group socializing continues
to decline in the United States, for individuals as well as couples.
In his book, Bowling Alone (2000), Putnam noted that though
more people were involved in activities such as bowling, fewer
people were joining leagues or group activities. He cites many
factors that contribute to this trend away from community
involvement, including (a) more dual-career couples (making it
difficult to have friends for dinner when no one is at home to
prepare it); (b) increased demands for productivity (resulting in
less time to spend at the bar with friends); (c) more commuting
time required (leading to less time to spend in a club activity);
(d) more financial pressure to earn money to sustain everyday
life (resulting in less time or resources to have a hobby or play
on a team); and (e) the advent of television and air conditioning
(keeping people inside and more isolated). Individuals are more
likely than ever to engage in recreational activities by themselves,

156

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

rather than on teams or with friends, because of time constraints

and the difficulties of putting groups together.
Even when they do get together with a partner, individuals
are often faced with a lack of community support for their couple.
The societal pressure against forming community ties, clearly
present for individuals in our culture, deprives couples of community support as well. Some of the pressure exerted against
creating couples and couple communities comes from family
members and friends in each partner's personal environment.
Many groups of single and even married people are unwilling
to support the development of intimate couples, as it makes their
friends less available to them. This is particularly the case in the
middle stages of a courtship, when the partners become more
involved with each other behaviorally and emotionally (Johnson
& Leslie, 1982; Johnson & Milardo, 1984). We described above
how romantic couples typically focus less and less on friends
and family, and more on each other. Other people in their lives
may feel resentful of this shift in priorities. So rather than supporting the couple, they demand more time from each partner
individually.
This kind of interference with the maintenance of a couple is
a problem unique to humans; rarely in the animal kingdom do
two partners have to deal with such complexity of external social
systems when forming a sexual bond. Therapists may conceive
of the ways the culture has of interfering with the establishment
of couple as network interference, that is, "anxiety among network
constituents, who either separately or collectively may attempt
to interfere with the romantic dyad to prevent their continued
social regression" (Johnson & Milardo, 1984, p. 893). People often
scrutinize their friends' potential partners and sometimes discourage their friends from being included in joint activities. It
is as if the partner has to be accepted into the tribe or club before
approval of the relationship is sanctioned. Parents, siblings, and
other relatives often resist the loss of an individual family member to a committed partnership outside the family. If the individual has provided substantial financial or emotional support
within the family, relatives may find it especially hard to let the
person go. The family members, either individually or collectively, may even subtly or overtly thwart the development of

COMMUNITY

157

an intimate relationship outside the family circle. This behavior

is especially prevalent in intercultural or inter faith relationships.
In addition, as people tend to marry later in life, sometimes older
family members have come to expect their adult child's presence,
and they often exert pressure to maintain the status quo. This
creates greater difficulty in establishing both a couple relationship and a supportive community of couples as well.
Sharon and Ron, a couple mentioned earlier, found this to be
the case when Ron's mother, who lived with them, said she was
"too tired" to continue to watch their two young children while
they went out socially or for their couples therapy. Ron had a
weekend job, and she had been used to his staying at home with
her to help take care of the children and his grandmother, who
also lived with them. Family pressure and lack of support from
the family network had become a barrier to Sharon and Ron
fostering an intimate relationship or developing community relationships as couple. They were eventually referred to a couples
therapy group, got a babysitter, and began to see the value and
support of being with other couples.

The Benefits of Community

Given the difficulties in maintaining communities, couples therapists need to ask, "What are the benefits of such community
affiliations that would make them worth fighting for?" There
are three benefits of couples connecting in communities that
are most obvious on the basis of clinical experience. Therapists
should be sensitive to which of these factors might have the
most positive impact on their clients given their history and
progress in therapy.
The first benefit of community to couples is observing other
positive models of commitment. People who have parents in
long-term relationships always learn from them; they see what
has worked and gain support to do the same in their relationships. We often lament that because the divorce rate has climbed
over the past 3 decades, the number of partners whose parents
were divorced or never married has increased as well. Commitment makes more sense to couples when they are able to observe

158

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

the positive effects of it in the lives of others. Sometimes these

models are generational, passing down ways of being together
as a couple from the older to the newer generation. This is
particularly important, because adults from divorced families
have been shown to be less likely to enter into marriages themselves (Wallerstein, Lewis, & Blakeslee, 2000).
Other positive models are peers who have managed to stay
together and have been able to thrive through rough periods.
Communities of couples allow partners to see what might be
possible for them in the future or help them with problems in
the present. Such communities may be composed of extended
families, close friends of parents, college friend couples, or teachers and mentors who are in lasting relationships.
A young couple recently spent time with the husband's parents
who had been sailing around the world for 5 years after retirement, just the two of them. Though the young couple expected
being on the boat to be an isolating experience, they discovered
that the parents were actually able to connect at various portsof-call with a community of other couples who were also sailing
together. During their voyage, they were also constantly in contact with their children, who marveled at how two people married so long could sail a boat alone together for 5 years. The
lessons learned by the young couple for their own marriage were
immense and reinforced their commitment to each other.
The second benefit from communities of couples is the
opportunity for ongoing feedback to one another. Friends often
get together to seek advice or ideas regarding making a job
decision, parenting, or buying a new stove. For some reason,
though, it seems difficult to ask friends who are in a couple
about how they have solved their marital problems. The level
of sharing about sex, intimacy, or finances is lower between
couples than between individuals. Perhaps people are frightened that they will look like failures if they admit to having
problems. It is clear, nonetheless, to anyone who has ever been
in a serious relationship that problems abound. Open discussions between couples about problems they have in common
and possible solutions have a significantly positive effect on their
relationship.

COMMUNITY

159

In addition to problem solving, couples are often in a good

position to give feedback to one another about what they observe.
This process of feedback may be something that is done in marital
therapy, but it can be continued during and after treatment with
friends who care and who speak from their own experience.
Sharing by one couple about how they have related to and
learned from another couple opens up the possibility of ongoing
learning. Most couples do not realize that other couples may
notice things that they do not see themselves. Couples may have
distinct personalities or be unaware of how they act with each
other. Having friends who are also in a couple share what they
see is immensely useful. ("Do you notice that whenever Kal
speaks, you interrupt him?" "Did you notice that whenever Jim
tells you how much he loves you, you always change the subject?" "It seems like you hardly ever acknowledge Paul for how
much he does for your couple.") Getting together with good
friends who are also in a committed relationship to talk about
what works and what problems exist creates a feeling of support
and hope for the future. Couples also get some really good ideas
about things to do that might work or be fun. ("Last night Sally
and I had a whipped cream fight, and it was about the most fun
we ever had.")
A third benefit of community for couples is the chance to
empathize with one another and share common experiences. It
is common for parents, especially those with young children, to
talk with other parents about what they are experiencing. The
same is true for couples, although most of them report it is
difficult to share problems about their spouse or partner. (Remind them that sharing can include talking about positives as
well as problems.) For instance, many people feel that having a
child is a new experience and a certain amount of ignorance is
to be expected, whereas a partner is someone you should know
more about. Some think that sharing concerns about a partner
may reveal weakness or poor judgment on their part for selecting
that person. Most people expect that they should know a person
completely when becoming committed to them and that finding
out anything new later on reflects a lack of foresight or good
' judgment on their part. In fact, therapists know that relationships

160

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

are very dynamic, and couples are constantly learning new things
about their partners and themselves. Therefore, it is important
to point out to clients that getting together with other couples
to share insights together with a positive intent creates a sense
of security, warmth, and optimism.
Developing a community of couples is something that definitely aids therapy by providing additional information and support to clients. It is also important to be certain that couples
leaving therapy either prematurely or after finishing treatment
are able to benefit from continuing community connections. This
sense of connectedness, spoken of by Putnam (2000), Powers
(2001), Zaiss (2002), Montouri and Conti (1993), and others, is
necessary for the well-being of the couple as well as the
individual:
Common sense and a lot of good theory strongly suggest
that a lack of sense of connectedness, of a feeling of wider
belonging and purpose, and of a feeling of making a difference in the world fosters chronic tension, chronic irritability
and anger, emotional isolation, frustration and impatience,
and cynicism or despair. These feelings and attitudes undermine individual well-being directly, and do so indirectly by
eating away at the social fabric of family, work environments,
and community life. (Richardson & Zeddies, 2001, p. 215)

Most people want to feel connected to their significant other;

when the relationship is supported by a feeling of community,
the chances of the partners staying together are greatly increased.
"Independence is not a high enough goal . . . Interdependence
is the next step in our evolution. This can only be developed
through out interconnectedness" (Ziass, 2002, p. 48). Just wanting
a relationship and interconnectedness is not enough, however;
making sure that clients are connected to communities of some
form or other is a necessary component of treatment. As Powers
(2000) pointed out, "Our fragmented community life is regrettable and sorely in need of remedy, and there is little doubt
that a richer communal life would help strengthen marriages"
(p. 197). There are a number of ways the couples therapist may
address the task of connecting to communities, as described in
the following pages.

COMMUNITY

161

Discovering Communities
For many couples, communities already exist around them.
These communities may involve parents and extended family
members, what we call vertical communities, or they may involve
peers and friends, or horizontal communities. Clients may, however, be unaware of them, for a number of reasons, or be unwilling to join them. The most common communities for couples
are friends, family members, church or temple members, neighbors, and colleagues from work or school. The people in these
groups may not be in committed relationships, but in most cases
at least one community with a few couples in it can be found.
The therapist should encourage the couple to look carefully for
these communities in places they least expect. They may be used
to looking for individuals to relate to and not accustomed to
finding others in relationships. People tend to meet individuals
and only secondarily determine if they are in couple relationships. It might be easy to get a cup of coffee or have a drink
with a friend at a local bar, but where do groups of couples hang
out where they can talk?
It is common in individual therapy to give a client the assignment of meeting new people or trying to identify potential friends
in the workplace or elsewhere. The same may be done for the
couple entity. (This involves some cooperation and communication on the couple's part, so both of these tasks should already
have been addressed.) The therapist might suggest that couples
begin by working together to create ways to find another couple
to make friends with. Then the therapist may suggest they do
something together with that couple; their relationship can be
the topic of dinner conversation, and they can share stories of
how they met. People often hear some amazing stories and are
even surprised by how their own couple's saga is seen by others.
This dinner conversation will likely turn out to be much more
interesting and diverting than a discussion of current events or
problems at work.
Brainstorm with your clients to find some places to look for
community. Have them talk about the qualities they would look
for in other couples with whom they might feel comfortable.
This process is very revealing. Notice if their skills at cooperating

162

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

are working as they try to come to some consensus. Encourage

them to experiment by approaching a variety of couples. Some
couples may feel constrained to just look for community in certain places. For instance, gay or lesbian couples may feel that
their community must be predominantly people of similar sexual
orientation. This may not be necessary, and they may find that
heterosexual couples they meet or already know are able to relate
very well to them and vice versa. The same is true about race,
religion, and ethnic origin. Help your clients look for the qualities
in other couples that they admire, and encourage them to approach those people in their existing communities. See if your
clients would join a group or community where they might find
appealing couples to meet. Some couples may find that they
already live in communities that naturally include couples, but
they have never seen it that way. They should be encouraged
to find communities that already exist in their lives: a church
committee, a work group at the office, a sports team, or the local
homeowners association. These are all good places to look for
couples support and become part of a community.

Creating Communities
Couple communities do not always occur naturally or spontaneously, however. As a result of social mobility or transience related
to work or career, many couples often find themselves in new
or unfamiliar places. The stresses they experience as a result of
new social or physical surroundings may make it difficult to
spend time together as a couple. When leisure time is possible
for the two of them, it may be problematic to find other couples
or communities to be with. Even a couple, not just an individual,
may experience a sense of isolation, which often puts more stress
on the relationship to meet all the intimacy and interpersonal
needs of the partners. Couples often come to therapy following
a move to a new place and disconnection with a previous community, such as a family group or close friends. Establishing a new
community for their couple to live in may seem like a low priority
in the face of marital conflict or unhappiness, but support from
a community will help them get through the difficult adjustment

COMMUNITY

163

period more effectively. Just as making a new friend often lightens one's mood, making couple friends does the same for a
relationship.
If there is no obvious, attractive, or available community for
a couple to join as described above, it is necessary to support
clients in creating their own. Most clients do not realize that
communities are usually started by someone getting together
with someone else. It merely takes some interest and initiative
to do so. Like a tradition, a community starts with a single act
or idea to reach out to someone, in this case as a couple. If clients
complain that there is no neighborhood feeling where they live,
suggest that they sponsor a block party or a community barbeque. One couple who felt this way arranged a get-together in
their neighborhood social hall, and it became an ongoing activity
for many couples in their community. As they begin to feel
stronger in treatment and resolve their issues, let couples know
that they have the power to attract others to them. We often say,
"You are a powerful couple now; other couples will want to be
like you." They have the power to create community around
them.
Not all client couples may be ready to reach out on their own
right away. Some may need more therapeutic support. Another
way of creating communities for couples is through the development of couples therapy groups. Eric Berne (1961) believed that
couples groups were the most effective and powerful of all therapeutic practices. We often refer committed couples to such
groups after seeing them alone if their skills in maintaining their
relationship are still a bit fragile or if, for some reason, they are
physically or emotionally isolated.
Jill and Rob were members of a couples therapy group. They
had been married for nearly 25 years and lived in a rural area
where she was a teacher, and he was a farmer. Unable to have
children of their own, they adopted three young children with
significant learning and behavior problems. Since the time of the
adoptions, Jill and Rob had dealt with one crisis after another
with their children, who were now in their late teens and early
20s. They often disagreed on how to respond to the challenges
of parenting and fought about which of them should take responsibility for their children's continuing problems. Everything they

164

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

had to do legally and practically to keep their children and their

household together was exhausting to both of them. They came
into group after a brief course of couples therapy because they
could not agree on almost anything in their daily lives. Although
they were clear that they would not get divorced, each still felt
unsupported and unloved by the other.
Other couples in the group said they were inspired by the
courage and conviction that Jill and Rob had brought to their
family. Against incredible odds, they had raised children in a
loving household even though these young people had such
unhealthy beginnings before their adoption. The couples in the
group began to share their own parenting experiences and problems with their much healthier offspring and their admiration
for this couple. They supported Jan and Rob through a legal and
medical crisis with their children and encouraged them to see
their own power in parenting and their obvious commitment to
one another. Jill and Rob began to feel the support and sense of
community in the group. With this encouragement, they overcame their guilt, took some time for themselves, gave more
responsibility to their kids, and even placed one child in an
inpatient setting for a time. They began to feel better about their
parenting, themselves, and their relationship. The group was
nourishing and supportive for them and allowed them to focus
again on their love and commitment.
A therapy group consisting of three to five couples is a good
size for treatment purposes. The group may be time-limited or
open-ended, though a minimum commitment of 10 to 12 sessions
seems to work best. The group may meet weekly or twice a
month with optional sessions for particular couples by themselves between group sessions. Committed couples of any age
or sexual orientation can be in the same group together. (Persons
with severe personality disorders, psychosis, or active current
substance abuse conditions are usually not appropriate for the
group.) Couples of varying degrees of functionality can work
well together as the group functions as a container for both
dysfunctional and functional individuals and couples. The group
provides participants with a secure context for being couple. It
is a place where they can get along as a couple, argue as a couple,

COMMUNITY

165

EXHIBIT 6.1
Couples Croup Agreements
1. Each couple will make a 3-month commitment to the group.
2. One month's notice will be given in the group prior to termination.
3. Each group member is financially responsible for all group sessions to
which they have committed. This includes sessions missed.
4. Payment for the sessions is due on the last of each month for the
preceding month's sessions.
5. Each group member or couple will give notification of any sessions they
will miss.
6. Each group member is responsible for bringing to the group all
significant contacts made with other group members outside the group
sessions.
7. Each group member will write a contract of what they are committed to
work on while in the group. The contract will reflect the group norms for
contracts.
8. All identifying information about any person in the group or mentioned
in the group process is confidential.

or even sulk or withdraw from each other. Security as well as

boundaries are established initially through group agreements
reviewed with each couple during screening (See Exhibit 6.1;
Sheras & Koch-Sheras, 1998). Agreements cover such issues as
confidentiality, payment, and goals. Each couple agrees to design
a project or goal that they commit to work on during the group.
Examples of contracted goals include the following:
n
D

We will work as a team to finish renovating our bathroom

to our mutual satisfaction.
We will do physical exercise for 20 to 30 minutes at least
three times a week, with at least one time of exercising
done together as couple.

In group, participant couples share their experiences, practice

their proclamations and cooperation skills, and celebrate their
accomplishments together. One of the positive characteristics of
these groups is that members not only share about themselves,
but also appreciate and acknowledge the accomplishments of

166

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

others, as was seen with Jill and Rob. The couples are models for
dealing with both positive and negative outcomes. The therapist
merely focuses and directs the energy of the members, and clients
are often surprised to see the common experiences they share
with other couples regardless of age or experience. Although it
is helpful to have cotherapists, married or not, to serve as a
model, it is not necessary to do so. An individual therapist with
experience in couples and group therapy may accomplish the
work as well. It is important for one or both therapists to work
with a couple for several sessions before they enter the group
until the commitment to their relationship is affirmed and their
preparation for group work is completed.
Clients who complete group treatment are more confident
about their ability to go back home and create supportive couple
communities for themselves. Couples have started a regular dinner gathering with friends, organized a couples bridge club, and
reached out to their extended families. Jeremy and Jack, for
instance, had just moved when they came in for therapy. They
had been together in a gay relationship for 2 years and felt
committed to each other. They argued frequently, however, and
were very jealous of each other. When one returned home late,
the other was always angry, regardless of the excuse. They had
moved from a community on the West Coast where they met.
They reported feeling close to a lot of people there and spent
time regularly with a group of couples at the beach or at someone's house. The therapist realized that Jeremy and Jack were
feeling the loss of community more than anything else. Each
became afraid that they would lose the other, which led to jealousy and anger. With support from the therapist, they entered
a couples group where they heard many other couples (mostly
heterosexual) expressing similar concerns about fears of abandonment. From their experience in group treatment, they were
encouraged to find other communities. They took on a fundraising project together for a local HIV/AIDS residence and began to feel more accepted by others. They found a group of
friends with whom they had a lot in common and completed
group therapy. In this case, the fourth C, community, had been
the missing piece in their treatment.

COMMUNITY

167

Educational and Support Communities

Up to this point, we have talked about community primarily as
a way to maintain therapeutic gains. Therapists are increasingly
aware that they must look at interventions not only to address
couple dysfunction but also to examine how to prevent problems
for those who come for premarital or marital counseling. Many
practitioners now work as coaches or consultants in prevention
areas, trying to decrease the probability of conflict in school,
workplaces, and relationships. Enrichment programs such as
Marriage Encounter (www.marriage-encounter.com) and Marriage Savers (www.marriagesavers.com) are both training programs performed through churches and synagogues; PREP
(Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program, www.
prepinc.com), and PAIRS (Practical Application of Intimate Relationship Skills, www.pairs.com) attempt to head off problems
before they become serious. A major difficulty with these endeavors is that they lack meaningful follow-up of sustained participation. A weekend retreat or occasional seminar may help, but
more structure is usually needed to maintain gains. Although
these programs are predicated on the notion that group support
and development of a sense of community are important, unfortunately there is little incentive or commitment for couples to
continue working on modes of prevention. In addition, therapists
may contribute to the problem by seeing prevention and support
for the couple as an entity as less important than merely teaching
people to handle their anger and get along.
The only secular low-cost program we know of that provides
prevention as well as supports couples in communities in an
ongoing fashion is Couples Coaching Couples (CCC). Begun in
Virginia in 1990 by ourselves and three other couples, CCC Inc.
(www.couplescoachingcouples.org), a nonprofit organization,
offers a protocol for supporting committed couples to coach one
another in their relationships. A couple enters into an agreement
with another couple to both coach them and receive coaching
from them on being a couple entity together. Participant couples
assess and demonstrate their own couple power to others, show
commitment to the success of other couples, and have another

168

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

couple support their own success as a couple entity. To support

the sense of community, every 3 months or so all the local couples
involved with a particular CCC circle get together for a half-day
quarterly meeting to discuss what they are learning and to share
their experiences.
Although space is not sufficient to describe this or other programs in detail, CCC is an example of a method that may be
used to foster the development of the fourth C of CPT while
also supporting the first three Cs. Statements are made that assert
commitment to the entity couple, and coaches foster teamwork
and good communication. These groups of couples meet regularly to share experiences and celebrate their progress and be
together as a community. The protocol for a program such as
this may be set up with a therapist or couple by a trained CCC
member in most any part of the country (contact www.couples
coachingcouples.org).

