“Upgrades” here are analogous to technological advances that increase the functionality of computer operating systems. This metaphor avoids the problem of name-branding, since existing brands of therapy and new innovations can all contribute improvements to the underlying, bare-bones Couple Therapy 1.0 model. As with computer upgrades, we must be sure the elements work together.
The first upgrade to Couple Therapy 1.0 is focusing on the couple's interpersonal process
The “pathological dance,” in which the emotional music generally matters more than the lyrics, must become the principal concern of both the therapist and the couple. Virtually, all experienced couple therapists agree on this, though, as discussed later, they approach it from different angles. This is a systems theory upgrade that views much couple behavior as an emergent property of individual interactions, where what emerges is more than the sum of the individual contributions. While Couple Therapy 1.0 emphasizes the here and now of couples talking to each other, it does not specify that the process, rather than the content, should be the early and primary focus. This process focus should be considered a crucial upgrade to working with couples, as it was at the dawn of the family therapy movement. Indeed, a failure to utilize this upgrade probably explains the disappointing results obtained by untrained counselors and individual therapists undertaking conjoint therapy.
Why process should precede content
There are many reasons to focus on process. Most importantly, research shows that negative process predicts poor outcomes in marriage and interferes with problem-solving (Gottman et al., 1998; Gottman & Gottman, 2017; Lebow et al., 2012), whereas improved collaboration reduces the number of problems to be solved, facilitates problem solving post therapy, and correlates with positive outcomes (Gurman & Fraenkel, 2002; Sullivan & Baucom, 2005). Improving system dysfunction is also easier than changing personality dysfunction (Pinsof, 1995), while “solving the moment” strengthens intimacy (Wile, 2002), “shared purpose” (Friedlander et al., 2006), and “weness,” independent of resolution of couple problems that can be “perpetual” (Gottman & Levenson, 1999).
Improved process as a shared target
Targeting negative interaction cycles can help us begin to integrate systemic, psychodynamic, and behavioral approaches, including those of Dan Wile (2002), whose interventions center on establishing “collaboration”; Les Greenberg and Sue Johnson (1988) and other EFT therapists whose research shows the benefits of “pursuer/blamer softening” and “distancer engagement”; and Howard Markman, Scott Stanley, and Susan Blumberg (2001), who teach the speaker–listener technique. Consequently, rather than referring to specific authors or branded therapies, we can classify interventions into three broad categories: Systemic theories stress how negative process can stem from the cyclical amplification of initial conditions (somewhat independent of the partners’ individual psychologies) and the structural challenge of sharing power equitably in a two-person polity (among other things); psychodynamic theories explain maladaptive process via hidden issues, divergent meanings, transferences, and projective identification; and psychoeducational and behavioral theories add that people can be taught better approaches to managing difficult conversations, regulating emotions, and solving problems.
The Cheshire Cat complication
Having just declared that interpersonal process should usually be the early focus of therapy, we must acknowledge that it is impossible to discuss process in the abstract, without some concrete content. In Alice in Wonderland, the Cheshire Cat’s smile existed without the cat, but in real life, “process” always requires “content,” if it is to be seen. This suggests a recommendation sometimes at variance with the guideline of letting couples choose topics for discussion:
- To improve the benefit and sustainability of focusing on process, encourage couples to begin with more workable, less emotionally charged content.
This may not always be possible, especially when the consultation is driven by a serious rupture of trust, such as infidelity. In such cases, we should begin with the topic that is most pressing, even though it may render examination and remediation of the couple’s process more difficult. Emotional intensity aside, there are many days when we should follow the problem-centered focus of Couple Therapy 1.0 and allow couples to focus on content rather than spotlighting process. Although improved process fosters more successful management of most marital problems, thorny problems are important (Fincham & Beach, 1999) and will eventually need to be addressed.
Systemic interventions that begin to alter negative interaction cycles
- Focus on the cycle and label it as the enemy.
Focusing on the pathological cycle will usually, in and of itself, improve that process. It accomplishes this in three interrelated ways. Giving the vague marital problem a diagnostic label (“a systems problem”) defines and demystifies it (just as diagnosing a physical malady does). Objectifying it makes it a shared enemy the couple can attack jointly, in what White (2007) termed an “externalizing conversation.” And focusing on the pathological dance reduces blame by countering linear narratives of victim and villain.
- Use the chemical reaction metaphor.
To convey the idea of a systemic problem—one with additive, circular, and emergent properties—I use the metaphor of a chemical reaction. The partners are likened to two colorless reagents in separate beakers that, when mixed, become drastically altered: perhaps becoming explosively hot, ice cold, or foul smelling. One of the reagents might think, “I was just fine before: not hot, cold, or smelly. This sudden change, in which I don’t recognize myself, must be due to that other damn chemical!” This metaphor powerfully illustrates how group process is not reducible to individual behavior and is experience-near for individuals who are feeling blamelessly victimized by their partners.
- Explain that the “punctuation” of negative cycles is arbitrary.
Most people “punctuate” their narratives by beginning with some misdeed or insensitive action of their partner. Therapists can point out that this starting point is usually arbitrary.
- Normalize off-putting demands: drowning swimmers.
Escalation commonly consists of one or both partners speaking increasingly loudly, impatiently, and aggressively, perhaps while nagging, guilt-tripping, or swearing. These ineffective attempts to influence a partner tend to occur and intensify when the partner appears unresponsive. Therapists can normalize these counterproductive behaviors by explaining them in systemic terms. One metaphor I use is of a drowning swimmer calling for help from an unresponsive lifeguard. The more the swimmer fears drowning, and the longer the lifeguard fails to respond, the louder the swimmer screams. Often, in escalating negative couple cycles, it is more accurate to characterize both partners as drowning swimmers, even though one may superficially appear to be an unresponsive lifeguard.
- Normalize flight: firefighters battling forest fires.
Just as escalating anger can seem appropriate in some situations, so can flight. Withdrawal becomes more comprehensible and acceptable if one remembers that firefighters facing a raging forest fire must sometimes retreat temporarily. Therapists can help couples consider the perspectives of metaphorical fleeing firefighters (Why do they think the situation is hopeless?) and advancing forest fires (What is making the pursuer so hot and insistent?).
- Introduce the goal of “making a short story long.”
After giving the couple a preliminary outline of the cycle that is simultaneously captivating and torturing them, I explain that we can gain a deeper understanding by “making a short story long” (Scheinkman & Fishbane, 2004): slowing things down, as in a slow...