Assessing Community
Here are some of the questions that might be used in assessing
community in couples. Most couples who present for therapy
will not have a sense of community. If they do, it can represent
a real strength for them when they are ready to use it.
Basic Questions
1. How much time do you spend doing things with
other couples?
2. Do you ever share with your friends about your
relationship?
3. How do you meet other couples?
Additional Questions
1. Do you feel close to your families?
2. Are you most comfortable when it is just the two of
you doing something?
3. Were your parents divorced or unmarried?

COMMUNITY

169

4. Do you ever go on vacations with other couples or

extended family members?
5. Are most of your friends married or in serious
relationships?
6. Do you have neighbors or friends over to visit at
your house? Are they usually couples?
7. Would you rather live someplace else? Why?

Conclusion
Supportive community programs such as those mentioned above
serve to enhance the functioning of relationships during therapy
as well as before or after couples are in need of treatment. Such
programs may become an important focus of attention for therapists interested in making a long-term contribution to improving
the relationships of their clients. The task of community is essential for the ongoing maintenance of couple. Without a connection
with other groups and couples who support their commitment,
a couple may be like a fish out of water. A community of support
creates the context for the couple's commitment, which, in turn,
supports the other tasks of couple. Thus, the Four Cs can be
seen as a circle, with the last element linked to the first, where
it all startsthat is, commitment to couple. When in doubt or
trouble, then, the therapist can always "go back to one" (Kopp,
1977): "Learning to go back to one by returning to fundamentals
of Work [sic], the therapist is helped to feel comfortable simply
being in charge of the therapy" (p. 15).

Chapter

7
Obstacles Along the Way:
Challenges for Clients
and Therapists
"In this transitional time we have the task of fitting the kinds
of relationships we want into a society that may not only
fail to support our vision but often actively oppose it."
Boston Women's Health Book Collective (1998, p. 191)

nce an approach or technique is learned, it is important for

therapists to have a sense of the potential obstacles to putO
ting that technique into practice so that roadblocks to its application in treatment can be anticipated and understood. A particularly difficult aspect of treating couples with any intervention is
that therapists and clients alike are dealing not only with creating
new patterns in the relationship but also overcoming old ones.
An examination of what is presented in both popular culture
and professional literature uncovers the existence of numerous
barriers to the creation and maintenance of couple relationshipseven within the field of psychotherapy. The unfortunate
fact is that a large part of our society and of our profession has
supported a paradigm that creates roadblocks to the maintenance
of successful couple relationships. Thus, it is important that we
examine here the obstacles to couple in our culture and the
impact they have on both clients and therapists.
173

174

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

Obstacles to Couple Power for Clients

Although couple satisfaction remains elusive, people continue
to pursue it through therapy and whatever other advice or support they can find. Virtually everyone dreams of sustaining a
loving, passionate, and successful relationship throughout their
life. Object relations theorists suggest, in fact, that the "primary
purpose of libidinal striving" is to be in relationship (Fairbairn,
1952) and that "the need to be in a relationship is not a choice
it is a genetic mandate" (Rutan & Rice, 2000, p. 514). So despite
the high divorce rate and negative expectations about the longevity of relationships, most people still hope for and continue to try
getting into relationship. In fact, 96% of all Americans reported in
the 80s and 90s that a lasting, monogamous relationship was
their major life goal (Popenoe, 1991; Yankelovich, 1981). It seems,
then, that there would be an inherent desire to be part of a couple
and that it would be upheld as a positive value in our society,
one that would be automatically nurtured and supported. A
careful look, however, reveals that our culture often thwarts
and even undermines people's attempts to maintain a couple
relationship.
Although perhaps not obvious at first glance, society creates
numerous barriers to the creation and maintenance of couples.
These obstacles are prevalent in the world today and affect both
the therapist and the couple in treatment. As psychotherapists
trained to look at personal and interpersonal dynamics, we may
tend to overlook the significant impact that the culture has on
relationships. (By culture we mean the scope and context of human behavior patterns communicated from one generation to
the next through language, biology, and technology.) Cultural
barriersin the media, in religion, in the workplace, and elsewherecreate numerous obstacles to what might otherwise be
a natural tendency to create and maintain fulfilling relationships.
In a thorough review of the literature on intimate intercultural
relationships, Ting-Toomey (1994) pointed out that "human beings . . . are first and foremost cultural beings before they are
beings in interpersonal relationships. Individuals first learn the
implicit scripts of interpersonal development within the webs
of their culture" (p. 47). Becoming aware of these cultural factors

OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY

175

enables us as therapists to get a better sense of the big picture.

From a broader perspective, we are better able to help clients
understand and deal with cultural barriers in their lives.
Cultural awareness gives both the therapist and the couple a
larger context for accomplishing the basic tasks of couple, taking
the responsibility off either partner and putting it somewhere
outside the couple where they can confront it together. This
process of externalizing the couple's problem enables it to be
objectified as "a separate entity and thus external to the person
who was or the relationship that was ascribed as the problem"
(White, 1989, p. 5). Benefits of the practice of externalization
include decreasing blame and the sense of failure, increasing
cooperation to solve a problem, creating new possibilities for
action and dialogue, and enabling a lighter approach to "deadly
serious" problems (White & Epston, 1990). For instance, a couple
that argues about not having enough time or resources may be
helped to see the difficulty as foisted upon them by the culture's
standards about success, which may relieve them of blaming
each other for failing to resolve a problem. Couples usually
come in for therapy blaming themselves or each other for their
situation. Externalizing their problems through a cultural perspective gives them an outside enemy to stand against together.
As mentioned above, people's stories about the probable
course of their lives and relationships determine the paradigm
from which their relationships unfold. To a great extent, these
stories come from the society around them and are then internalized as idealized images about how they should behave and
what their relationship should look like. Bringing cultural issues
into the mix of therapy gives couples greater influence over
the destiny of their relationship. Examination of the cultural
narrative as it relates to couple's health and functioning highlights just how much the problems in a relationship may exist,
not just in the mind of the individual or even in the mind of the
couples (how they, together, see their relationship), but in the
context of the overall culture. Externalizing problems in terms
of the culture allows partners to choose consciously the paradigm
or social prescriptions that will build the kind of couple they want
to create (and reject those that would undermine it). Without
such a cultural perspective, we are limited in our therapeutic

176

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

effectiveness with couples and may even cause them harm. If

ignored, cultural factors remain in the background, undermining
progress in the overall treatment. If we as therapists do not
address these issues, other elements of the culture such as television talk show hosts, commercials, or common websites may
define for couple what is normal or expected in relationships.
Identifying the many cultural barriers that couples confront
daily is crucial to both the couple and the couples therapy. Some
of the major obstacles confronting couples in our culture are
presented below along with an explanation of how they are
handled in the CPT model. Many practitioners and researchers
have written about the various influences in the culture that
directly or indirectly influence the perception and behavior of
couples and therapists alike (Falicov, 1995; McGoldrick, 2003;
McGoldrick & Carter, 1982; White, 1989). These factors may be
divided into three general categories: (a) the paradigm of individualism, (b) idealized images, and (c) diversity in couples. As
couples therapists, we cannot afford to ignore the many cultural
obstacles to being couple. Understanding them is critical to successful therapy. In exploring these obstacles, the unknown enemy
becomes known. We start to rethink the ways in which they
prevent partners from leading satisfying, fulfilled lives as cocreating couples, and we learn how therapists may succeed in
helping couples more effectively achieve the Four Cs of a successful relationship.

The Paradigm of Individualism

A prevailing dimension of the culture, which we discussed above
and which has received considerable attention over recent years,
is the paradigm of individualism.
For the classic utilitarian individualist, the only valid contract
is one based on negotiation between individuals acting in
their own self-interest. . .. No binding obligation and no
wider social understanding justify a relationship ... and
should it no longer meet their needs, it must end. (Bellah,
Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985, p. 107)

OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY

177

This paradigm of individualism in a "throw-away society" no

doubt contributes to more couples choosing to divorce rather
than stick it out, which is leading to what many are calling a
divorce revolution. With so many spouses leaving for greener
pastures, the divorce rate in the United States has quadrupled
since 1965 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
2004). Although some argue that the negative effects are exaggerated (Hetherington & Kelly, 2003), the "unexpected legacy" of
so many divorces has been shown to have destructive effects on
children and families over the past 25 years (Wallerstein et al.,
2000). A deterioration of commitment and the ability to maintain
the most basic and elemental social unit is clearly a challenge
for children and for all relationships.
Couples who come for treatment today are often torn between
the conflicting forces of independence and the desire for a lasting
relationship. Concern about losing autonomy has created an
existential dilemma that has made both men and women reluctant to work on a long-term commitment they may see as potentially limiting. While wanting to immerse themselves in a
romantic relationship, individuals "struggle with the dialectical
tensions of autonomy and connection that face the relationship"
(Ting-Toomey, 1994, p. 53). The increase in single-member households in the United States, both with and without children, may
be a reflection of the predominance of the choice of personal
independence over emotional attachments (Popenoe, 1991). This
intense desire for independencewhat has been called "individualism run amok" (Aldous, 1987), "the psychology of entitlement" (Spence & Izard, 1985), "the triumph of the individual"
(Powers, 2000), and "the narcissism of our time" (Lasch, 1979)
contributes to the barriers to lasting relationships that we must
deal with as therapists in modern society.
In many ways, the independent type of couple described in
chapter 2 (this volume) may be seen as composed of two individuals operating from the paradigm of individualism with separate
agendas. A therapist's task is to generate a common goal that
might be supported by the entity of couple. Independent couples
often seem to bond together in response to the demands of the
outside world. Attempts to be successful in careers, for instance,
give the couple something to work for, but do not necessarily

178

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

require that they develop intimacy or cooperation together. Their

energies tend to be directed outside of the couple, rather than
within it.
The reluctance to generate an intimate partnership may be a
function of fears that it cannot be accomplished. The partners
might also believe they are unlovable for who they are and must,
therefore, be judged by what they do. To be loved, they must
convince their partner of their productivity, measured in an individualistic Western culture by making money or gaining fame
or just doing a great deal of work. Their fears may also be
manifested as a fear of rejection or abandonment, fear of losing
one's individual identity, fear of being overwhelmed by another's needs, fear of being responsible for taking care of someone
else, and fear of the violation of one's personal space. Some of
these fears may arise from the belief that many people have of
being in relationshipthat is, that it leads to merging with one's
partner. Developing better relationships may not be contingent
upon removing these fears; rather, the therapist can teach couples
how to accept and use them as guides to resolving personal
issues and creating relatedness. Fears of intimacy are inherent
in all relationships, but they may be especially powerful in the
establishment and maintenance of a couple, where all the aspects
of intimacy (sexual, emotional, social, etc.) come together on an
ongoing basis.
Understanding the Four Cs may be helpful to these couples.
The realization that being committed and cooperating can make
them feel safe from abandonment may free independent types
from the fears of losing themselves and their role in their relationship. The therapist may help the independent couple focus on
a sense of togetherness and couple that allows the partners to
feel both their own independence and a real sense of intimacy
and sharing together. They may then be able to cooperate by
supporting each other's activities and common purpose, rather
than counting on their own individual accomplishments to give
them a sense of self-worth.
For instance, when Reese and April first got married, April
had heavy debt to pay off and had been harassed by a number
of collection agencies. She was very ashamed of her predicament

OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY

179

and rarely spoke about it to Reese, fearing he would be critical

of her or leave her. She also wanted to feel like she could carry
her own weight financially. In therapy, they both began to see
that if they cooperated in taking on paying off her indebtedness
and saw this task as supporting their couple and their desire to
be together and have fun, they would both feel better about it.
The paradigm of individualism not only exists within individuals; it also pervades the institutions that are part of the everyday
life in which people live and work. Institutionalized factors undermining couples and marriage in society include the legal
system and the workplace.
The Legal System
The same legal system that legitimizes marriage also creates
many barriers to it by making it relatively easy to get a divorce.
Within the prevailing paradigm of individualism was the advent
of no-fault divorce in the 1970s, allowing the dissolution of a
marriage to be totally an individual decision. A few states have
recently added the option of covenant marriage, which creates
a more binding marriage contract based on traditional faultgrounds for divorce. The legal system in general does not provide
many alternatives to divorce or encouragements for staying together as a couple. Popenoe (1991) pointed out that as "laws
regulating marriage and divorce have become increasingly more
lax . . . divorce feeds upon itself. With more divorce, the more
'normal' it becomes, with fewer negative sanctions to oppose it
and more potential partners available" (p. 52). There has indeed
been a lessening of the stigma against divorce and of living
together without marriage. The U.S. government, in particular,
has maintained what amounts to a marriage penalty in the income tax that has only recently been modified so as not to economically penalize the majority of married couples. There has
also been much criticism of welfare laws in the U.S., which
indirectly work against couples, as it is available only to single parents.
Members of a couple who seek legal advice regarding separation or divorce are often counseled by their attorneys not to talk

180

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

directly to their spouse about economic or other matters. This

creates barriers to possible communication between the partners
that might have been helpful in working things out between
them. (The exception to this practice has been the recent development of mediation and collaborative law.) A similar barrier to
working as a couple exists in the criminal justice system around
dealing with cases of domestic violence. The system is organized
around dealing with the offender, not the couple, and support
is aimed primarily at abused women, not the dysfunctional relationship. This ignores the occurrence of female violence and also
the fact that most victims return to their partners even after
multiple arrests. Contrary to the prevailing attitude that "it's all
his fault," some courts and domestic violence counselors have
begun to start getting at the root of the problem by asking questions about the couple's relationship: "What support systems and
friends do they have?" "Are they part of a spiritual community?"
These kinds of questions are leading to treatment that transforms
abusive relationships rather than just punishes offenders.
Sonia had been in individual therapy to deal with her husband's abusive behavior and threats about separation after 10
years of marriage and two children. She was advised by her
attorney to take all of her money out of their joint account, which
she did immediately. This action increased suspicion and anger
on both their parts. She was also given legal advice not to engage
in sexual relations with her husband so as to establish a boundary
of legal separation. This closed off more possibilities of getting
together in an intimate way with her husband, which might have
encouraged them to reconcile. Both partners' use of attorneys
reduced the flexibility they had to explore other ways of resolving
issues in their relationship. With the therapist's help, they began
to look at their couple as an entity and to work as a team on
their differences. When they stopped communicating through
their lawyers and began to cooperate, they got back together
and were able to work out some new solutions to their problems.
There are certainly times when the use of lawyers is wise and
necessary, but all parties need to be aware that the use of the
legal system may create a formidable barrier to the survival and
potential of their couple.

OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY

181

Workplace and Economic Variables

Research in social psychology, sociology, economics, and family
stress theory all show that family well-being, regardless of social
class, is inextricably linked to workplace experiences and conditions such as job loss and economic sufficiency (Boss & Sheppard,
1988). With more and more women working, dual-career couples
are more the rule than the exception these days. Conflicts between job pressures and personal commitments are likely to
affect everyone at one time or another. For couples in which one
member works outside the home and the other does not, such
conflicts often arise; even when two people have similar jobs or
work together, work may take its toll on the couple.
Perhaps the most damaging obstacle to couples created by the
individualistic workplace is an exaggeration of the work ethic:
Produce and achieve at all costs. This expectation can be isolating,
increasing feelings of competitiveness between the partners and
creating alienation rather than cooperation and well-being within
the couple. When partners feel that their primary obligation is
to their work over their couple, it takes a heavy toll on the
relationship. Isolation was less of a problem when couples
worked hard together in family businesses. With many couples
not even working on the same schedule, it is increasingly difficult
to stay together. Loyalty to the job may become a priority over
loyalty to the family; attraction to the workplace may supersede
attraction to one's spouse. A Special Report on the Disintegration
of the Family (Smith, 2001) pointed out that
everyone has a limited bonding capacity, and if a worker's
bonds to coworkers or clients, developed out of regular faceto-face cooperation, use up most of that capacity, then his or
her bonds to other members of his or her familyboth spouse
and childrenwill be weaker as a consequence, (pp. 13-14)
If interactions at work allow for greater intimacy than do interactions at home, the couple will suffer. The effects of this kind
of work ethic are contrary to what we might call a couple ethic,

182

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

which fosters shared experience and communication and offers

room for career fulfillment without sacrificing the couple.
As therapists often discover in working with couples, money
is one of the major issues of conflict between partners, often
more difficult to talk about than sex. Research consistently shows
that economic distress correlates significantly with increased
family tensions and instability (Voydanoff, 1990). It is important
to note that a couple's perceived economic well-being rather
than actual income is the primary factor related to several levels
of family satisfaction (Fox & Chancey, 1998, p. 741). These kind
of perceptual barriers are easily addressed within the CPT model.
Brenda and Dan, for example, both previously married, experienced a great deal of stress just before their wedding because
Dan was unemployed. Brenda was working hard to set up her
own business and was angry that Dan wasn't doing more to
"take care of her" and their financial situation. When their therapist helped them change their perception from blame and guilt
to the possibility of taking on her business as a couple, they
began to work together and felt much more optimistic about
their economic and couple well-being.
With an increase in dual-career relationships, additional stress
occurs when one partner moves or changes jobs. Many corporate
jobs do not involve placement of the working spouse of the
corporate employee. This means that there is a greater likelihood
that the spouse of the employee may not find an ideal job and
suffer some dissatisfaction, putting more pressure on the relationship. The reluctance of businesses to hire both members of
a couple has made this situation even more difficult. In some
cases, the partner may refuse to move, resulting in the dissolution
of the relationship or the need to carry on a stressful long-distance
partnership. It has usually been the wife who felt compelled to
give up her position to accommodate the career of her husband.
Although women may be less likely now to feel that they have
to accommodate, the issue is often still a challenging one to deal
with in therapy for both partners.
Physical exhaustion and sleep deprivation are also frequent
stressors for working couples. When one or both people are tired
from a long workday, little energy may be left for quality time

OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY

183

together, let alone for therapy. Maintaining intimacy in a relationship may not seem as pressing a need as meeting a deadline or
recovering from an intense workweek (Reynolds & Norman,
1988). One obvious casualty of work-related fatigue is physical
intimacy or a satisfying sex life. Fatigue itself may actually affect
the ability to perform sexually and be a cause of sexual dysfunction. Many couples may just be too tired or too busy to have
time for any kind of intimate communication, verbal or physical.
"There isn't time," "I don't have the energy," "It's just not something I think about": Therapists hear all of these statements
regularly. To counter these messages, therapists may encourage
couples to commit to setting up a brief time each day to be
together. They may use this time to communicate about things
that are important to them, or just relax togetherwhich may
eventually lead to more physical intimacy as well. Therapists
may suggest that couples begin this time together by stating
their proclamations, and that this time not be used to discuss
logistics or household chores. This is to be a time for their couple
just to be couple.
A common scenario in therapy is the dual-career couple who
finds it increasingly difficult to find time for sex with each other.
When one is interested in being intimate, the other often is not,
which results in constant anger and frustration between them.
Each feels unappreciated by the other for the job he or she is
doing and for the income it generates for both of them. The
combination of unrequited desire and frustration may eventually
give way to lack of attraction or interest. This situation is, unfortunately, prevalent among most couples. An estimated 40% to 50%
of men and women in this country report sexual apathy, with
working couples much more likely to experience this lack of
desire (Davidowitz, 1992). Highly motivated career-oriented individuals are often uncertain where to place love and romance
on their priority list. Again, individualism encourages the view
that career achievement is more important than personal fulfillment in an intimate relationship. Assertive, high-performance
people may find it especially hard to switch gears and become
passionate, compassionate, nurturing, and loving when they
arrive home at night. "While readily sympathizing with each

184

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

others' stresses, they still may find it difficult to switch from

being hard-driving and hard-nosed all day to being tender and
compassionate lovers at night" (Sarnoff & Sarnoff, 1989, p. 54).
Helping the couple redirect their focus to the couple entity in
simple ways is particularly important for these kinds of overworked couples. They may be encouraged to build couple into
their regular daily routine. Sharing their dreams while they get
up in the morning and get dressed, for example, is a quick but
very intimate and fun way of sharing (Koch-Sheras & Sheras,
1998). The couple proclamation is very useful for such couples.
Having the partners say their proclamation together when they
arrive home in the evening makes a great difference in their
moods. For one thing, at least a short time is dedicated for them
to meet and greet each other when first coming back together
at the end of the workday. Adding some nonverbal gestures such
as a hug, kiss, or wink when they pass each other is also helpful.
Rena and Rolf, both physicians with active practices and a
lively and energetic young son, Jason, would come home and
immediately tend to tasks that needed to be accomplished: making dinner, spending time with Jason, paying urgent bills, and
the like. They felt that they just didn't have any time for their
couple; there was just too much to do. They wanted to be together
but felt far apart. At the suggestion of their therapist, they began
to say their proclamation face-to-face the minute they both returned home, sometimes accompanied with a hug or a 10-second
kiss. Almost immediately they began to look forward to their
daily reunions, and, saying their proclamation together became
special and enlivening for them without being time consuming.

Idealized Images
Everywhere we look in our culture we are confronted with idealized, romanticized images of the perfect woman, man, or relationship. These images permeate educational systems and the
media, leading to unrealistic or unachievable expectations of
partners and nearly insurmountable pressures on couples in a
variety of ways. These preconceived notions make it more difficult for partners to be flexible and open in therapy to possibilities

OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY

185

for themselves and their couple. Below we present some of the

areas in Western culture where these idealized images appear.
It is our job as therapists to help clients recognize these constraints on their relationships.
Education
In addition to the home, the school is a primary environment
where children learn how to relate intimately to one another.
Most of this learning is done informally, however, because little
formal education is available to counteract gender stereotypes or
to provide information about creating and maintaining a healthy
relationship. Other than the cursory treatment of sex and relationships in some family life education courses and the occasional
use of mediation for crisis management, few programs in the
schools teach relationship building or conflict resolution. Although controversial, when relationship skills are taught, most
of the emphasis has been on sexuality, with a focus on birth
control and sexually transmitted diseases. Marriage is generally
presented as the end romantic point of a successful relationship,
with the partners living happily ever after, rather than as the
beginning of a complicated process of negotiation and cooperation. This kind of teaching sets up unrealistic expectations that
lead to problems later on, as "the degree of mutual disappointment will usually match the degree of idealization of the relationship during courtship" (McGoldrick, 1999, p. 238). It is important
that the couples therapist point out these damaging expectations
when they are present and help the couple create realistic but
inspiring visions.
Aside from formal schooling, some people may also learn
about marriage from religious training in Sunday school or as
part of the adult education or ritual practice of their religion.
This kind of education is limited, however, as it is often based
on moralistic religious principles or idealized expectations that
may present marriage in terms of commitment to a higher power
or ethica commitment that may appear more as an obligation
than a choice.
The level of school violence reveals the early consequences of
relationship skills not being taught more widely to children.

186

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

Students ridicule and bully each other, forming cliques based on

superficiality and discrimination as a way of interacting without
being taught to respect each other (Sheras, 2002). These cliques
may lead to drug use, depression, poor body image, underachievement, and anger that may even turn violent. Lack of
education and support for learning how to relate compassionately and respectfully with others during the school years has
dire consequences for future relationships.
The Media
It seems to be through the media, not the education system,
that people in our culture are most informed, and therefore
influenced, about what a relationship should or could be. Images
of relationships are vividly portrayed in contemporary culture
through radio, television, music, film, and print media. These
images may be even more powerful than the model of couple
learned while growing up in one's own family. Thus, it is important that, in addition to family history, therapists pay attention
to the impact of the media on couple relationships. Otherwise,
we may miss significant information that creates barriers to the
success of couple relationships. A review of irrational beliefs
about relationships and sexuality shows, in fact, that "cultural
myths, marketed by Madison Avenue and other media-linked
purveyors of popular beliefs, play a major role in socializing
people into specific irrationalities regarding relationships" (McCormick & Jordan, 1988, p. 42). Those irrational beliefs have been
shown to relate negatively to measures of marital adjustment,
marital stress, and expectations about the outcome of therapy
(Ellis, 1962; Epstein & Eidelson, 1981).
One of the primary purveyors of unrealistic beliefs about relationships is the popular print mediathat is, self-help books,
magazine articles, and newspaper columns about couples that
generally promise quick and easy solutions. Couples and therapists seeking information about creating successful relationships
have primarily found writings that begin with the premise that
a relationship must be corrected or fixed in some way to meet
some preconceived ideal model. These materials usually proceed
to offer strategies for success through communication skills.

OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY

187

These kinds of books have been shown to have negative effects,

such as increased expectations about sexual perfectionism for
oneself and one's relationship (Shapiro & Kroeger, 1991). The
indictment that Lederer and Jackson (1968) made of such print
media years ago is still pertinent today: "Almost all of these are
trash. They are of no more value to individuals seeking answers
than an [sic] Ouija board would be. It tells the individual what
to do, but neglects the central issue in every marriagethe relationship" (p. 17).
Research on the effects of the popular media has shown that
the most significant predictor of unrealistic sexual expectations
in contemporary Western society comes from listening to rock
music and watching rock videos characterized by extreme levels
of eroticism. As Shapiro and Kroeger (1991) explained,
These songs and their accompanying videos are riddled with
eroticized images of perfect looking people performing provocatively, perhaps stimulating the desire for sex in reality
to live up to the fantasy quality of the media or confirming
the belief that sex should be automatically perfect, (p. 233)

On the basis of what they see portrayed in the media, many

couples come to think that just bringing more excitement into
their sexual relationship will solve the problems in their marriage. Now with the advent of new sexually stimulating drugs
to heighten arousal and performance, many couples have begun
to expect and look for the kind of sexual excitement they see in
the movies. This sometimes leads to infidelity or sexual affairs,
often creating more dissatisfaction or even divorce.
In addition, although the media tend to focus on an idealized
image of sex, they omit some of the other positive qualities of
relatedness in couples, providing very few models that portray
the joy of daily life in a relationship. Day-to-day life is often
portrayed as boring, unfulfilling, mundane, and therefore undesirable. This portrayal may encourage an addiction to excitement
rather than a more calm or grounded form of relationship. Couples learn to focus on what is missing from a perfect relationship,
rather than on what it is possible to create, both sexually and in
other areas of their relationship.

188

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

Leslie and Bob have been married for 25 years. Leslie has been
resentful for all that time, because she has never been able to
have an orgasm during intercourse. Even though Bob stayed
erect for 3 to 10 minutes before ejaculation, she considered him
to be a premature ejaculator. They both felt hopeless and abnormal. She would blame him, and he would feel so guilty that
they stopped having sex altogether. With the help of the therapist, they saw that having enjoyable sex could be the project of
their couple, not the individuals. This reduced the anger and
guilt and allowed them to begin new and interesting sexual
explorations. By repeatedly stating their commitment to couple,
he became less afraid and she less hostile.
Television often contributes to romantic illusion and unrealistic expectations by presenting either overly idealized couples
unrelated to real family situations or portraying couples as striving to achieve a better quality of relationship but falling short.
Rarely do we see behaviors of acceptance, warmth, empathy, and
emotional intimacy portrayed as sufficient cause for happiness.
Rather, particularly in soap operas and reality shows, lack of
attachment is encouraged and even romanticized, as in one series
that included scenes of spouses set up to cheat on each other.
Moreover, when couples appear on talk shows together they are
often encouraged to express "pathological levels of anger . . .
[and] are treated as though their rages were completely normal
and acceptable" (Enright, 2001, p. 13). The general premise of
most sitcoms and television dramas, in the Father Knows Best
style, is finding something wrong with the perfect family, and
then one spouse fixing it. The television-episode format gives
the impression that problems are always resolved in a timely
mannerthat is, conveniently within a 30- or 60-minute show
(including commercials). The proliferation of new channels now
further encourages the notion that if you don't like what you
see, just switch to another channelor relationship. Programs
in which couple struggles are presented as a necessary part of
human existence are rare but when broadcast have often been
quite popular. Rather than giving a quick fix through a titillating scenario, such shows leave the viewer with more intriguing
questions at the end than at the beginning, such as "What kind

OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY

189

of commitment and cooperation is necessary to sustain a

relationship?"
In the area of news coverage, the media seem to value career
and financial success far more than the promotion of family
values. Rarely do television news accounts focus on family successes, effective couples, or group problem solving. Instead, the
human-interest focus is on celebrity divorces, child custody battles, domestic violence, and what is otherwise wrong with the
social fabric. Consistent with the ethos of individualism, straight
news accounts focus on highlighting personal successes and failures more than on couple or team triumphs. Even the social
pages of our major newspapers usually downplay the couple in
favor of the beautiful bride, acknowledging briefly that a groom
actually exists, too. Only relatively recently have newspapers
started reporting and picturing both the bride and groom as
a couple.
Nowhere is the influence of the media in our culture more
evident than with the romantic type of couple discussed earlier.
"Tellingly, interviews with abused wives are often peppered
with the language of perfection associated with endless love"
so characteristic of romance novels and movies (Kingston, 2004,
p. 164). When we deal with this type of couple in therapy, it is
important to point out to them that the difficulty is not about
the lack of intensity of their feelings. It is about not broadening their relationship to include areas beyond their idealized
notions of physical attraction. It is common to see couples break
up after 18 months to 2 years as a result of a loss of infatuation,
because their partner seems wrong for them and they simply
do not know what else is involved in sustaining a relationship.
To move them toward attaining couple power, the therapist
might help them to generate a joint vision of bringing romance
into other activities in their lives. Questions to explore with them
include the following: "How can parents make more time for
sex and going out together?" "How can they arrange time and
financial planning to buy a house or take a vacation in a romantic
place?" Answering such questions creates the opportunity for
expanding their horizons as a couple without sacrificing physical intimacy.

190

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

Jack and Betty have been together for 7 years. During that
time, Jack felt that Betty needed to dress and look a particular
way before and during sexual relations. He developed this image
from looking at magazines and sexually explicit videos. Betty
was uncomfortable with how he wanted her to dress. Because
of this discomfort, she no longer wanted to have sex with him
at all. In working with a therapist, they were able to see that his
images of sexuality were not really his own, but those manufactured by the media. With the common goal of fun and enjoyable
sex without fear of disappointing each other, they found other
ways they could become intimate and aroused.

Gender Stereotypes
As with the ethos of individualism, a restricted context for accomplishing the Four Cs is created in our culture by gender
stereotyping, a subject of much study in recent years (Bern, 1993;
Denmark, Shaw, & Ciali, 1985; Eckes & Trautner, 2000; Tannen,
1990; Wolf, 1997). "A woman's place is in the home" and "Boys
will be boys" are examples of "discourses and social practices
. . . organized around the lens of ... gender polarization" (Bern,
1993, p. 143).
One of the areas in which gender role limitations are often
problematic is in communicating about sex. Certain sexual behaviors are considered culturally appropriate or ideal for women
and others for menwhat has come to be called the double
standard. Men can be aggressive and play around sexually, and
it often is accepted; if women do the same, they are often considered promiscuous. This double standard may cause difficulty
for the traditionally raised woman with idealized gender expectations, particularly if she is unassertive and marries a rather
nonassertive man.
For example, a young couple in a couples therapy group, Linda
and Terry, married for 4 years, were having sexual relations very
infrequently, partly because of the wife's shyness and discomfort
with sex. Terry was reluctant to initiate sex anymore for fear of
being rejected by Linda and upsetting her. With support and
good-natured feedback from the therapist and other couples in

OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY

191

the group, they began to experiment with new approaches to

their sex life.
T: I wonder if there is anything that you other couples
might contribute here to help Linda and Terry?
Terry: We sure could use some ideas. Linda just doesn't
seem to get turned on much any more.
Other Group Member: Maybe a massage or a shower
together?
Terry: I am not so sure I am a good massager. I do like to
wash Linda's hair, though.
T: Maybe you could start there, and something else
might happen.
Other Group Member: Maybe you could keep track of the
times you do intimate physical stuff together.

Linda, a teacher, then came up with the idea of putting smiley

faces on a calendar to mark the occurrence of their sexual escapades. They reported that they began to have sex more often.
A light-hearted attitude emerged, as other group members put
smiley faces on Linda and Terry's chairs before the next group
meeting. Over time, the number of these marks on the couple's
home calendar increased, as did their sexual liberation.
With increased sexual freedom for both genders, many women
have begun initiating sex more often. This has created more
opportunity but also more performance anxiety for many of
them. This anxiety and pressure may ironically have been compounded by the publication of Masters and Johnson's Human
Sexual Response (1966), which reported women to be capable
of multiple orgasms. Now, women as well as men may feel
inadequate if they are not meeting the ideal of continuously
sexually fulfilling both their own and their partner's sexual
needs. In addition, in an effort to be egalitarian, some men may
feel they should not be too aggressive sexually with their partners, which inhibits their spontaneity.
In addition, the advent of the sexual revolution in the 60s led
to a kind of casual sex that has become an obstacle to long-term
committed relationships:

192

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

Men and women now pursue sexual pleasure as an end

in itself, unmediated even by the conventional trappings of
romance. ... Sex valued purely for its own sake loses all
reference to the future and brings no hope of permanent
relationships. (Lasch, 1979, p. 191)

Though casual sex is less popular now, perhaps, because of the

threat of AIDS, both men and women often engage in it rather
than pursuing committed relationships. This often leads to a
kind of "nonbonding commitment" or "cool sex" that "makes a
virtue of emotional disengagement" (Lasch, 1979, p. 200).
Sometimes the strict roles each member of a couple plays can
inhibit the spontaneity and creativity that attracted them to each
other in the first place. This dilemma is addressed in the "Changing Places" exercise (see chap. 5, this volume). The partners may
feel they cannot be themselves anymore; instead, they act out
rigid or idealized sexual roles through "the lens of gender polarization" (Bern, 1993) as though they have no choice in the matter.
As cited in The Meaning of Wife, (Kingston, 2004) studies show
that even young women who work outside the home still expect
their husbands to be the primary breadwinners. As Lederer and
Jackson (1968) pointed out, "with little help from any social
quarter, men and women are fighting lonely battles to find their
place in the sun" (p. 35). The crucial choice they describe that
couples have about their respective roles in marriage and the
dire consequences of not exercising them is still relevant today:
Despite the habits and cumulative forces of society, the man
and woman can determine for themselves what role each
will have in marriage. When they are unable to do this, then
the marriage either will fail, or will be merely a numb, routine
affair. Trouble is caused not by the vast differences (which
don't exist), but by the inability to choose and activate the
desirable or necessary role. (p. 67)

Interestingly enough, research shows that same-sex couples

(particularly lesbians) exhibit greater nonconformity to tra-

OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY

193

ditional-role norms and appear to have more egalitarian and

androgynous relationships than do heterosexual couples
(Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983). It has been suggested that this
androgyny may be a function of "not having been socialized
since birth to enact a particular gender role division in a lesbian
or gay male relationship, and not facing social pressure from
others to fulfill preordained roles" (Green, Bettinger, & Zacks,
1996, p. 216).
Many times couples caught in gender role stereotypes complain that they have poor communication. What this likely means
is that they have not been able to articulate their concerns to
their partner. They believe it to be a failure of communication,
when it is more likely a failure to understand the power of the
behavioral and cultural patterns that have locked them into their
rigid couple pattern. Gender stereotypes and family expectations
conspire against effective adaptation and change. First, the therapist must help the partners see the hidden or unspoken expectations they have of each other and then direct them to explore
more constructive or innovative possibilities together: "I know
you expect your spouse to act that way, but how would you like
her to act? How would you like him to treat you?"
Effective therapy when working with such role-defined couples includes helping them understand the notion of couple as
an entity and exploring the history of the agreements they made
earlier on. The therapist should encourage them to talk about
how the needs met by those earlier promises might be met now.
Given the current problems in their relationship, they need to
explore the changes in their lives and their commitment to remain
together as a couple. In many cases, a long time has gone by
without their feelings coming to light. Sometimes the person
who has been the supportive partner would be satisfied with
acknowledgment for what he or she has been doing for so long.
In some cases, however, a restructuring of the roles or more
freedom from current roles might be required. The goal of the
therapist in this case is not to broker a settlement. Instead, it is
necessary to help both partners examine the structure they have
created and eventually design a new one that better meets their
needs as a couple entity.

194

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

Feminism
The pressure to create more egalitarian and flexible gender roles,
although productive, has created some of its own obstacles. The
heightened expectations of women for both themselves and their
partners generated by the advent of feminism has led to an ideal
of "superwoman" trying to do and have it all. The contemporary
American woman often thinks she must be physically fit, mentally brilliant, a great lover, homemaker and parent, and champion bread winner. On top of this, she feels she has to juggle
all of these activities and responsibilities with grace and ease.
Advertising has created the image of the liberated woman as
the well-groomed, efficient executive who comes home to take
care of her children and husband and dogs, and then cooks a
gourmet dinnerstill smiling, of course! Research has shown,
in fact, that the wives of dual-career couples do 75% of the
housework (Hochschild, 2003). The disorder stemming from
these expectations has been identified as the superwoman syndrome, "a range of physical, psychological, and interpersonal
stress symptoms experienced by a woman as she attempts to
perform perfectly such multiple and conflicting roles as worker
or career volunteer, wife, mother, and homemaker" (Shaevitz,
1984, p. 15). When a woman is unable to live up to these expectations, one or both members of the couple may experience intense
disappointment, anger, or guilt. This may lead to as much deterioration of the relationship as that caused by following traditional
gender roles.
Evidence of these responses can be seen in the many female
clients who seek therapy either to find out why they cannot live
up to their ideal of success or to get help in coping with all the
pressures on their couple caused by their multiple roles. It has
been demonstrated that it is the women's husbands, particularly
traditional men, who have been most disturbed by their spouse's
juggling (Crosby, 1991). It seems that challenging traditional
gender roles and idealized images, even when successfully done,
is unsettling and even frightening to many men, creating yet
another potential barrier to the couple that needs to be addressed
in therapy.

OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY

195

Lucy, a young law student, felt that she needed to be home

when her husband Lyle came back from his job as a stockbroker.
She felt that she needed to have the dinner ready, take a shower,
and look relaxed for him. She was also working hard to make
law review, which necessitated late-night meetings with a study
group in town. Being a superwoman, however, she revealed in
couples therapy that she did not want to share her struggles
with time and fatigue with Lyle, fearing that he would think her
to be inadequate. It was only then, after sharing her fear that
she was willing to take the therapist's suggestion to ask Lyle for
support and work together as a team.
Children
The addition of children to a relationship can influence most of
the other obstacles we have already discussed. Gender roles, for
example, are tied in part to traditional ideas about being Mom
and Dad. The pressures of career are even more intense when
a child is waiting at home, and most business organizations do
not have policies or procedures that support their employees as
couples let alone as parents. Workplaces that offer support such
as leave for the care of sick children or child-care resources
are few and far between. Although exciting and enriching, the
responsibilities of parenthood clearly can be daunting to a couple.
Although children do not cause marital dissatisfaction or
dysfunction, couples tend to become more disillusioned with
their marriages after children are added to their lives. The stresses
of family life seem to make the periods before children and after
they are grown the more satisfying periods of marriage. Childfree
marriages are often characterized by more intense marital interaction, increased cooperation, and more egalitarian gender roles
(Hoffman & Levant, 1985).
Part of the problem that casts children as a barrier to a satisfying couple relationship may be the romanticized notion people
have of the transitions to both marriage and parenthood, wanting
to see only the joy and ignore the pressures. This often makes
it difficult for parents to admit even to their therapist that they
are frustrated with their children or their partner. One young

196

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

troubled couple, Gary and Tanya, with their first child less than
a year old, went several sessions without ever talking about their
child, let alone their difficulties and disagreement in caring for
him. Guiding them to create a new proclamation that focused
on working together as a team ("We work together") helped
Gary and Tanya to be better parents.
Another contributor to obstacles regarding children is the tendency in the past 2 decades for parents to give higher priority
to their child than to their couple. "This is the new American
ideal ... based on the nefarious notion that the more attention
you pay, the more involved you are with, the more you do
for your child, the better a parent you are" (Rosemond, 2004).
Certainly, a child needs to feel safe and loved by the parents,
but couples in Western society, it seems, have gone overboard,
which often results in less satisfied couple relationships and
more self-centered demanding children with no model for taking
care of oneself or a marriage.
Many dual-career couples express sadness and guilt at being
away from their children because of work commitments, feeling
the need and pressure to be with them at all other times to
compensate for time away, even at the expense of their own
needs or intimate time as couple. In fact, their couple usually
comes last, after time for oneself, the home, and extended family.
Partners trapped in acting according to such idealized images
of caretakers or mother and father need to be encouraged by the
therapist to relate to each other more as husband and wife.
(Homework to go on a date or the like is quite helpful in this area.)
Children require immense time and energy that, like a career,
often leave parents without the time or energy to devote to their
couple. "There are only so many hours in a day," said one mother
to the therapist. "My husband and I, together, get whatever's
left over. Usually, that's not much." Marriage and parenthood
compete for personal resources. Physical and emotional energy
and money must now be distributed between the needs of new
family members and the preexisting needs of the couple. Given
the feelings of attachment, responsibility, and urgency that children engender in their parents, often little time and energy are
left for the couple itself. With less time to communicate and
more people to blend into the communication they do have, the

OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY

197

family dynamic invariably alters the couple dynamic. Logistical

challenges, such as babysitting or caring for a sick child, often
lead to resentment and a lack of communication. If speaking
loudly will wake the baby, parents might choose not to speak
at all. Encouraging couples to take time to say their proclamation and acknowledge each other frequently is an important
intervention in these cases.
Marcia and Eric, a young couple with three small children,
were experiencing intense pressures around handling a newborn
in the household. They needed to make more money, so Marcia
had to take on a new job that required her working at night.
They agreed that Eric would stay home with the children and
work part-time during the hours that Marcia was not at her job.
As a result of their schedule, they were both constantly exhausted
and barely saw each other, let alone other couples or friends.
Marcia began to criticize Eric for not bringing in more money
and for his style of parenting. Neither of them felt they had time
or energy to take care of their own personal needs. Using the
CPT model, the therapist helped them see the possibility of cooperating to create a way for Marcia to work only on weekends.
This would allow Eric to work more during the week and give
Marcia more time to be with the children as she had requested.
They could then be more flexible in their roles (doing more than
just one thing each) and could be more relaxed at home. The
therapist gave them homework to acknowledge each other every
day for what they were contributing to the family. This exercise
reduced their resentment and criticism of each other. With reduced negative interactions, they were motivated to spend more
time together when they could, instead of avoiding each other.
They were encouraged to attend a biweekly couples group,
which they did regularly and which gave them a sense of community support and provided them with new ideas of how to manage their busy life together.
Children can also create an invasion of privacy, perhaps most
notably when it comes to the sexual relationship. A fear of children walking in on an intimate moment, whether sexual or conversational, is often a cause of some concern. With more people
in the house, there is less opportunity to be spontaneous or spend
quality time together as a couple. "I want to spend time with

198

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

my wife," one client told us. "But by the time we get home from
work, the kids want our attention, and to be honest, it's hard
not to feel like a part of a crowd. I think we're both guilty of
letting the presence of our kids get in the way of having any time
together as a couple." Having this couple say their proclamation
when they got home helped them create a special space of intimate connection that helped take them through the rest of the
evening with a more positive and hopeful attitude.
With the added sense of responsibility that comes with having
children, couples often tend to move toward more role-defined
or "safe" models of parenting, which reduce their flexibility and
creativity. Whether the result of biology or behavior learned at
her own mother's knee, a woman, especially, may feel pulled
toward a traditional nurturing role, often sacrificing her own
needs and the needs of the couple for the needs of her child.
When one role in the couple changes, the other role is invariably
affected. The close bond between mother and baby, for instance,
might cause the father to feel jealous, excluded, or alienated from
his new family. This feeling of exclusion can start even before
the baby is born. Bill and Judy, married for 3 years, came to
therapy when they were expecting their first child. Judy told Bill
that she did not want him in the delivery room, because she was
embarrassed at how she would look, and, besides, her mother
never did that. He was disappointed and angry until the therapist
helped both of them get clear about their couple priorities, and
they worked it out to be together in the delivery room.
Parents sometimes even compete for their children's affection,
deflecting the underlying issue of finding time and energy to
have affection within the couple. As children enter various developmental stages, there are new surprises to contend with. This
is particularly true when a child reaches adolescence, a time
when parents often feel inadequate, vulnerable, and incompetent. Aldous (1987) argued that the stresses of adolescence "feed
back on husband and wife relationships making them less
pleasant." Sheras, Abidin, and Konold (1998) demonstrated that
relationship difficulties also impact how stressful parenting a
teenager can be. In short, the roles of parent and spouse often
seem incompatible.

OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY

199

Compatibility
Another problem that makes it difficult for couples to achieve
a positive relationship is perceived incompatibility. Both couples
and therapists usually expect that two people who have different
values, different personalities, and different personal histories
are incompatible. The assumptions learned from the culture are
that similarity breeds support. Even in couples therapy groups,
couples are often surprised that they connect so easily with other
couples that seem so different from them in age, background,
or experience. As couples strive for similarity and compatibility
between themselves, and with other couples as well, they often
commit themselves to boredom and predictabilitya real barrier
to intimacy and ongoing couple satisfaction.
Idealized concepts of compatibility with others develop early
in life. People observe models, such as parents or popular idols,
and train themselves to find these compatible characteristics in
those with whom they relate. They often radically narrow the
field of those they see as potential partners, which makes their
attempts to be in relationships even more difficult. (Sometimes
in rebellion against cultural values, adolescents or young adults
choose the opposite of these traditional models, an alternative
just as narrow and limiting as trying to re-create the past.) It
may be, in fact, that couples often work together better as a team
and learn more from others who are different than themselves
if they commit themselves to listen. Teaching them dedicated
listening and speaking within the context of commitment helps
them overcome perceived incompatibilities and fosters intimacy.

Diversity in Couples
Working with any couple that is outside the mainstream traditional male-female model of couple involves additional obstacles
to accomplishing the Four Cs. In addition to all the other cultural
factors mentioned above, such couples may have to deal with
prejudice, discrimination, or alienation from their families or the
culture at large. This may create added difficulties in therapy in

200

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

generating an initial commitment as couple and also in creating

a community of support for the relationship.
Gay and Lesbian Couples
Gay and lesbian couples, in particular, often have a harder time
attaining acceptance and support from a larger community of
friends or family. Part of the problem, depending on geographical location, is just a matter of numbers. Although representing
a substantial proportion of the population, gay men and women
still operate as a significant minority: About 4% of women and
5% of men report that they have had a same-gender partner since
they were 18 years oldalthough these figures undoubtedly
represent an underreporting of actual experiences "given the
high degree of stigma attached to homosexuality in society"
(Michaels, 1996, p. 62).
Although the social stigma may be decreasing, gays and lesbians still experience many forms of discrimination in our culture
that make it difficult to maintain a couple. Homophobia may
take the form of anything from being ignored up to legal or
religious sanctions and outright violence. "Being barred from
hospital rooms and funerals, losing the right to participate in
care, losing custody of a child, and being thrown out of a home
after the death of a same-sex partner are all harsh realities known
to lesbians and gay men" (Cabaj & Purcell, 1998, p. xiii).
An additional difficulty in maintaining couple may be the loss
of guidance from parents and other family members who may
find it difficult to provide either modeling or support for their
child's nontraditional couple. Some parents may continue to stay
alienated from the gay couple over the course of a long-term
relationship, depriving the partners of the structure of ongoing family connection. "When a couple's relationship is not
recognized, [same-sex] partners suffer from the added stresses
of secrecy and isolation that increase their dependence on the
relationship, but with less guidance and fewer models for their
behavior" (Patterson & Schwartz, 1994, p. 5).
Although some states now allow gay marriages or civil unions
to be recognized, same-sex couples usually do not have the benefit of the structure and norms provided by the institution of

OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY

201

marriage that heterosexual couples have. This lack of an institutionalized relationship makes it difficult for them to know how
to define their commitment and their couple to othersor even
to themselves. Depending on where they live or how comfortable
they feel about their sexual identity, gay couples will have varying opportunities for creating a relationship or support for maintaining it. A lesbian couple called a therapist they knew who
lived in another city to ask for help with their relationship of 2
years, because they said that they had no oneeither friends or
mental health professionalsthey felt they could talk to in their
own hometown about their gay relationship. A few phone consultations with the therapist helped them get back on track.
Without that assistance, they said, they thought they would have
broken up. They were guided to use the Internet to find other
resources to support their couple.
Another lesbian couple, Betts and Bobbie, felt that no one
really cared about their relationship either. They were deeply in
love and had been together for 7 years, sharing a house and
running a small business together. In attempting to adopt a child
recently, they were confronted by a legal system in their state that
did not recognize their relationship. They became very depressed
and thought it might not be worth it to stay together if they
could not get the child they wanted to make them a family.
Working in therapy, they were able to see that as a committed
entity they could see themselves already as a family. They created
the proclamation "We are a family" and again took on finding
a way to adopt a child as a couple. Although it was still a difficult
process, their support for each other as part of family allowed
them to feel more powerful. They found some other couples faced
with a similar predicament and started an e-mail correspondence
with them.
Intercultural Challenges
Similar complications and barriers to creating couple occur when
partners come from intercultural backgrounds or diverse ethnic,
racial, religious, or national groupsa situation that has dramatically increased since World War II (Falicov, 1995; Ting-Toomey,
1994). Although differences in customs and religious practices

202

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

are interesting and exciting, they also often bring up conflict in

the couple and within families of origin. This is especially a
problem in the United States where diversity is so widespread.
Studies have shown that "the greater the difference between the
spouses, the less common the pairing and the greater difficulty
they will have adjusting" (McGoldrick & Preto, 1984, p. 384). It
may be the lack of knowledge of how to deal with these differences that contributes to the dissolution of these relationships
and the high incidence of divorce in these marriages.
This is particularly the case in families where parental approval
of the marital partner is expected. This was certainly the case
with Carol and Ravi, discussed earlier, when they went to India
to announce their engagement to his parents, who had already
made it clear that they wanted him to have an Indian wife. After
a very difficult trip, they were both in doubt about their marriage and even talked about breaking up. The therapist helped
them clarify their commitment to the relationship and develop
ways to support each other as a team in relating to his parents.
They were encouraged to acknowledge each other's difficulty
with the situation and listen to each other's feelings without
criticism.
It is important to note that difficulties among intercultural,
interfaith, and interracial spouses may be as much in the perception and attitudes about the differences between them as in
the actual cultural differences themselves. "Each member of the
couple may experience confusion and conflict with the other's
norms, values, meanings, and rituals in a manner akin to the
dissonance that accompanies migration and cultural change"
(Falicov, 1995, p. 234). A case in point is Sonia, discussed above,
who left her country of origin to marry her American husband.
When he later began talking about separating, she felt confused
and alone, not knowing how to deal with the legal system or
where to go for support. Her parents encouraged her to come
back home, but she stayed, began individual therapy, and
worked through the more complex family-of-origin issues in her
own background. Though her husband was not interested in
couples therapy, the therapist worked with her to create couple
as an entity and find ways to cooperate with her spouse in

OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY

203

dealing with their children and finances. The attitude of the

therapist is important here: The therapist must acknowledge the
cultural barriers, but not give them so much power that they
become a reason or excuse to end the relationship. When spouses
in marital conflict are in individual therapy, therapists also need
to be careful that solo work does not emphasize individuality
so much that the partners end up divorcing.
Cultural differences may even be a problem for couples born
in the same country. With mobility the way it is today, couples
from very different geographic and cultural backgrounds are
likely to meet at some common place. However, a husband who
grew up in rural West Virginia and a wife from Los Angeles
will have many challenges in creating a committed relationship.
A case in point is the couple Ray and Laurie, discussed above,
who were helped to deal with their divergent geographical backgrounds and preferences by creating the proclamation "We are
home for each other."
The incidence of interfaith marriages between Jews and nonJews has risen over the years and has become fairly common
today. Klaff (1995) reported that between 1985 and 1995, 31%
of Jewish-born spouses were married to a non-Jewish partner;
compared with just 7% reported in the 1957 Current Population
Survey; these rates are particularly high for young married couples: "Since 1985 more than half of born Jews who marry have
chosen a non-Jewish spouse who did not convert" (p. 89). Some
of these couples (only 5%) deal with the intermarriage by having
one partner convert to the other's religion, such as Judaism or
Catholicism; others try to accommodate to each other in some
way. Interfaith marriages are often problematic in areas related
to the second C, cooperation, however, particularly once children
arrive. Issues of how to handle religious holidays and upbringing
may cause added stress to the couple and family. Expectations
and network interference from families of origin are difficult to
manage, along with balancing the religious preferences of each
spouse. One intermarried couple was helped in therapy to work
it out as an entity by raising their children Jewish, but not going
to religious family functions in the extended family. This caused
some tension with in-laws but workability for the couple, who

204

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

created a community of support with other interfaith couples at

their temple.
Interracial marriages have also become more commonplace
recently (Foeman & Nance, 1999). Although more common, they
are not necessarily more accepted. Studies of such couples (Killian, 2001) have shown resistance and lack of community support
not only from family and friends, but also from the general
public as well. This resistance may go from objection to parents'
or relatives' choice of mate to people not attending or walking
out of the wedding. Black spouses were reported to have greater
sensitivity to resistance and prejudice than White spouses, and
were more reluctant to share their feelings about it with their
White partners. Both partners were often found to have a "code
of silence" about aspects of their family histories "out of family
allegiance or loyalty or concerns that their partner many not be
empathic to their experiences" (Killian, p. 36).
Added to the prevailing cultural norm of not talking about
race, this taboo creates a barrier to communication, decreasing
the level of openness and intimacy in the relationship. This
reluctance to discuss their experience may extend to talking to
professionals as well, with many interracial couples shying away
from participating in research studies or therapy. One Black
woman in Killian's study reported the expectation that if the
therapist "was a white man ... he probably would be biased . . .
and if he was a black man, then he probably would be like 'you
shouldn't have done this in the first place and you shouldn't
be having this problem'" (p. 33). Combined with the personal
pain, frustration, and anxiety reported by both Black and White
partners that comes from negative public reaction, it is not surprising, then, that many couples find it difficult to make a commitment to marry interracially or maintain a viable relationship
over time. When they do commit, it is important to help the
interracial couple reinforce their commitment with a powerful
proclamation and with a supportive community of couples, either in a couples therapy group or elsewhere. The couple might
be referred to an organization such as Couples Coaching Couples, PREP, or PAIRS or a nearby church that offers marital
support groups.

OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY

205

Obstacles for Couples Therapists

The same obstacles that affect clients affect therapists as well.
As therapists, the more aware we are of the cultural influences
and personal dynamics regarding relationships in our own lives,
the more able we are to monitor them in working with couples.
Without this awareness, we risk reducing the effectiveness of
treatment or even creating negative effects for clients. Bringing
biases, conscious or unconscious, into the therapy can close off
possible options and retard progress. Thus, to be part of the
solution and not part of the problem, we need to be vigilant
about acknowledging to ourselves any prejudices that may be
getting in the way of the therapy, such as racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, and the like. We need to know how our own
biases operate in ourselves and manage them before helping
others deal with their own. Otherwise, we may create another
obstacle to achieving successful couple relationships through the
power and influence we exert in the therapeutic role. It may not
always be possible to eradicate these prejudices, but by acknowledging them and getting supervision or consultation, it is possible to control and monitor them in the best interest of the couple.
Sometimes biases create obstacles that show up in countertransference reactions. As always, therapists need to be careful
to monitor personal reactions that may be reactivated from
their own family of origin or couple relationships. For example,
a therapist who has been going through a divorce may have
a countertransference reaction that brings up thoughts of his
or her ex-spouse. The therapist may discover that he or she
begins to side with one spouse or becomes unduly pessimistic
about the prospects for a client's relationship. On the other
hand, therapists may try too hard to save a marriage because
of wanting to fix something from their own dysfunctional family
of origin, or may have a bias against divorce for religious or
personal reasons that might lead him or her to encourage a
couple to stay together when it may not be appropriate. A
therapist who was going through a divorce brought up to his
peer supervision group problems he was facing about his clients
finding out about his personal situation. Discussing this problem

206

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

with the supervision group helped him maintain proper boundaries and manage the transference and countertransference issues. The support of the group gave him encouragement and
lifted his mood as well.
Perhaps a more pervasive therapeutic obstacle may be related
to the individually oriented training discussed above that most
therapists receive. Doherty (1997) described how therapists, because of a common view of the primacy of individual happiness,
may not be supportive of marriages or committed relationships
that might actually be able to be made healthy again. He sees
that poor training in marital therapy is often the problem. Many
therapists with no specific training or clinical supervision in
marital therapy still see couples. If therapists are trained to look
only at individuals or at intrapsychic variables, they may ignore
the significant impact of culture and systems factors on the couple
relationship, or they may not see possible ways that community
may support the couple. Family therapist Michael Solomon
(1973) described three consequences of individual psychoanalytic therapy in treating a spouse that can "miserably interfere"
with the marriage:
Often divorce results, and the patient becomes cumbersomely
dependent on the psychotherapeutic relationship. If we are
not successful in splitting up the marriage, a premature termination occurs. A third result may be that the marital partner
seeks out psychotherapy, and the battle of the therapists who
over identify with their patients begins to take form and
becomes a factor in the marital relationship, (pp. 180-181)

The therapeutic community, like the culture at large, needs to

include a new cognition or schema of couple that goes beyond the
ethos of individualism so pervasive in our society. As Richardson
and Zeddies (2001) aptly pointed out,
At the dawn of a new millennium, the first and most important thing psychotherapists can do, we suggest, is to view
emotional problems and struggles in a wider social and moral
context than is usually the case.... To accomplish this, thera-

OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY

207

pists will need to expand their horizons and acquire new

conceptual tools. ... The core of a better character ideal beyond autonomy and unassailable individuality might be just
the capacity for this kind of dialogue, (pp. 21-22)

The mental health profession has often promoted the "disguised ideology" (Richardson, Powers, & Guignon, 1999) of satisfying self-interest and individual goals at the expense of social
responsibility and commitment to relationships with others. In
addition, social scientists "not only fail to question this myth
(ideology) but also endorse it by conducting research that assumes the centrality of the individual and sees marriage primarily as a source of individual benefit (Powers, 2000, p. 97). Several
authors since the 1970s (Cushman, 1990; Frank, 1978; Rubin,
1996) have pointed to the deleterious effects of therapies coming
out of the psychoanalytic and human potential movements.
Lasch (1979) described the "psychological man" of modern times
as seeking only personal "peace of mind" and accused therapists
of defining "love and meaning simply as the fulfillment of the
patient's emotional requirements . . . [without] encouraging the
subject to subordinate his needs and interests to those of others,
to someone or some cause or tradition outside himself" (p. 13).
Most therapists and counselors have, in fact, been trained to
look at individual dynamics and needs. Some may have received
training in family therapy, but rarely did that include a theory or
language for dealing with the couple as an entity. Thus, although
many therapists see a couple together in a session, they may still
treat each person as an individual with separate problems and
goals rather than as partners jointly responsible for their lives
as a unit. This individualized therapeutic focus can have an
iatrogenic effect on the couple by accentuating their differences
and intensifying "the new narcissism" or "isolation of the self"
(Marin, Stanley, & Marin, 1975). Seeing members of dysfunctional couples individually rather than as a couple can often
isolate them from one another, promoting their separation outside as well as within the therapy, thereby further undermining
their relationship. Thus, it is important in such cases to assess
whether couples therapy might be the treatment of choice instead

208

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

of or in addition to individual therapy. Sometimes the client

continues in individual therapy and is referred to another therapist for couples work.
The paradigm of individualism is embedded in the words
used in therapeutic language, which, "with its stress on openness,
self-development, and change, undermines a larger language of
commitment" (Bellah et al., 1985, p. 106). The language that
therapists use to describe couples creates the stories they have
about their clients and themselves. An individualistic language
creates the story of individualism as the truth, leaving little space
for couples as viable and enduring entities. Therapeutic language
based on individualism and the thinking it generates creates a
significant obstacle to the creation of a happy couple in contemporary society, often leading couples to states of despair and
loneliness. Couples come to expect their partners to be "a compensation for the meaninglessness surrounding them.. . . Judged
against such standards, very few relationships feel adequate"
(Lerner, 1995, p. 10). It is these individualistic expectations that
may have led Janet Spence (1985), in her American Psychological
Association Presidential Address entitled "The Rewards and
Costs of Individualism," "to hopeindeed to pleadthat psychology and psychologists contribute not to the problem but to
its solution . . . [and] renew a national sense of commitment to
larger causes that go beyond narrow self-interest and the search
for self-satisfaction" (p. 1294).
Identifying the roadblocks to couple may seem daunting and
discouraging at first. However, by being sensitive to the impact
of these barriers on our clients and ourselves and paying attention to the choices other cultures and paradigms present for ways
of relating, we may open up areas where we as well as couples
may be more supportive of relationships. The obstacles can be
framed in therapy as challenges or red flags to take notice of
(gender role stereotypes, network interference, and so on) and
as common desires that had been ignored (such as spending
more time together without the kids).
Couples therapy and much of the research conducted concerning its efficacy is based on and maintains the current paradigm
of individualism. Conducting clinical practice and research from
the perspective that a relationship is primarily a means to serve

OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY

209

individual needs "may explain why decades of marital research,

even though a great deal of it has had the explicit or implicit
goal of reducing the divorce rate, has not really helped us reverse
the appalling trend of divorce in our society" (Powers, 2000,
p. 98). Maintaining an individualistic approach may doom couples therapists and their client couples to the failures of subscribing to that way of thinking. Shifting the paradigm as we propose
requires an awareness of the limitations of the current models
and the creation of new research and therapeutic strategies. Therapists need to become revolutionaries in overcoming the obstacles to the freedom to be a couple that exist in the dominant
culture. It will take courage to do what the husband in an interracial couple requested of the therapist"to focus on the synthesis,
not on division" (Killian, 2001, p. 34). In this sense, couples
therapy is a subversive activity that could contribute to breaking
down age-old sociopolitical barriers to powerful and effective
relationships. "The future depends on each of us raising the bar
by committing ourselves to a new perspective of true partnership. We must each become a revolutionary and call on those
around us to do the same" (Zaiss, 2002, p. 131).

Contraindications for Couple Power Therapy

Couple Power Therapy is not appropriate for every couple or
in every case. It works best with those capable of understanding
what a commitment is and keeping their word. Below are some
common contraindications for CPT:
D

Clients are not committed to their relationship or even

willing to explore the possibility of committing or
recommitting;
D
Clients cannot imagine themselves together in the future;
D
One or both members of the couple are having outside
affairs and are unwilling to give them up while in therapy;
Abuse or the threat of abuse makes it impossible for one
or both members to feel safe in the relationship;
D
At least one of the partners is not willing to commit to
be in couples therapy;
Q
One or both members of the couple are unwilling to consider forgiving their partner; or

210

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

One or both partners has a serious substance use disorder

or a psychological impairment that makes it unlikely that
they will hear things in therapy accurately, will perceive
reality reasonably clearly, or will be able to empathize
with another person.

In the above instances, couples therapy has a very low probability of success because at least one of the Four Cs likely cannot
be fulfilled. It is important to note that in some of the cases listed
above therapy could proceed, but only if the clients are willing
to consider the possibility of change and the idea of commitment.
If they are unwilling to even try on the idea of things being
different, it is difficult to imagine any progress in treatment
together. It may mean that referral for individual therapy or
substance abuse treatment is indicated, with the hope that the
clients may consider couples work at a later date when the above
conditions are satisfied.
Knowing when not to do couples therapy is just as important as
practicing the therapy itself. To keep using a particular technique
when it is not working would be like being stuck in traffic and
not getting on another road where traffic is moving more quickly
and smoothly. In the process of doing CPT, therapists should
operate knowing their basic direction and keep that focus while
exploring alternative routes to get there. The therapist has a
vision, but does not let it become tunnel vision. Otherwise, the
therapist will be like the man who lost his keys and has people
looking for them under a lamppost without success: Someone
finally asks him why he's looking only there, and he says, "Because this is where the light is." When things are not going well,
you may need to get off the track you are on, no matter how
drawn to it you may be, and try out other options. Then you
may find the key to what you, as well as the couples you are
treating, are searching for. An example may prove useful.
Sandra and Dirk, who each had been married before, had been
married to each other for 3 years. Dirk suggested treatment and
asked Sandra to come in with him. From the outset, she seemed
unwilling to participate. She had recently become involved with
a coworker and noted that she was in part responding to Dirk's
earlier infidelity. (In fact, their own marriage was a product of

OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY

211

an extramarital affair they had with each other while still married
to other people.) She felt that his affair marked the beginning
of the end for their relationship. She did want to hear what the
therapists had to say about Dirk's behavior, however. It was
clear from the outset that Dirk wanted to rebuild their relationship. Both he and the therapist asked Sandra if she was willing
to give it another try. This would involve terminating her affair
and concentrating on recommitting to Dirk and to their marriage.
In the first session, the therapist carefully questioned both
partners about how they saw their future together. It was clear,
however, that Sandra was not interested in recommitting. In fact,
she wanted to stay in her new relationship and saw the therapy
as a chance to get support for her notion that she was doing the
right thing by leaving the marriage. Dirk did not believe her at
first and reminded her repeatedly about how much in love they
had been only recently. But she could see no future with him,
and her commitment to treatment was not a commitment to their
couple. The therapist suggested individual therapy for Dirk to
address his issues of loss; the therapist also suggested that Sandra
consider therapy to address her own behavior patterns, but
she declined.
This couple may appear at first to be a good candidate for
couples therapy in some ways, as there are many couple issues.
However, for CPT to be truly effective, the partners must be able
to agree on the possibility of committing to being couple together.
This couple's lack of commitment constituted an insurmountable
obstacle for effective treatment at that time. All concerned were
better served by spending their time and energy elsewhere. A
therapist may need to see that attempts to continue with a couple
in treatment to rescue their relationship may not be in anyone's
best interest or constitute good practice. Sometimes the most
important thing to know about couples therapy (or any therapy
for that matter) is when not to do it.

Chapter

8
Creating a New Future
for Couples: Expanding
Couple Consciousness
nce the tasks of the Four Cs of CPT are fully realized,
O
there is another taskperhaps a metataskthat may be
accomplished that will empower marital satisfaction and enable
a "couple revolution" to thrive over time. We call that task couple
consciousness, that is, a way of looking at oneself, one's relationship, and the world with the concept of couple as the source or
bedrock. Each couple and couples therapist must address for
themselves the issue of how they develop couple consciousness.
With the fragile state of couples and the individualistic social
climate in the world today, mental health professionals have
a responsibility to help people create and maintain successful
relationships. As responsible therapists and community members, we must not ignore the power of genuine relatedness available through couple and marital relationships.
This power of creating relationship entities has to be approached carefully, however. Numerous authors mentioned earlier (Bellah et al., 1985; Lasch, 1979; Richardson, 2001) have
pointed out how our profession has systematically or unconsciously over the years promoted an ethos of individualism regarding relationships, leading to a "rather 'thin' conception of
a good marriage" (Powers, 2001, p. 336). The perspective of the
couple as an entity described in CPT gives both therapists and
couples a new possibility for a richer, multilayered, and more
substantial notion of marriage and relationships. Operating from
213

214

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

the paradigm of "couplism" and cocreating couple is the genesis

of all interactions; it creates the highest manifestation of connection with all beings. The metatask is to generate possibilities
both for and from a relationship. Couple consciousness, in this
sense, is the source of relatedness deep within the couple itself.
So couple consciousness represents not just a way of being for the
couple and the therapist, but a defining ethic or a worldviewa
lens through which to view life.

Discovering and Expanding

Couple Consciousness
Most people spend their lives trying to get into relationships,
either with or without the help of therapy. However, what clients
and therapists seemingly fail to realize is that they are social
beings, already in relationships. In the words of Hugh Prather
(1970), "Nothing, including me, exists by itselfthis is an illusion
of words. I am a relationship, ever-changing." The question is
what to do and how to behave while in relationship. There is
the potential for conflict, upset, and hatred, or there is the hope
for cooperation, respect, and love. When couple is viewed as the
basis of a wider sense of relatedness and effectiveness in operating with others in daily life, it becomes a filter through which
to see the world.
This communitarian perspective or consciousness is based on
a particular value systemone of commitment and community
that runs counter to the individualistic values prevalent in our
culture. This perspective requires that therapists abandon "our
pretenses to unsullied value neutrality or a Value-free' social
science, something many have argued really isn't value neutral
at all, but only perpetuates a 'disguised ideology' of conventional
individualist ideals" (Richardson, 2001, p. 9). Adopting this way
of looking at relationships is consistent with the paradigm shift
described earlier that makes the existence and practice of the
tenets of CPT a subversive activity of sorts. As Erich Fromm
(1950) stated in The Art of Loving, "Important and radical changes
are necessary, if love is to become social and not a highly individualistic, marginal phenomenon" (p. 132). Couples and couples

CREATING A NEW FUTURE FOR COUPLES

215

therapists are at the forefront of these changes when they include

couple consciousness and couple power in their therapy and in
their world.
It is important for us as therapists to convey to our clients that
couple consciousness is something that people create or decide
to have, not something that happens to them. From this place,
couple is not a destination or place to get to; it is a place to come
from, a point of origin. Being couple is proclaimed from visions
the partners create together, and then they encounter the world
through that consciousness. From that place, the couple is not
concerned about difficulties or stresses breaking up the couple.
The survival of the relationship is not dependent on feelings. It
will survive because the partners say that it will. In the words
of Scott Peck (1978),
genuine love is volitional rather than emotional. The person
who truly loves ... has made a commitment to be loving
whether or not the loving feeling is present. If it is, so much
the better; but if it isn't, the commitment to love, the will to
love, still stands and is still exercised, (p. 119)

In a similar manner, when there is couple consciousness, life is

not a test; rather, it is seen as a variety of circumstances that a
couple approaches together. Their visions and proclamations
bind them together in their common goal to be the kind of couple
they want to be. This kind of consciousness gives the couple
access to couple power. The vision of couple power that they
create during treatment allows them to live happily and powerfully together in the world as a cocreating entity through the
process of being couple.
A great deal of what makes this paradigm shift to couple
consciousness possible is the way that both therapists and clients
use language. As social critic bell hooks [sic] pointed out, "Our
patterns around romantic love are unlikely to change if we do
not change our language" (2000, p. 177). That is why client couples are told to speak their couple proclamations regularly and
to do so as joint we statements in the present tensenot as
individual descriptions of the past or hopes for the future. The
therapist will come to see that from the moment the members

216

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

of a couple use the language of proclamation and cocreating to

describe themselves, the world begins to look different to them.
Their words help them get beyond the patterns of individualism
and cynicism that had them repeating old patterns.
The power of such words to create and sustain couple relationships is evident in descriptions given by couples involved in
CPT and Couples Coaching Couples when they were asked to
describe what the experience of being couple was like for them:
D
D

n
D

n
D

D
D
n
D

"knowing that perfect love exists";

"the first time in any therapy I saw any real hope for our
relationship";
"a backdrop of ease and grace";
"an opportunity to be bigger than I know myself to be
in relationship";
"power and solidarity outside of ourselves";
"being representatives for loving relationships in our
communities";
"/ and mine, you and yours evaporated into MS without
effort";
"being a bigger, better person than we are by ourselves";
"the only thing that is for sure";
"like touching and caressing your heart";
"a deeply ecstatic, joyful, and satisfied feeling of being
in partnership with another person, of knowing and sharing in a way previously unimagined or unimaginable";
"Wowee wow, wow, wow!"

A remarkable example of a shift to couple consciousness

through the use of language is provided by Will and Naomi, a
young couple who were struggling to make ends meet financially. They had been married for nearly 2 years, but they did
not feel economically secure enough to fulfill their dream of
having children and owning a house. In couples therapy, they
worked to create a vision for the future of their life together that
would be free of anxieties about money. They began by inventing
a proclamation that made them smile and look lovingly at each
other when they said it. This proclamation was "We are a prosperous couple." From that perspective, they began to act like a
prosperous couple, repeating this proclamation, which served
to remind them daily that they were, indeed, prosperous. They

CREATING A NEW FUTURE FOR COUPLES

217

spoke with a realtor and learned how much a house they wanted
might cost them. They set up a budget and a monthly savings
goal. They talked to friends who had children and found that,
in the short run, raising a family was not that expensive. They
began to practice being prosperous by renting a cottage at the
beach for a weekend during the off-season at a reduced rate.
The therapist had them visualize themselves as financially secure, and they began to talk about their relationship as "abundant." They were not waiting for prosperity to happen to them,
but began to notice where it already existed in their lives.
Once a couple like Will and Naomi begins to develop couple
consciousness, behaviors such as creating visions and making
proclamations become a part of their everyday life together.
Anything they encounter can be made into a vision. Proclamations can be invented all the time, every day, not just on special
occasions or to handle specific problems. For example, Brian and
Jan were married for many years when they first came into
couples therapy. They had no children, but both had very highpowered jobs that brought them home exhausted at night after
work. Twice a year they would take vacations together and have
a wonderful time; they returned relaxed, refreshed, and reluctant
to go back to the stresses of the workplace. During therapy
sessions, they talked about how oppressed they felt at work.
T: Coming back from vacation seems to be a real downer
for you both.
J: We had such a great time on vacation, we didn't want
to come back.
T: What is it that you enjoyed most while you were on
vacation?
B: I am not really sure what one thing was our favorite.
What do you think, Hon?
J: We certainly ate some great food, and those walks after
dinner in the moonlight were really wonderful, so romantic
and relaxing.
B: I think we just had fun being together without having
to worry about work.

218

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

T: So it sounds like being on vacation together was a state

of mind in some ways.
J: I wish we could bottle whatever that was we had there
and bring it back home.
T: Maybe you can in a way. You could proclaim that you
are on vacation even when you are here.
B: I guess we could make that our proclamation.

They realized that keeping some of the feeling of relaxation they

had the week before while at the beach would help cushion the
blows they both experienced at work. With guidance from their
therapist, they created a new and fun proclamation: "We are on
vacation!" They repeated this to each other twice a day. By
repeating this phrase, they saw that they could preserve some
of what was most enjoyable for them during their vacation while
at home. They began to go for regular walks in the evening to
look at the stars (like on their walks at the beach); they met for
coffee three times a week, and had lunch out together whenever
they could. They reported that it was like being on vacation all
the time! They continued to keep this spirit alive as long as they
repeated their proclamation. It did not solve all the problems in
their relationship, but it did reduce the stress that contributed
to many of their difficulties.

Couple Consciousness as Source:

Outward and Inward
Before couples terminate therapy, it is useful to explore with
them how, in everyday practice, couple consciousness carries
over into many areas of their lifechild rearing, financial planning, work, and so on. Functioning effectively together is a source
of individual accomplishment, family togetherness, and community relatedness. "Healthy, conscious relationships may be the
means for individuals to reclaim their 'wholeness' and pass on
a peaceful consciousness to future generations" (Luquet, 1996,
p. 13). So couple satisfaction contributes both outwardly to others
and inwardly to develop personal strength and competence. Both

CREATING A NEW FUTURE FOR COUPLES

219

of these aspects and benefits of couple consciousness and how

they are applied in the latter phases of CPT and afterwards are
addressed below.
Couple as Outward Source
Once a couple makes therapeutic gains and attains couple consciousness, they are able to powerfully affect the world in which
they live. People who function effectively in relationships create
more humane and honest relationships with their children, parents, extended family, coworkers, and friends. For example,
Luquet pointed out that "couples we have worked with who
have learned that their relationships may have a healing purpose
report not only differences in their relationships and how they
express themselves, but a difference in their children as well"
(1996, p. 29).
This notion of couple consciousness as a way of being that
manifests outward into the surrounding environment over time
is consistent with Heidegger's notion of "an event that gives
constancy to a cultural clearing" (Dreyfus & Wakefield, 1988,
p. 279). The clearing created may be perceived as what Dreyfus
and Wakefield called a positive or healthy paradigm as opposed to
a neurotic paradigm ... that shows the hopeless way things
are once and for all. ... A healthy paradigm, on the other
hand, allows anomalies to be revealed that can then be
focused on as possibilities containing a truth that can challenge the old theory and may become central in a new one.
(Dreyfus & Wakefield, 1988, p. 280)

So this new paradigm has the ability to function in opposition

to existing individualistic cultural barriers that have fostered a
negative or neurotic paradigm for couples and society at large.
As bell hooks [sic] has said, "Despair about couple relationships
is the source of global despair" (personal communication, 2001).
Another way to think about it is, "As the couple goes, so goes
the world."
If a new paradigm for being together as couple that prolonged
and maintained successful relationships was generally accepted

220

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

by social scientists and practitioners, what might the consequences be for the culture at large? If world leaders and social
movements understood the power and joy that might really
be available through cocreating relationships, what would the
future look like? If every couple learned to operate from couple
rather than individual consciousness, the world would be very
different. There would be a new cultural vision of what is possible
for a relationshipone that is hopeful and productive, not stressful and arduous. Being in a relationship would make life easier,
not more difficult. People would be optimistic about relationships and the divorce rate would probably be significantly lower.
"And perhaps if we do our jobs right, couples therapists will be
seen as Nature's agents who brought evolution back on course"
(Luquet, 1996, p. 290).
As a couples therapist, you could begin expanding couple
consciousness as an outward source by encouraging the couples
you see in therapy to share their visions and therapeutic gains
with others. Couples should be encouraged to get involved with
their larger community. They might create gatherings or parties
for other couples, families, and friends. The partners may serve
as an example in their church, neighborhood, or service club of
people who are working effectively together and having fun in
the process. In this way, they present themselves not only as
happy, fulfilled, and enriched individuals, but also as couples
that are supportive and helpful to their partner and others.
The couple also needs to be warned, however, that many
communities may not expect them to function well as couple.
They may be seen in terms of the old individualistic paradigm of
two individuals who may get along well together or complement
each other, not as a unit functioning as a single entity in the
context of a larger community. In the face of such skepticism,
the couple may be guided by the therapist to present themselves
as a model of how truly to be a couple by sharing with others
how their couple unselfishly takes on tasks or projects together.
They may be encouraged to find ways to be leaders, participants,
or even spectatorsas a couple. Even when only one of them
is present, in a therapy session or in their outside life, that partner
can be there as couple, sharing and creating visions for the couple entity.

CREATING A NEW FUTURE FOR COUPLES

221

Couple consciousness is best explained through examples of

couples operating through a couple way of being in their lives.
Howard and Martha, married 10 years, had adopted two young
special needs children. They were feeling a great deal of stress,
particularly while anticipating the winter holiday season. They
shared in their couples group that they were planning a visit to
Martha's family, whom they described as devaluing and sarcastic. They had been using for several weeks the proclamation "We
are a blessing to each other," which they changed to just "We
are a blessing," creating the opportunity for expanding their
couple consciousness outward to others. They then had this
notion of their "couple as source" for their entire extended family.
Martha reported that she acknowledged and praised Howard
during telephone conversations with relatives and in front of
her family. She had never done this before. They described this
visit as the most pleasant they had ever had. Howard said he
felt more included than ever before and that everyone seemed
more positive and friendly.
In a similar way, Sharon and Ron (the couple whose mother
and grandmother lived with them) created a new possibility not
only for themselves, but for his relatives as well, through the
couple consciousness they created in therapy. By following the
intention of their proclamation to "back each other up 100 percent," they created a new possibility for Ron's mother and grandmother. Now his mother and grandmother spend the nights and
weekends with Ron's aunt and spend the days with Ron and
his young children, whom he watches while Sharon is at work.
This allowed Sharon and Ron to have some quality family time
when Sharon was home, which took the pressure and tension
off all of them. The mother and grandmother were more relaxed
as well, and the extended family was in better communication
with each other. By helping themselves, Sharon and Ron helped
their whole family.
Another couple, Frank and Dorothy, who had been married
10 years, created a new possibility for their entire community
through the development of their own couple consciousness.
When they came for therapy, Dorothy was working overtime
every night and Frank was spending his free time in a chat room
having an Internet affair. It became clear that they had few friends

222

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

in common and very little social life as a couple. After working

through their issues and renewing their marriage vows in a
therapy session, they organized a picnic at the clubhouse in their
subdivision for families all over their neighborhood. It was such
a great success that they planned several more community socials
throughout the year, forming a network of couples and families
that they never knew before. They had expanded their world
outward and reinforced the strength of their own couple in
the process.
The therapist may help a couple create couple as source by
asking them to consider particular questions or by assigning
homework. You might ask the couple to envision a world where
couples are in charge or to look at how the lives of those around
them would be if the couple were functioning consistently as a
cocreating couple. Homework or an inquiry during a session
might focus on engaging the possibility of couple power in their
lives, that is, being source in the world for parents, friends,
childrenand even strangers. One couple even considered running for a political office as couple, with both being fully responsible for all the work and decisions as a team. In addition, the
couple may also be encouraged to look at how they are able to
empower each other's inner strength and confidence, as described in the next section.
Couple as Inward Source
Couples therapists have generally operated on the assumption
that an individual must first learn to love oneself before he or
she can truly love someone else. Over several decades of working
with couples, we have found over and over, however, that the
process works in reverse as well; that is, couple becomes the
source for self-love. It is not just that the couple can be found
in self, but that the self can be found in couple. Other disciplines
also include many references to this phenomenon. Philosopher
Joseph Campbell (1970) has stated that "sacred marriage ... is
the source-moment that generates and regenerates the world
and man" (p. 251). English professor bell hooks [sic] quoted
theologian Thomas Merton in her book All About Love: New

CREATING A NEW FUTURE FOR COUPLES

223

Visions as she pointed out the healing power of loving

relationships:
"We discover our true selves in love." ... Intensely connecting with another soul, we are made bold and courageous.
Using that fearless will to bond and connect as a catalyst for
choosing and committing ourselves to love, we are able to
love truly and deeply, to give and receive a love that lasts.
(2000, pp. 187-188)

Although some individuals are afraid of losing their identity

or freedom in a strong relationship, this is not the case when
couple is seen as source, not limitation. In fact, we have found
that the identity of the individual is actually strengthened when
couple is present. Sharon and Ron, discussed above regarding
outward source, provide a powerful example of couple as source
working inward as well. Sharon had originally come in for individual therapy to deal with her depression and lack of selfesteem. After several sessions of both individual and couples
therapy, she revealed in an individual session that she often felt
she was "wrong" and that she should be perfect. She said that
as a child she was "always in trouble" with her parents for
something. "It's different with Ron," she noted; "I feel supported
and know I can get his love and acceptance." After making that
connection, she decided to give up not feeling "good enough."
Then she shared with Ron a new personal affirmation she created
as a basis for their new life: "I am accepted and loved." Ron
reminded her of that affirmation regularly. After that time, her
confidence improved both personally and professionally, and
her trust in their couple was reinforced.
Couple consciousness has the ability to empower individuals
even if they are not currently in a committed relationship. Single
people who desire a partner may be helped during individual
treatment to create a statement of the vision of what they want
in a relationship. Just as with a couple proclamation it is stated
as fact, not hope. That visionary statement or affirmation actually
serves to focus attention on creating new possibilities and opportunities. After a while the new language of couple is incorporated

224

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

into consciousness and the client can think and speak it naturally
and comfortably. The vision then becomes an active process that
manifests in a plan for action. For example, a young single
woman talked about a night dream she had while in individual
therapy of being in the home of a famous political figure, and
of being very attracted to him. At first, she described feeling as
though "I do not deserve his attentionI am not good enough
for him." At the end of the dream, she tells her friends, "I am
going to have a relationship with this man." She was helped to
bring this intention into her waking life by creating the proclamation "I am the kind of person that a famous man is attracted to."
After this, she felt much more confident to pursue relationship
options in her life, which she did with great success.
In addition, couple consciousness can serve as a support to
an individual whose partner has died. The surviving partner
may draw strength from continuing to envision what they had
created together. This may be helpful in dealing with grief and
developing a positive attitude about the future. One woman in
her 70s whose husband had recently passed away used this
kind of couple consciousness with the help of her therapist. The
woman reported the following dream: "I'm in bed with my
husband's arms around me. I feel warm and content as we sleep
together. I am pleased and excited when I wake up." The therapist helped her to see that she could continue to keep the pleasant
experience of couple with her even in her husband's absence by
keeping that couple part of her alive in her vision, dream, and
even waking life. She was able to enjoy the experience without
hanging on to the painful desire that he return. Later she shared
this dream experience with her friends who felt sad when their
deceased spouses appeared in their dreams, helping them as well.
The tasks of the Four Cs also support couple consciousness
both inwardly and outwardly. George and Ann, a couple who
struggled for years in their marriage, both had issues of control,
and each wanted to be the one to make the major decisions for
their couple. They often fought over small things, just to assert
their dominance. They had tried to alternate major tasks such
as bill-paying and housework to learn each other's perspectives,
but their efforts were fruitless. They both thought they had done

CREATING A NEW FUTURE FOR COUPLES

225

a better job than the other on everything and that their autonomy
was being threatened. They finally sought the help of a therapist.
With the therapist's help and direction about seeing their couple as an entity, they were able to design a new understanding
of their relationship that allowed each partner to be powerful.
They developed the proclamation "We are king and queen, ruling
our realm together." This notion of couple as a team allowed
them to create the vision of a "realm" or single entity jointly
ruled with power and generosity. As "royalty," they lived as a
partnership defined by commitment, cooperation, communication, and community. Each had a role to play in controlling their
world as equals, but with different duties. Their responsibilities as heads of the realm resulted in more cooperation and
effective communication. This was necessary for them to be fair
and compassionate rulers. They were able to see the world in
which they lived not as two individuals but as a couple unit,
not as a separate king or queen but as a "royal family." Rather
than giving up power or control, each of them was now "more
able to be himselfwho he really isin the presence of the intimate other. Being close to the partner supports being a distinct,
separate person" (Scarf, 1987, p. 374).

The Future of Couples Therapy

The future of couples therapy in the world today includes not
only effectively and carefully treating those that come for help,
but also working to change our culture so that people are in less
need of treatment for dysfunctional relationships. Treatment has
the potential to be transformational in changing couples so they
no longer need therapeutic services; but the assumptions of good
therapy may also create opportunities for prevention. This step
toward prevention is taken by promoting an increase in couple
consciousness and working to create a world that honors and
supports people being in couples, a world that makes time for
relationships and minimizes alienation from others. As Erich
Fromm (1956) has stated, "Manof all ages and culturesis
confronted with the solution of one and the same question: the

226

COUPLE POWER THERAPY

question of how to overcome separateness, how to achieve union,

how to transcend one's own individual life and find at-onement"
(p. 8).
Each couple we treat in therapy may go forward as a model
for others in their community. They are then able to demonstrate
to their children what a healthy relationship looks like and influence future generations in a positive way. Like smokers who
give up the habit then create a model for their sons and daughters,
or like alcoholics who choose recovery influence their children
and grandchildren to face the challenges of their own addictions,
so the couple who understands couple as source will change the
future. Each couple we treat creates the future of relationships
everywhere.
To accomplish this goal, it is up to us, not only as therapists
but also as role models and social educators, to influence the
culture about what might be possible when healthy couples
flourish. We need to be proactive in educating the public about
what is possible for couples.
Our theory and practice themselves constitute a form of social
practice. We are accountable for the ways we as professionals
approach marriage. ... [GJiven the persistent dilemmas of
modern marriage, it may be essential to transcend a subject
conception of the good marriage and a technique-focused
therapy by questioning the validity and coherence of contemporary ideals of marriage themselves. (Powers, 2001,
pp. 337-338)

There are numerous opportunities for mental health professionals to question current practices and to create the future of couples and relationships. Many of us are teachers and role models
in our communities. We speak to groups, work in civic affairs,
and make media appearances. We may have clinical supervisees
or students who will benefit from our perspectives or listen to
our case presentations. To be part of the couple revolution, we
must follow up on these opportunities and demonstrate our
commitment to the principles of healthy relationships. We must
challenge restrictive stereotypes of couple, marriage, husband,
and wife in Western society and around the world: " . . . if we

CREATING A NEW FUTURE FOR COUPLES

227

are to create necessary new narratives, new ways of living as

women and men together" (Kingston, 2004, p. 289).
There is a general Zeitgeist of opportunity available now to
shift the prevailing paradigm from individualism to that of
couplisma change that can make our work more effective and
enhance the lives of others. To create this change, cultural barriers
to being in relationship need to be addressed; obstacles to couple
need to be alleviated or circumvented if they are too powerful
to overcome. We must help couples foster stronger family values
and create more supportive communities. Only then can we
stop the current cultural drift that has carried us away from
relationship and community and make long-term progress toward a society that supports loving and fulfilling long-term partnerships. This is the larger task of couples therapistsif we are
up to it.

References
Aldous, J. (1987). American families in the 1980s: Individualism run amok?
Journal of Family Issues, 8, 422-425.
Bach, G. R., & Bernhard, Y. M. (1971). Aggression lab: The fair fight training
manual. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Bach, G. R., & Wyden, P. (1970). The intimate enemy: How to fight fair in love and
marriage. New York: Avon.
Barren, F. (1988). Putting creativity to work. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature
of creativity (pp. 76-98). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1979). Frogs into princes: Neurolinguistic programming.
Moab, UT: Real People Press.
Baucom, D. H., Shoham, V., Mueser, K. T., Daiuto, A. D., & Stickle, T. R. (1998).
Empirically supported couple and family interventions for marital distress
and adult mental health problems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 53-88.
Beck, R., & Metrick, S. B. (1990). The art of ritual. Berkeley, CA: Celestial Arts.
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985).
Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Bern, S. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Berg, I. K., & De Shazer, (1993). Making numbers talk: Language in therapy.
In S. Freidman (Ed.), The new language of change: Constructive collaboration
in psychotherapy (pp. 5-24). New York: Guilford Press.
Berne, E. (1961). Transactional analysis in psychotherapy. New York: Ballantine.
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples: Money, work, sex. New
York: William Monroe.
Boss, P., & Sheppard, R. (1988). Family victimization and recovery. Contemporary Family Therapy, 10, 202-215.
Boston Women's Health Book Collective. (1998). Our bodies, Ourselves for the
new century: A book by and for women. New York: Touchstone.
Bramlett, M. D., & Mosher, W. D. (2001). First marriage dissolution, divorce, and
remarriage: United States. Advance data from Vital and Health Statistics (Report
No. 323). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
Bray, J. (1998). Stepfamilies. New York: Broadway Books.
Broman, C. L., Riba, M. L., & Trahan, M. R. (1996). Traumatic events and
marital well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 908-916.
229

230

REFERENCES

Cabaj, R. P., & Purcell, D. W. (1998). On the road to same-sex marriage: A supportive
guide to psychological, political, and legal issues. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cameron-Bandler, L. (1985). Solutions: Practical and effective antidotes for sexual
and relationship problems. San Rafael, CA: Future Pace.
Campbell, J. (1970). The hero with a thousand faces. Cleveland, OH: Meridian
Books.
Campbell, J. (1988). Joseph Campbell: The power of myth (B. S. Flowers, Ed.). New
York: Doubleday.
Christensen, A., Atkins, D. C, Berns, S., Wheeler, J., Baucom, D. H., & Simpson,
L. E. (2004). Traditional versus integrative behavioral couple therapy for
significantly and chronically distressed married couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(2), 176-191.
Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1999). Interventions for couples. In J. T.
Spence, J. M. Darley, & D. J. Foss (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology (pp.
165-190). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Review.
Couples coaching couples manual. (2001). Unpublished Manuscript.
Cooper, K., Chassin, L. A., & Zeiss, A. (1985). The relation of sex-role selfconcept and sex-role attitudes to the marital satisfaction and personal
adjustment of dual-worker couples with preschool children Sex Roles,
12, 227-241.
Cordova, J. V., & Jacobson, N. S. (1993). Couple distress. In D. H. Barlow (Ed.),
Clinical handbook of psychological disorders: A step-by-step treatment manual
(2nd ed., pp. 481-512). New York: Guilford Press.
Covey, S. R. (1990). The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York: Fireside.
Crosby, F. (1991). Juggling: The unexpected advantages of balancing career and home
for women and their families. New York: Free Press.
Cushman, P. (1990). Why the self is empty. American Psychologist, 454, 599-611.
Dalai Lama (His Holiness). (2000). Dzogchen: The heart essence of the great perfection. New York: Snow Lion Publications.
Davidowitz, E. (1992, May). Double income, no sex. Redbook, 179.
Davanloo, H. (1992). Short-term dynamic psychotherapy. Northvale, NJ: Aronson.
Davanloo, H. (1999). Intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapycentral
dynamic sequence: Phase of challenge. International Journal of Intensive
Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy, 13(4), 237-262.
de Shazer, S. (1991). Here we go again: Maps, territories, interpretations, and
the distinction between "the" and "a" or "an." Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 17, 179-181.
Denmark, F. L., Shaw, J. S., & Ciali, S. D. (1985). The relationship among sex
roles, living arrangements, and the division of household responsibilities.
Sex Roles, 12, 617-625.
Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1988). Romantic love: Individual and cultural
perspectives. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of
love (pp. 264-289). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

REFERENCES

231

Doherty, W. (1997). How therapists threaten marriages. The Responsive Community, 7(1), 331-343.
Dreyfus, H. L., & Wakefield, J. (1988). From depth psychology to breadth
psychology: A phenomenological approach to psychopathology. In S. B.
Messeer, L. A. Sass, & R. L. Woolfolk (Eds.), Hermeneutics and psychological
theory (pp. 272-288). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Durrant, M., & Kowalski, K. M. (1993). Enhancing views of competence. In
S. Friedman (Ed.), The new language of change: Constructive collaboration in
psychotherapy (pp. 107-137). New York: Guilford Press.
Eckes, T., & Trautner, H. (Eds.). (2000). The developmental social psychology of
gender. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ellis, A. (1962). The American sexual tragedy. New York: Stuart.
Enright, R. D. (2001). forgiveness is a choice: A step-by-step process for resolving
anger and restoring hope. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Enright, R. D., & Fitzgibbons, R. P. (2000). Helping clients forgive: An empirical
guide for resolving anger and restoring hope. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Epstein, N., & Eidelson, R. J. (1981). Unrealistic beliefs of clinical couples: Their
relationship to expectations, goals and satisfaction. American Journal of
Family Therapy, 9, 13-22.
Epston, D., & White, M. (1995). Consulting your consultants: A means to
the co-construction of alternative knowledges. In S. Friedman (Ed.), The
reflecting team in action: Collaboration practice in family therapy (pp. 277-313).
New York: Guilford Press.
Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Etzioni, A. (1993). The spirit of community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Fairbairn, W. R. (1952). Psychoanalytic studies of the personality. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Falicov, C. J. (1995). Cross-cultural marriages. In N. S. Jacobson & A. S. Gurman
(Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (pp. 231-246). New York: Guilford Press.
Ferguson, D., & Sheras, P. (2003). Couples coaching couples, Inc. Unpublished
manuscript.
Foeman, A. K., & Nance, T. (1999). From miscegenation to multiculturalism:
Perceptions and stages of interracial relationship development. Journal of
Black Studies, 29, 540-557.
Powers, B. J. (2000). Beyond the myth of marital happiness. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Powers, B. (2001). The limits of a technical concept of a good marriage: Exploring
the role of virtue in communication skills. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 27, 327-340.

232

REFERENCES

Fox, G. L., & Chancey, D. (1998). Sources of economic distress: Individual and
family outcomes. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 725-749.
Frank, J. (1978). Psychotherapy and the human predicament. New York: Schocken.
Fromm, E. (1950). The art of loving. New York: Perennial.
Gawain, S. (1979). Creative visualization. New York: Bantam Books.
Gladding, S. T. (2002). Family therapy: History, theory, and practice (3rd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink. New York: Little Brown.
Gordon, L. (1993). Passage to intimacy. Reston, VA: PAIRS Foundation.
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce: The relationship between marital
processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gottman, J. (with Silver, N.). (1994), Why marriages succeed or fail . . . and how
you can make yours last. New York: Fireside Press.
Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. New York: HarperCollins.
Green, R. J., Bettinger, M., & Zacks, E. (1996). Are lesbian couples fused and gay
male couples disengaged? Questioning gender straightjackets. In J. Laird &
R. J. Green (Eds.), Lesbians and gays in couples and families: A handbook for
therapists (pp. 185-230). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gurman, A. S., & Jacobson, N. S. (1995). Therapy with couples: A coming of
age. In N. S. Jacobson & A. S. Gurman (Eds.), The clinical handbook of couple
therapy (pp. 1-6). New York: Guilford Press.
Hacker, A. (2003). Mismatch: The growing gulf between women and men. New
York: Scribner.
Hahlweg, K., Baucom, D. H., & Markman, H. (1988). Recent advances in therapy
and prevention. In I. R. Falloon (Ed.), Handbook of behavioral family therapy.
New York: Guilford Press.
Hendrix, H. (1988). Getting the love you want: The guide for couples. New York:
HarperCollins.
Hetherington, M. E., & Kelly, J. (2003). For better or worse: Divorce reconsidered.
New York: Norton.
Hochschild, A. R. (2003). Second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home.
New York: Penguin.
Hoffman, S. R., & Levant, R. F. (1985, February). A comparison of childfree
and child-anticipated married couples. Family Relations, 197-203.
hooks, b. (2000). all about love. New York: Perennial.
Huber, C. (1993). Notes on coaching. Unpublished manuscript.
Hudson, P. O., & O'Hanlon, W. H. (1991). Rewriting love stories: Brief marital
therapy. New York: Norton.
Jacobson, N. S., & Addis, M. E. (1993). Research on couples and couple therapy:
What do we know and where are we going? Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 61, 85-93.

REFERENCES

233

Jacobson, N. S., Christensen, A., Prince, S. E., Cordova, }., & Eldridge, K. (2000).
Integrative behavioral couple therapy: An acceptance-based, promising
new treatment for couple discord. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 351-355.
Johnson, M. P., & Leslie, L. (1982). Couple involvement and network structure:
A test of the dyadic withdrawal hypothesis. Social Psychology Quarterly,
45, 34-43.
Johnson, M. P., & Milardo, R. M. (1984). Network interference in pair relationships: A social psychological recasting of Slater's theory of social regression. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46(1), 893-899.
Kaplan, H. S. (1974). The new sex therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Keleman, S. (1979). Somatic reality. Berkeley, CA: Center Press.
Keleman, S. (1982). In defense of heterosexuality. Berkeley, CA: Center Press.
Killian, K. D. (2001). Reconstituting racial histories and identities: The narratives
of interracial couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27, 27-42.
Kingston, A. (2004). The meaning of wife. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
Klaff, V. (1995). The changing Jewish family: Issues of community. In C. Jacobson (Ed.), Racial and ethnic families in the United States (pp. 77-95). New
York: Garland Publishing.
Koch-Sheras, P., Hollier, E., & Jones, B. (1983). Dream on: A dream interpretation
guide for women. New York: Prentice Hall.
Koch-Sheras, P., & Sheras, P. L. (1998). The dream sharing sourcebook. Los Angeles:
RGA Publishing.
Kopp, S. (1977). Back to one. Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lankton, S. (1980). Practical magic. Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications.
Lasch, C. (1979). The culture of narcissism: American life in an age of diminishing
expectations. New York: Norton.
Lederer, W. }., & Jackson, D. D. (1968). The mirages of marriage. New York:
Norton.
Lee, G. R. (1988). Marital intimacy among older persons: The spouse as confidant. Journal of Family Issues, 9, 273-284.
Lerner, M. (1995). Jews and Blacks: Let the healing begin. New York: Putnam.
Luquet, W. (1996). To what end: Couples therapy. Journal of Couples Therapy, 6,
13-30.
Marin, P., Stanley, V., & Marin, K. (1975). The limits of schooling. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954969.
Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human sexual response. Boston: Little
Brown.

234

REFERENCES

McCormick, N. B., & Jordan, T. J. (1988). Thoughts that destroy intimacy:

Irrational beliefs about relationships and sexuality. In W. Dryden &
P. Trowers (Eds.), Developments in rational-emotive therapy (pp. 41-55).
Bristol, PA: The Open University.
McGoldrick, M. (1999). Becoming a couple. In M. McGoldrick, B. Carter, &
E. A. Carter (Eds.), The expanded family life cycle: Individual, family, and social
perspectives. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
McGoldrick, M. (2003). Culture: A challenge to concepts of normality. In
F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (3rd
ed., pp. 235-259). New York: Guilford Press.
McGoldrick, M., & Carter, E. A. (1982). The family life cycle. In F. Walsh (Ed.),
Normal family processes (pp. 167-195). New York: Guilford Press.
McGoldrick, M., & Preto, N. G. (1984). Ethnic intermarriage: Implications for
therapy. Family Process, 23, 347-364.
Michaels, S. (1996). The prevalence of homosexuality in the United States. In
R. P. Cabaj & T. S. Stein (Eds.), Textbook of homosexuality and mental health
(pp. 43-63). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Mikesell, R. H., Lusterman, D., & McDaniel, S. H. (Eds.). (1995). Integrating
family therapy: Handbook of family psychology and systems theory. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Minuchin, S., & Fishman, C. H. (1981). Family therapy techniques. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Montouri, A., & Conti, I. (1993). From power to partnership: Creating the future
of love, work, and community. San Francisco: HarperCollins.
Nock, S. L. (1999, July/August). The problem with marriage. Society, 20-27.
Patterson, D. G., & Schwartz, P. (1994). The social construction of conflict in
intimate same-sex couples. In D. D. Cahn (Ed.), Conflict in personal relationships (pp. 3-26). New York: Erlbaum.
Peck, M. S. (1978). The road less traveled: A new psychology of love, traditional
values, and spiritual growth. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Pittman, F. (1995). Turning tragedy into comedy. Family Therapy Networker,
19, 36-40.
Popenoe, D. (1991, May). Breakup of the family: Can we reverse the trend?
USA Today Magazine, 50-53.
Prather, H. (1970). Notes to myself. Lafayette, CA: Real People Press.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Reynolds, C. H., & Norman, R. V. (1988). Community in America: The challenge
of habits of the heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Richardson, F. (2001). Virtue, ethics, dialogue, and "reverence." Unpublished
manuscript, University of Texas at Austin.
Richardson, F., Powers, B., & Guignon, C. (1999). Re-envisioning psychology:
Moral dimensions of theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

REFERENCES

235

Richardson, F., & Zeddies, T. (2001). Individualism and modern psychotherapy.

In B. Slife, R. Williams, & S. Barlow (Eds.), Critical issues in psychotherapy:
Translating new ideas into practice (pp. 147-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rogers, C. (1961). The process equation of psychotherapy. American Journal of
Psychotherapy, 15, 27-45.
Rosemond, J. (2004, December 7). Marriage, not children, is a family's center.
The Charlotte Observer, p. 8E.
Rubin, J. (1996). Psychotherapy and Buddhism: Toward an integration. New York:
Plenum Press.
Rutan, J. S., & Rice, C. A. (2000). Personality disorders: Group psychotherapy
as a treatment of choice. Journal of Psychotherapy in Independent Practice, 1,
3-11.
Sager, C. (1976). Marriage contracts and couples therapy. New York: Brunner/
Mazel.
Sanchez-Hucles, J., & Dutton, M. A. (1999). The interaction between societal
violence and domestic violence: Race and cultural factors. In M. Harway &
J. M. O'Neill (Eds.), What causes men's violence against women? (pp. 183-203).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sarnoff, I., & Sarnoff, S. (1989, October). The dialectic of marriage. Psychology
Today, 23, 54-57.
Satir, V. (1972). Peoplemaking. Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books.
Scarf, M. (1987). Intimate partners: Patterns in love and marriage. New York:
Random House.
Segal, E. (1970). Love story. New York: HarperCollins.
Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
Shaevitz, M. H. (1984). The superwoman syndrome. New York: Warner Books.
Shapiro, J., & Kroeger, L. (1991). Is life just a romantic novel? The relationship
between attitudes about intimate relationships and the popular media.
The American Journal of Family Therapy, 19, 226-236.
Sheras, P. L. (2002). Your child bully or victim? Understanding and ending school
yard tyranny. New York: Fireside.
Sheras, P. L., Abidin, R., & Konold, T. (1998). The stress index for parents of
adolescents manual. Odessa, FL: PAR Publishers.
Sheras, P. L., & Koch-Sheras, P. K. (1998). New frontiers in treating couples.
In L. Vandecreek, S. Knapp, & T. Jackson (Eds.), Innovations in clinical
practice: A source book (Vol. 16, pp. 399-418). Sarasota, FL: Professional
Resource Press.
Sheras, P. L., & Koch-Sheras, P. K. (2000, Summer). The couple as entity: The
power of treating the couple as a whole. The Independent Practitioner, 88-90.
Smedes, L. B. (1996). The art of forgiving: When you need to forgive and don't know
how. Nashville, TN: Ballantine Books.

236

REFERENCES

Smith, J. (2001). A special report on the disintegration of the family. Civic Arts
Review, 14(1), 3-24.
Solomon, M. A. (1973). A developmental conceptual premise for family therapy.
Family Process, 12,179-188.
Spence, J. T. (1985). Achievement American style: The rewards and costs of
individualism. American Psychologist, 40, 1285-1295.
Spence, ]., & Izard, C. E. (1985). Motivation, emotion, and personality. New York:
Elsevier Science.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation.
New York: Morrow.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Managing conflict in intimate intercultural relationships. In D. D. Cahn (Ed.), Conflict in personal relationships (pp. 47-77).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Annual demographic supplement to March 2002 Current Population Survey. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health
Statistics. (2004). Births, marriages, divorces, and deaths: Provisional data
for 2003. National Vital Statistics Report, 52(22).
Van der Kolk, B. A., McFarlane, A. C., & Weisaeth, L. (1996). Traumatic stress:
The effects of overwhelming experience of mind, body, and society. New York:
Guilford Press.
Voydanoff, P. (1990). Economic distress and family relations: A review of the
eighties. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 1099-1115.
Wallerstein, J. S., Lewis, J. L., & Blakeslee, S. (2000). The unexpected legacy of
divorce: A 25-year landmark study. New York: Hyperion.
Wangyal, T. (2001). Lineage masters of the Zhang Zhung Nyen Gyu: Teaching
and oral commentary by His Holiness Luntok Tenpa'I Nyima and Geshe
Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche. Shipman, VA: Ligmincha Institute.
Waters, D. B., & Lawrence, E. C. (1993). Competence, courage, and change: An
approach to family therapy. New York: Norton.
Watzlawick, P. (1996). The construction of clinical realities. In H. Rosen & K. T.
Kuehlwein (Eds.), Constructing realities: Meaning-making perspectives for psychotherapists (pp. 55-70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, ]. H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem
formation and problem resolution. New York: Norton.
Webster, N. (1975). The living Webster Encyclopedia Dictionary of the English
Language. Chicago: The English Language Institute of America.
Weiner-Davis, M. (1993). Divorce busting. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Weir, J. (1975). The personal growth laboratory. In K. Benne, L. Bradford,
J. Gibb, & R. Lippitt (Eds.), The laboratory method for changing and learning:
Theory and application. Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books.
Welwood, J. (1990). Journey of the heart. New York: HarperCollins.

REFERENCES

237

White, M. (1989). Selected papers. Adelaide, Australia: Dulwich Center

Publications.
White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New
York: Norton.
Wile, D. B. (1981). Couples therapy: A nontraditional approach. New York: Wiley.
Wolf, N. (1997). Promiscuities: The secret struggle for womanhood. New York:
Random House.
Yankelovich, D. (1981). New rules: Searching for self-fulfillment in a world turned
upside down. New York: Random House.
Yalom, I. (1994). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (4th ed.). New
York: Random House.
Zaiss, C. (2002). True partnership: Revolutionary thinking about relating to others.
San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers.

Index
Accomplishment
in cocreating couple, 56-57
in independent couple, 55
Accountability, of therapist, 136-137
Acknowledgment
of couple, at termination of
therapy, 147-148
in couples therapy group, 165-166
exercises in, 148-149
as expression of appreciation, 146
from joint vision vs. individually,
146-147
of partner, 104, 145, 197
reception and experience of by
other partner, 147
in reinforcement of behavior, 145
as taking responsibility, 145-146
by therapist, 148
Active listening. See Dedicated
listening
Addiction
commitment to therapy and,
66-67
to excitement, 187
Adolescence
effect on roles of parent and
spouse, 198
Affairs
Carl and Jane, 69, 85, 134-135
commitment to therapy and, 66
therapy and, 209, 210-211
Aggression, impact vs. hostile, 138
Agreements, 112
in couples groups, 165
Aldous, ]., 177,198
Androgynous behavior, 46-47
Appreciation (see acknowledgment)
of partner's contribution, 105
Asking. See Requesting

Bach, G. R., 128, 136, 138

Handler, R., 84, 126, 136
Beck, R., 74
Beliefs
about relationships, unrealistic,
186-187
Bellah, R. N., 176, 208
Bern, S., 103, 192
Berne, E., 78
Bernhard, Y. M., 128, 136
Bettinger, M., 193
Biases
of therapist, 205
Blind walk exercise
for communication in conflict,
128-129
to develop trust, 128
Body Journey guided fantasy,
130-131
Body language. See Nonverbal communication
Boundaries
therapist's, 206
Brainstorming
for couple proclamation, 79
to find community, 161-162
Bray, }., 106, 107
Cabaj, R. P., 200
Campbell,}., 29, 222
Case(s)
abusive relationship: Sonia, 180,
202
addiction of mother: Terry,
66-67
affairs
Carl and Jane, 69, 85-86,
134-135
Sandra and Dirk, 210-211
239

240

INDEX

Case(s), continued
cocreating couple, 43, 45, 46
commitment
and sexuality: Beth and Sam,
65-66, 68-69, 129
and unfinished business: Uri
and Margot, 67-68
conflict
and blind walk exercise: Gail
and Norman, 128-129
and fear of abandonment:
Brenda and John, 139
conflict of interest: Carlos and
Wanda, 26
control issues: George and Ann,
224-225
cooperation
in car purchase: Carrie and
Lonnie, 105-106
in spouse's debt: Reese and
April, 178-179
and role expectations: Jim and
Susan, 104
couple consciousness
Brian and Jan, 217-218
Will and Naomi, 216-217
couple proclamation, 85-86
couples community: Jan and
Rebecca, 152-154
creation of couple as entity: Barb
and Daniel, 31-32
dedicated listening: Uri and
Margot, 122-123
distancing of partners: Manuel
and Annette, 125-126
fear of abandonment: Jeremy and
Jack, 166
flexibility in death of child: Helen
and Jamie, 43, 45, 57
gender stereotyping and sex:
Linda and Terry, 190-191
hidden payoff: Cal and Jane,
133-134
independent couple: Cal and
Judy, 55-56

intercultural couple: Carol and

Ravi, 46, 51
intercultural marriage: Carol and
Ravi, 202
intercultural marriage and separation: Sonya, 202
joint project for partner: Dan and
Mary, 109-110
media effect on sexual intimacy:
Jack and Betty, 190
new proclamation in: John and
Linda, 80, 89
nonverbal communication
Carl and Jane, 127
Uri and Margot, 127-128
paradigm restriction in sexual
relationships: Jim and Judy,
21-22
parenting: Gary and Tanya, 196
power and control and commitment, 92, 94
proclamation to bond during separation: Ray and Laurie,
89-90
reframing
in commitment struggle: Carl
and Jane, 144
in conflict resolution: Wes and
Rhonda, 144
requesting and cooperation:
Sharon and Ron, 110-111
requesting and cooperative
vision: Jenny and Bob,
116-117
restatment of marriage vows:
Fred and Donna, 73-74
role-defined couple: Marion and
Zack, 53-54
romantic couple: Jared and Jan,
50-51
sacrifice and compromise: Jason
and Jodi, 27
same sex couple as family: Betts
and Bobbie, 201
from serious to humorous: Marty
and Noreen, 114-115

INDEX

sexuality issues and nonverbal

communication
Beth and Sam, 129
Brenda and John, 131
sexual relationship: Jim and Judy,
21-22
stress of unemployment: Brenda
and Dan, 182
superwoman: Lucy, 198
taking time for couple: Rena and
Rolf, 184
team spirit in blended family:
Anna and Jerry, 107
unfinished business, Sharon and
Ron, 223
updating marriage vows for present: Gwen and Jeff, 76, 77
Casual sex, 191-192
Chancey, D., 182
Change
flexibility and, 42^13
"inside the box," 20, 22
"outside the box," 20, 22
process of, 37
ritual in, 74
Changing Places exercise, 125
Children
adoption of, same sex couple, 201
couple consciousness effect on, 219
effect of divorce on, 177
gender roles in parenting of, 195
inhibition of sexual relationship,
197-198
time and energy for, 196-197
workplace and, 195
Coaching
accepting, 102
contexts for, 101
Couples Coaching Couples,
167-168
defined, 101
goal of, 102
by partner, 101, 102
requesting, 102
skills in, 102
by therapist, 101

241

Cocreating couple
adaptability of, 54
death of child and, 43, 45
evolution of, 4344
flexibility of, 41-47, 54
inquiring and discovery and, 142
intercultural example of, 46, 47,
61
as process vs. static behaviors, 42,
43
romantic couple comparison with,
51
vision statements of, 71
as way of being vs. goal to
achieve, 42
Cocreation
defined, 4-5
inquiry and discovery in, 142-143
Collaboration
in couple proclamation, 82
inquiry and, 142
Commitment, 36
assessment of, 92-94
casual sex and, 191-192
of cocreating couple, 56
to common goals, 44
as cornerstone, 63, 65
to couple as entity, 11,15, 34, 65-69
in couple power therapy, 64
couple proclamation and, 78
in couple statement, 72
couple visions and statements,
70-73
defined, 6
exercises and assignments, 74-77
as foundation, 11
importance of, 10
to joint vision, 44-45
lack of as contraindication to couple power therapy, 209,
211-212
models of, 157-158
past problems and unfinished
business and, 67-68
questioning of original: Gwen
and Jeff, 76-77

242

INDEX

Commitment, continued
to relationship, 66
restating marriage vows and,
73-74
of therapist to vision for couple,
66
to therapy as couple, 66-67
in traditional couples therapy, 64
Communication, 12, 36
assessment of, 149-150
assumptions in, 122, 123
barriers to
legal system, 180
in cocreating couple, 45-46
dedicated listening in, 121
dedicated observing in, 126-128
dedicated speaking in, 131-148
defined, 6
fatigue and, 183
gender stereotype effect on, 193
in interracial marriages, 204
listening exercises in, 121-126
nonverbal, 122, 123-129
partnership context for, 120-121
in relationships, 20
sexual, media and, 191
through commitment to couple
vs. individual, 35
in traditional vs. couple power
therapy, 10
Communitarianism and individuality, 154-155
Community, 36
assessment of, 168-169
benefits of, 157-160
commitment models in, 157-158
couple involvement in, 220, 221
couples group as, 153
creating, 162-166
decline in group participation
and, 155-156
defined, 6
discovering, 161-162
feedback from couples in, 158
function of, 12
generational or peer, 35-36

horizontal, 161
importance of, 151
interest in problems vs. success of
couples in, 153
lack of, 151, 152
lack of support from, 152-154
need for, 154-157
problem solving in, 159
sharing of common experiences
in, 159-160
supportive, 227
in support of gay and lesbian
couples, 200
vertical, 161
Compatibility
cultural assumptions about, 199
idealized concepts of, 199
perception of incompatibility and,
199
Competitiveness
vs. cooperation, 97
Compromise, 2
cooperation and, 34
cooperative, 98
negative vs. positive, 97-98
as opportunity, 29
as sacrifice, 28
Confidant
outside couple vs. partner, 138
spouse as, 138
Conflict
acceptance of, 137-142
acknowledgment of, 137
avoidance of, 137
money issues in, 182
Conflict resolution
dedicated listening in, 121
fair fighting in, 139
forgiveness in, 135
schools and, 185
unfinished business in, 139-141
Connectedness
with community, 160
Consciousness
communitarian vs. individualistic
perspective on, 214215

INDEX
Context
for exercises and assignments, 75
Conti, L, 120, 121
Contract
assessment of achievement, 109
criteria for, 108
for joint project, 116
witnessing of, power of, 108
to work on goals, 107
Cooperation, 11-12, 36
among divorced parents, 107
assessment of, 117-118
in blended families, 106-107
in car purchase project, 105-106
characteristics of, 98
of cocreating couple, 54
concepts in, 34-35
defined, 6
in formation of bond, 98
homework in, 100, 101
with humor, 113-115
individualism vs., 97
Reese and April, 178-179
interfaith marriages and, 203-204
in joint project, 109-110
joint project assignment, 115-116
positive perspective for, 113-114
requests and agreements in,
110-113
respective strengths and contributions in, 105-106
skills of, 100
team spirit in, 106-107
teamwork in, 98-107. See also
Teamwork
Cooperative coparenting, defined,
107
Cordova, J. V., 63-64
Couple
as being vs. doing, 30
birthing of new, 78-79
children effect on, 196-197
cocreating. See Cocreating couple
collectivist view of, 44, 45, 47
in current cultural paradigm, 19

243

fixed patterns of, 47-57. See also

Fixed couple pattern(s)
as genesis of family, 33
in individual paradigm, 29
lack of community support for,
156
media model vs. family model of,
186
as model, 226
network interference in, 156-157
as outward source, 219-221
as parents, 196-197
as process, 72
as process vs. achievement, 43
redefinition of, 19-39
as source of new possibility,
221-222
taking time for, 183, 184
Couple as entity, 4, 5, 6-7
being vs. doing of, 30
in cocreating couple, 44
in couple power therapy, 15
creation of, 78
creation of, Barb and Daniel,
31-32
goals of couple in, 29
needs in, relationship vs. individual, 29
tasks of, 5, 34-36
vs. couple as complementary individuals, 220
Couple as source
of self, 222-223, 225
therapist help in creation of, 222
Couple as source of new possibility
for community, Frank and Dorothy, 221
for grandmother and mother,
Sharon and Ron, 221
Couple communities
development of couples therapy
groups for, 163
reaching out to create, 163
Couple consciousness
carry over of, 218
in control issue example, 224-225

244

INDEX

Couple consciousness, continued

defined, 213, 214
examples of, 221-222
Four Cs in support of, 224-225
as inward source, 222-224
manifestation of, 219
as outward source, 219-222
as support in death of partner,
224
Couple declaration
defined, 78
Couple identity, 4
Couple paradigm
couple as entity in, 28-32
goals of therapy in, 32-36
Couple pattern(s)
cocreating perspective on, 57-59
as problem, 57
Couple power therapy (CPT), 4
application to non-couple relationships, 16
contraindications to, 209-211
couple's goals in, 59
health of relationship and individual members in, 32
integration of couples therapy theories and practices, 1415
obstacles in, 59
perspective of therapist and clients in, 57-58
tasks vs. solutions in, 6
therapeutic goals in, 33
Couple proclamation
anchoring of, 86
assignments for, 88
for care of extended family:
Sharon and Ron, 82, 110111, 143-144, 157
in Carl's affairs and Jane's sarcasm, 85-86
Claire and Ron, 81
collaboration in, 82
commitment in present vs. wish
for future, 81
concrete representations of, 90-92
contract connected with, 108

to counter negative feelings, 143

couple creation power of, 72
creation of new, 88-90
defined, 78
designing, 78-86
development of new, 75-76
dreams and, 80-81
for dual career couple, 183, 184
of elderly couple in second marriage, 79
expression and tone of, 83-86
as expression of commitment, 78
feeling vs. content in, 83-84
focus on couple vs. individual in,
81-82
generation of physical excitement
by, 84, 86
impasse in therapy: John and
Linda, 89
internal experience of, 84, 86
internal visualization of, 92
of married graduate students,
82-83
modification of, 85
by parents, 197
as positive statement for present
vs. wish for future, 79-81
in power and control case, 92, 94
practice assignment for, 101
reaffirmation of, 86-87
repetition and practice of, 87-90
sources for, 80-81
touch or nonverbal action with, 91
unfinished business exercise and,
139, 141, 142
unfinished business in development of, 85
verbalization of, 87-90
visual display of, 91-92
we perspective vs. individual
focus, 81-83
Couple revolution, 213
mental health professionals in,
226-227
Couples Coaching Couples (CCC),
167-168

INDEX

description of, 167-168

in development of community,
168
in support of commitment, cooperation, communication, 168
Couple statement. See also Couple
proclamation
commitment to vision in, 72-73
Couples therapy
future of, 225-227
Couples therapy group
acknowledgment in, 165-166
example of support from, 163-164
goals in, 165
group agreements in, 165
models in, 166
preparation for, 166
referral to, 163
size of, 164
time frame for, 164
Couple vision. See also Joint vision
assignment to design a cooperative future in concrete
terms, 116-117
client description of, 70-71
of cocreating couple, 43^14
contract as, 108
of couple, 30
defined, 70
expansion from doing to being in,
72
family models for, 70
media models for, 70
of possible future vs. past, 44
of relationship, 34
statement of, 9, 71-72, 223-224
Couplism, 128
Cultural barriers
paradigm shift and, 227
Cultural differences
geographic, 203
Cultural myths
media and, 186
Culture
couple consciousness effect on,
220

245

defined, 174
individualistic
fixed couple patterns in, 48
identity in, 41^12
influence on couples, 176
influence on therapist, 176
interpersonal development and,
174-175
as obstacle to couple relationship,
174
paradigm of individualism in,
176-184
Dalai Lama, His Holiness, 9
Dedicated listening. See also
Listening
Changing Places exercise, 125
comparison with active listening,
121

defined, 121
If I Were Alone exercise, 124,
125-126
perception of incompatibility and,
199
written exercises for spoken sharing, 124-125
Dedicated observing, in communication, 126-128
Dedicated speaking
accepting conflict and negative
feelings in, 137-142
acknowledgment in, 145-148
expressing forgiveness in, 135-136
hidden payoff and, 134-135
inquiring in, 142-143
intention to communicate and,
131-132
reframing in, 143-145
taking responsibility in, 132-134
therapist accountability in,
136-137
Diversity
gay and lesbian couples, 200-201
intercultural, 201-204
Divorce
children and, 177

246

INDEX

Divorce, continued
individualism and, 179-180
normalization of, 179
rates of, 4
therapist's and, 205-206
Doghouse Release, 136
Domestic violence
criminal justice system and
couple, 180
Dreams
couple proclamation and, 80-81
Dreyfus, H. L., 219
Dual-career couple
children and, 196
communication in, 183
expectations of feminism and,
194-195
job change and, 182
refocusing on couple entity in,
184
sexual intimacy and, 183-184
sexual intimacy in, 183-184
Durrant, M., 58
Echoing, as listening exercise, 122,
123, 124
Egocentrism, conflicts of interest
and, 25-26
Electronic communication, community and, 152
Empowerment, in couple as entity,
30
Enright, R. D., 135, 188
Entitlement, 177
vs. community, 35
Epston, D., 8
Etzioni, A., 154-155
Expectations
clarification of, 103
cultural, 20
family, 193
in individualism paradigm, 28
individualistic, 208
partner's, 64
role, 104
therapist's, 37

vision os., 46
of women, feminism and, 194
Externalization
benefits of, 175
Fairbairn, W. R., 174
Fair fighting, 138, 139
Falicov, C. J., 202
Fear of abandonment, 126, 139
couples therapy group for, 166
Four Cs and, 178
Fear of intimacy
in independent couple, 55
individualism and, 24, 25
Fear of rejection
communication and, 126
Fear(s)
in individualism, 178
loss of identity, 223
of negative feelings, 137-138
Feedback exercise, for listening, 122
Feminism
effect on men, 194
idealized woman in, 194-195
Fishman, C. H., 9
Fitzgibbons, R. P., 135
Fixed couple pattern(s), 47-48
as developmental stage, 48
independent couple, 54-57
individualistic culture and, 48
role-defined couple, 52-54
romantic couple, 48-51
Flexibility
in cocreating couple, 41^7
death of child and, 43
in parenting roles, 197
Forgiveness
asking for, 135
expressing, 135-136
fair-fight training ritual, 136
forgiving self and, 135
responsibility for, 135-136
Four Cs, 5, 6
commitment, 5, 6
communication, 5, 6
community, 5, 6

INDEX

cooperation, 5, 6
of couple power, 34-36
focusing on, 6
independent couple and, 178
in sequence, 12-13
as tasks of couple power therapy, 5
Powers, B. J., 15, 23, 29, 98,119,138139,160, 207, 209, 213, 226
Fox, G. L., 182
Fromm, E., 213, 225-226
Gawain, S., 92,134
Gay and lesbian couples
adaptation in, 201
discrimination against, 200
as family, 201
lack of community and institutional support, 200-201
nonconformity to role norms in,
192-193
stresses in, 201
Gender roles
danger of, 104
in marriage, 103, 192
rigid, 103
Gender stereotypes
communication about sex and,
190-191
communication and, 193
formal education and, 185
Gladwell, M., 5-6
Goals
assessment of, 33
commitment to common, 44
of couple as entity, 29
in couple power therapy, 33, 59
of couple relationship, 30
in couples group, 165
in individualism paradigm, 24
individual vs. relationship needs,
24
requirements for, 99-100
statement of, 71
teamwork and, 98-99
of therapy, 133
in couple paradigm, 32-36

247

Goal setting, 99-100

as promise or contract, 107
requirements in, 99-100
team spirit in, 106
Green, R. J., 193
Grief, couple consciousness and,
224
Grinder, J., 84, 126, 136
Groups. See also Couples therapy
group
decline in participation in,
155-156
Guided fantasy
applications of, 131
Body Journey, 130
Hacker, A., 23, 26
Health
of relationship and individual
members, 32
Hiddden payoff
taking responsibility for, 134135
hooks, b., 215, 219, 222, 223
Huber, C., 64, 178
Hudson, P. O., 15, 65, 67, 71, 75, 99100, 127, 133,142, 144, 147
Humor
in facilitation of cooperation,
113-115
serious couple example, 114-115
Idealization
of couple relationship, 49, 70
by romantic couple, 49
Idealized images
of children, 195-198
of compatibility, 199
in educational system, 184,
185-186
in feminism, 194-195
gender stereotypes, 185, 190-193
in the media, 184, 186-190
Ideal partner, 49, 50
Identity
fear of losing, 223
in individualistic culture, 41^12

248

INDEX

If I Were Alone exercise, 124,

125-126
Impact aggression vs. hostile aggression, 138
Independence
vs. emotional attachment, 177
Independent couple, 54-57
accomplishment as substitute for
intimacy in, 55
Cal and Judy: separation for jobs
in separate cities, 55-56
comparison with cocreating
couple, 56-57
dual-career couple example of,
54-55
separate agendas vs. common
goal in, 177-178
simultaneous independence and
togetherness in, 54
Individual
relationship to couple entity, 6
Individualism paradigm, 4, 24-28.
See also Paradigm(s)
commitment and, 208
conflict between independence
and relationship, 177
couple in, 29
in couples therapy, 208-209
divorce and, 177
divorce rate and, 24
economic variables in, 181-184
egocentrism in, 24, 25-26
fear of intimacy in, 24, 25
ideals and expectations of relationships in, 28
individual goals vs. relationship
needs, 24
in institutions, 179
legal system and, 179-180
limitations of, 23, 24-25
positive outcomes of, 23-24
relationships and, 4
sacrifice and compromise in, 24,
26-28
self-interest in, 176
therapeutic language in, 208

therapist and, 206-207

workplace and, 181-184
Individual psychoanalytic therapy
consequences to marriage, 206
Interconnectedness, 160
Intercultural couples
conflict with families of origin,
202
divorce in, 202
perception of differences in vs.
actual differences, 202-203
Interdependence, 160
Interfaith couples
perceived vs. cultural differences,
202
Internal experience
of couple proclamation, 84, 86
Interracial couples, 202
Interracial marriage
communication in, 204
resistance to, 204
Interracial marriage, referral to couple support in, 204
Intimacy
Body Journey guided fantasy
and, 131
challenges to, 152
fears of, 178
sexual and dual-career couple,
183-184
workplace effect on, 182-183
at work vs. at home, 181-182
Izard, C. E., 277
Jackson, D. D., 192
Jacobson, N. S., 63-64
Job
changes of, dual-career couple
and, 182
loss of, 181, 182
pressures of in conflict with personal commitments, 181
vs. family, 181
Johnson, M. P., 156
Joint vision. See also Couple vision
of cocreating couple, 44

INDEX

commitment to, 65
couple proclamation of, 81
Jordan, T. J., 186
Keleman, S., 86
Killiam, K. D., 204, 209
Kingston, A., 189, 227
Koch-Sheras, P. R., 30
Kowalski, K. M., 58
Kroeger, L., 187
Kuhn, T. S., 37
Landry, T., 101
Language
change and, 8
of creative unconscious, 8
importance of, 6-7
power of, 71
of self-responsibility, 8
in shift to couple consciousness,
215-216
example of, 216-217
therapeutic as obstacle, 208
Lasch, C, 23, 177,192, 207
Lederer, W. J., 192
Lee, 138
Legal system
communication and, 180
divorce and, 179
separation and, 179-180
welfare laws and, 179
Lerner, M., 208
Lesbian. See Gay and lesbian
couples
Listening. See also Dedicated listening
exercises in, 121-126
individual issues in therapy and,
69
Love, social vs. individualistic, 214
Loyalty, job vs. family, 181
Luquet, W., 218, 219
Madsen, R., 176
Marital satisfaction, 3

249

Marriage
child-free, 195
in competition with parenthood,
196-197
in current paradigm, 20
educational view of, 185
gender roles in, 192
myth of, 23
open, 50
psychological remarriage and, 78
religious training for, 185
serial, 64-65
traditional, roles in and effect on
women, 103
Marriage therapy
couples therapy vs., 13-14
therapist training as obstacle, 206
Marriage vows
in process of creating couple
vision, 74
repetition of as homework, 78
restatement of, 73-74
updating for the present: Gwen
and Jeff, 76, 77
as vision statement and commitment to couple, 73
McCormick, M., 186
McFarlane, A. C., 72
McGoldrick, M., 73-74, 103, 185
Media, the
couple model in, 70, 186
romantic couple in, 189
Men, feminism effect on, 194
Mental health profession
individualism and, 213
paradigm change and, 36-37
promotion of self-interest and
individualism vs. social
responsibility and commitment, 207, 208
Metrick, S. B., 74
Michaels, S., 200
Milardo, R. M., 156
Mind check, as listening exercise,
122, 123
Minuchin, S., 9

250

INDEX

Miracle question
in proclamation design, 79
Montuori, A., 120, 121
Movies
idealized image of sex in, 187
Narcissism, 177, 207
Narrative, cultural, 175
Narrative therapy, 8
Negative emotions
resentment and, 139
Negative feelings
fear of, 137-138
News shows
career/financial success vs. family
values in, 189
Nock, S. L., 29
Nonverbal communication
blind walk exercise in, 128-129
cues in, 126
exercises in, 128-131
for sexuality issues, 129-130
Obstacle(s)
casual sex, 191-192
for couple power therapists,
205-209
culture as, 174-176
diversity in couples, 199-204
educational system, 185-186
gender stereotypes, 190-193
idealized images, 184-199
media-generated, 7, 70, 186-190
paradigm of individualism,
176-184
paradigm shift and, 227
as possibilities, 59
therapist as, 205, 206, 208
O'Hanlon, W. H., 15, 65, 67, 71, 75,
99-100, 127, 133, 143, 144, 147
Open marriage, 50
Paradigm(s). See also named, e.g. Individualism paradigm
changing of, 36-38

of cocreating couples, 213-214.

See also Couple consciousness
concept of, 20-22
of couple, 28-36
current, 22-24
healthy vs. neurotic, 219
of individualism, 2428
as normative vs. restrictive, 20-21
therapists and, 21
Paradigm shift
fears and potential with, 38-39
future perspective in, 38
from individualism to couplism,
227
requirements for, 38
Parenthood, romantic ideal of,
195-196
Parenting
role-defined model, 198
role flexibiity in, 197
Parents
competition for child's affection,
198
as models of commitment,
157-158
Partnership
basis of, 120
of cocreating couple, 45
dialogue and, 120
dialogue in, 120
Partnership virtues, 29
Past issues and commitment, 67-68
Pattern(s)
cocreating vs. fixed, 42
fixed. See Fixed couple pattern(s)
Patterson, D. G., 200
Peck, S., 215
Peers, as models of commitment,
158
Percept language, 133-134
Performance anxiety
sexual, media and, 191
Popenoe, D., 23, 179
Possibility

INDEX
in couple power therapy, 7
in relating, 9
Practice
assignments for, 101
of cooperation skills, 100
of couple proclamation, 101
meanings of, 100-101
Prather, H., 214
Prejudices
of therapist, 205
Print media
beliefs about relationships in,
186-187
Problems
externalization in culture, 175-176
Problem solving
communities of couples in, 159
Promises
delivering on, 107-110
Psychoanalytic movement
therapies based on, 207
Purcell, D. W., 200
Race
taboo against discussion of, 204
Referral
to couples therapy group, 163
to couple support in interracial
marriage, 204
to individual therapy, 210
Reframing
of complaints as progress,
144-145
in dedicated speaking, 143-145
of negative feelings, 143
of problem as result of obstacle,
143-144
at termination of treatment,
147-148
by therapist, 144
therapist's role in, 144
Relationships
perspectives on, 8
in print media, 186-187
Relationship skills
educational system and, 185-186

251

Renaming, of negative behavior or

cognition, 145
Requesting
fear of, 110, 116
Requests
analogy of request of parachute
packer, 112-113
assignments for, 116
honoring, 111
how to, 110-111
practicing in therapy, 112
response to, 111-112
usefulness of, 111
Resentment, 139
Rice, C. A., 174
Richardson, F., 160, 206-207
Ritual
power of, 74
witnessing in, 108
Rogers, C., 58
Role-defined couple
comparison with cocreating, 54
comparison with cocreating couple, 54
deferral of promise to supporting
partner, Marion and Zack,
53-54
defined, 52
effective therapy with, 193
lack understanding of cooperation and mutuality needed
for couple entity, 52
supporting partner in, 52, 53
Role expectations, 104
Roles
alternatives to traditional, 104
clarification of, for cooperation,
102-104
gender-based, effects of, 102-103
idealized sexual, 192
in traditional marriage, 103-104
Romantic couple, 48-51
comparison with cocreating couple, 51
desire for ideal partner in, 50
idealization by, 49

252

INDEX

Romantic couple, continued

inability to sustain romance: Jared
and Jan, 50-51
romance as dominant way of
operation in, 48, 49
Romantic love, advantages and disadvantages of, 49-50
Rosemond, J., 196
Rutan, J. S., 174
Sacrifice, 26-27
as compromise, 27-28
example of, 53-54
and gender role conflict, 27
for other vs. for couple, 52
in role-defined couple, 52
Same sex couples. See Gay and lesbian couples
Sarnoff, I., 184
Sarnoff, S., 184
Scarf, M., 225
School violence
relationship skill training and,
185-186
Schwartz, P., 200
Secondary gain, 134
Self
couple as inward source of, 222223, 225
fear of loss of, 178
Self-absorbed client, cooperation
and, 113-114
Separation
legal counsel in, 179-180
Serial marriage, 64-65
Sex
in current paradigm, 20
idealized image of, 187
Sex therapy, physical exercises for,
129
Sexual intimacy, dual-career effect
on, 183-184
Sexual issues
Body Journey guided fantasy
and, 130-131
commitment and, 65-66, 68-69

inquiry and, 142

nonverbal exercises for, 129-131
Sexual relationship
case of paradigm limitation on,
21-22
children and privacy for, 197-198
couple vs. individual in, 188
gender stereotyping effect on,
190-191
media effect on, 187
unrealistic expectations of, 187,
188, 190
Sexual roles
idealized, rigid, 192
Shaevitz, M. H., 194
Shapiro, J., 187
Sheras, P. L., 30
Smedes, L. B., 135
Solomon, M., 206
Solutions
first order, 37-38
possible, 38
Spence, J. T., 177,208
Strengths
for communication, 119-120
for cooperation, 105-107
focus on, 58
identification of, 105-106
Substance use disorder
as contraindication to couple
power therapy, 210
Sullivan, W. M., 176
Superwoman syndrome, 194-195
Support
from couples therapy group,
163-164
Swidler, A., 176

Taking responsibility
for conflict and negative feelings,
137-142
as couple, 132-133
for forgiveness, 135-136
for hidden payoff, 134-135
as individual, 133-134

INDEX
I statements vs. you statements in,
132
for own perceptions, 133-134
therapist accountability as, 136
Talk shows, anger of couples on,
188
Task(s). See also Four Cs
commitment, 34
communication, 35
community, 35-36
completion and mastery of, 13
cooperation, 34-35
in couple power therapy, 6, 13,
15-16
in exercises, 75
Teamwork
coaching for, 101-102
of cocreating couple, 45
comparison of committed relationship with playing a game,
98-99
goals and rules of game and,
98-99
goal setting in, 99-100
identification of respective
strengths and contributions,
105-106
practice in, 100-101
role clarification for, 102-104
team spirit in, 106-107
Television
idealized couples on, 188
Therapist
as agent of change, 37
biases and prejudices of, 205
commitment to vision for couple,
66
couple as entity and, 207
and cultural differences in couple,
203
humorous insights of, 114
individual therapy for spouse in
marital conflict, 203
influence of culture on, 176
paradigm shift in relationships
and values, 36-37

253

partnership perspective of, 209

perspective of, in couple power
therapy, 57-58
refraining by, 144
role in couple proclamation,
83-84
shift from analysis to vision, 39
as social educator, 226
vision of, for couple, 66
Therapy
coaching in, 101-102
goal setting in, 99-100
inability to commit to, 69
individual background work in,
65-69
individual issues in, 69
past problems and unfinished
business in, 67
Threats
in conflicts of interest, 26
Time out in conflict, 139
Ting-Toomey, S., 44, 174, 177
Tipton, S. M., 176
Traditional behavioral couple therapy (TBCT)
results with, 3-4
Transference and countertransference
as obstacle to couple power, 206
Unfinished business
commitment and, 67-68
in development of couple proclamation, 85
Sharon and Ron, 223
in therapy, 67
Unfinished business exercise, 141
in conflict resolution, 139-141
Van der Kolk, B. A., 72
Videotalk, 127
of acknowledgment, 147
Videotaping, of nonverbal communication, 127
Vision statement, of individual,
223-224

254

INDEX

Wakefield, }., 219

Wangyal, T., 72
Watzlawick, P., 37
Weir, J., 133-134
Weisaeth, L., 72
Welfare laws, couples and, 179
Welwood, J., 64, 70-71
White, M, 8
Wile, D. B., 49
Withdrawal
in conflicts of interest, 26

Work ethic
vs. couple ethic, 181-182
Workplace
family well-being and, 181
Wyden, P., 138

Zacks, E., 293

Zaiss, C, 160, 209
Zeddies, T., 160, 206-207

About the Authors

Peter L. Sheras, PhD, ABPP is a clinical psychologist and a
professor in the University of Virginia's Curry Programs in Clinical and School Psychology. He has been in part-time independent
practice for nearly 30 years and has authored publications on
couples, parenting, youth violence, and adolescent development,
including Your Child: Bully or Victim? Understanding and Ending
Schoolyard Tyranny (2002), "I Can't Believe You Went Through My
Stuff": How to Give Your Teens the Privacy They Crave and the
Guidance They Need (2004), and Clinical Psychology: A Social Psychological Approach (1979). He is the coauthor of the Stress Index for
Parents of Adolescents (SIPA). He holds a diplomate in clinical
psychology, is a fellow of the American Academy of Clinical
Sexologists, and past president of the Virginia Psychological
Association. He appears frequently as an expert in the media
on topics of couples, adolescents, and families. He received his
doctorate from Princeton University.
Phyllis R. Koch-Sheras, PhD, is a practicing clinical psychologist
and coauthor of several books on dreams and couples, including
The Dream Sourcebook (1995), The Dream Sharing Sourcebook (1998),
and Dream on: A Dream Interpretation and Exploration Guide for
Women (1983). She is past president of the Virginia Applied
Psychology Academy and the Virginia Psychological Association. Dr. Koch-Sheras received her doctorate from the University
of Texas and has worked in state hospitals, university counseling centers, and independent practice. She is an adjunct faculty
member in the University of Virginia's Curry School of Education.
The authors have been working with couples together since the
mid-1970s and have been training other therapists for 25 years.
They have been happily married for nearly three decades and
have two adult children. Drs. Sheras and Koch-Sheras are featured regularly on the radio and live in Charlottesville, Virginia.
255