As such, I believe it is essential our clients are consciously aware of those insecurities and the behaviour they drive.  Failure to get clients to make that connection leaves them looking in the wrong places for solutions – either blaming their partner or collapsing into shame and self-blame – neither of which will solve their relationship issues.

Since writing that blog, I have had many conversations with colleagues discussing how hard it is to accurately identify core insecurities, especially when clients are reluctant to accept the impact of their upbringing on their present-day behaviour.  Where their answers to my final four questions in the previous blog are superficial or dismissive. Many clients seem offended or contemptuous if you suggest they are still being affected by less-than-ideal circumstances in their childhood (probably as sign they feel ashamed or exposed by your suggestion). 

Their tone and manner suggests they regard still being under the influence of childhood events as a moral failing rather than an inevitable truth of the human condition.  Ironically, this is often a reflection of, or result of, the kinds of core insecurities their upbringing created. The strong emotional reaction they are having is probably rooted in exactly the shame that you are trying to get them to track (and that is causing difficulty in their relationships). There is often also a sense that being open to the idea that their childhood was anything less than “fine”, “normal” or “good” is being unappreciative and disloyal to their parents or family.

Reflecting on those conversations, I realised I have a four-pronged approach to clients like this

• Psychoeducation about the neuroscience of the developing brain (esp pre-adolescence), emphasising how self-centred kid’s minds are because of their cognitive limitations
• Exploration of their childhood with me highlighting how seemingly unimportant or “normal” events might have had more impact than they realise.  Showing them how the theoretical concepts I have discussed in #1 might have played out in practice in their life.  Sometimes this is done in the face of great scepticism from clients (often hiding their fear of exposure).  But I am setting the scene for…
• Stressing the reflexive ways they are protecting themselves in the present (ineffective self-protective behaviour) and demonstrating how those behaviours were adaptive in the context of their upbringing but are damaging to their current relationship(s).
• Accompanying this all the way through is an emphasis on self-compassion.  Clients need to understand that, while they are responsible for their behaviour as adults, they were NOT responsible for the events that shaped them in childhood.  That when we recognise that we are reflexively doing unhelpful things, the useful response is to be kind to ourselves and try and attend with love to the parts of ourselves that are still hurting because of what we came to fear all those decades ago.

I think the key is persisting in showing them how this way of understanding themselves opens up new possibilities for changing things.  How being vulnerable instead of shut down draws their partner closer.  How being assertive instead of appeasing allows their partner to become more attuned to them.

Many people will not easily follow your lead – you will have to be tenacious and back your knowledge and experience.  A lot of clients equate self-compassion with self-indulgence and vulnerability with weakness.  Others have been trained to blame themselves and take responsibility for things that are not their fault.  Those clients need help in understanding where they learned such unkind and self-destructive beliefs.  It’s vital that we don’t let those beliefs stand unchallenged in our therapy. 

It is a situation where we need to lead, not follow, our clients.  To have the confidence that, in this respect, we therapists see more broadly and deeply than they do, because their core insecurities blind them to seeing their true worth. Hence, our perspective is much more likely to give them hope and a path towards achieving the intimate relationship they crave.

At the heart of most relationship difficulties are self-protective strategies that were learned in their formative years.  The client who hears criticism where it’s not intended or over-reacts to a small complaint.  The client who behaves like a small mistake by their partner is a big rejection or evidence that “I don’t matter to you”.  The client who shuts down and withdraws because they were misunderstood.

These sorts of strategies arise because of the way the child or adolescent has processed the experiences of their upbringing (remember it’s not just their “family of origin” who shape them – peers and other adults like teachers, coaches, pastors etc can sometimes be influential).  Kids’ brains are limited and self-centred – they don’t finish growing their frontal lobes until they are in their mid-twenties.  So the younger they are, the more likely they are to take (inappropriate) responsibility for events that are actually under the control of the adults in their lives.

So when you take a history, especially when you enquire into someone’s childhood experiences, it’s important not to get too caught up in the events.  As therapists, we are not so much interested in what happened but in what meaning the person, the child, made of the events.

Imagine your client says, “Mum was very strict, always telling us off, and Dad was never home (and when he was, he was doing chores or working on his car)”.   This is probably significant information, but its significance comes from what the child made these facts mean about themselves.

Let’s imagine four different people who reported a family situation like this.  For person A, the frequent scoldings from mum and the inability to earn praise or attention from either parent were interpreted as “It’s my fault Mum’s always angry and Dad doesn’t want to be around me”, leading to lifelong core insecurities (a.k.a.
“shame”, “negative stories” or “drivers”) like “I’m bad, I’m a problem”. 

For person B, their parents’ behaviour was interpreted as “I’m in the way of the important things my parents need to do”, leading to insecurities like “I’m not important, I don’t matter”.

Person C’s child brain understood Mum’s criticism as “You never do anything right” and Dad’s absence as “You’re not worth bothering with”, – Leading to insecurities like, “I’m not good enough, I’m unworthy.”

Person D’s young brain might have gone, “Mum’s so unfair, and Dad’s useless”, and left home with a belief, “I’m on my own; no one is there for me.”

Note that these four people could be siblings, growing up in the same situation but making quite different meanings of it. 

Our job in enquiring into someone’s past is to help them make sense of their behaviour in the present.  Often, this involves drawing to their attention experiences that remain unresolved, that need healing. Their experience is always subjective –often, when people look back on childhood events, they see them with adult eyes.

We need to help them connect with the child’s subjective experience.  A world where the adults are all-important and all-powerful while the child struggles to understand and is essentially powerless.  A world where they have no capacity (cognitively) to see it from anyone else’s point of view, and that means they are the cause of all that happens.  Where if mum is sad, dad is angry, or teacher/coach/pastor is disapproving, it’s my fault. 

So next time you ask about what happened in someone’s past, make sure you ask follow-up questions like:

What was that like for you?

How did you feel about that happening?

What did that make you think or feel about yourself?

What did that mean to you, back then?

That’s where the crucial information for your therapy will come from.

We all have blind spots, and, for some of us, one of our blind spots is the inability to acknowledge having blind spots.

In my spiel in the first session explaining to my clients what therapy is going to be like, I sometimes say something like this:

“All therapy, whether individual or couple therapy, is about helping you see and understand things about yourself that you don’t already know.”

I define therapy as helping them investigate their “blind spots”.

When a couple comes for therapy, they are usually feeling stuck.  One or both will often report that they have “tried everything, and nothing has worked”.   They are looking to us for answers.  Of course, we can’t fix their problems for them; we can only show them where they might find new solutions that they have to make work for themselves.

Most of the time, those solutions lie in their blind spots.  In the aspects of their behaviour (and thought and emotion) that they aren’t seeing accurately or understanding fully.  So, all we have to do is point out the things they’re missing, and it should all be right, right? Of course, nothing is that easy about therapy.

The second part of that spiel I give them in session one goes like this:

“The trouble is that things about yourself you don’t already know… tend to be things about yourself you don’t want to know.  So basically, you are sitting here paying me to tell you things you don’t want to know.”  This usually gets a laugh, but it’s a good way of warning my clients that therapy will be challenging.

Some people welcome that challenge or are at least used to the idea of their own fallibility and can tolerate the discomfort necessary for growth.  However, some people have learned to protect themselves by being “right”, “in charge”, or only ever trusting their own judgement.  These people will find it hard to have the humility to engage in therapy.

These clients are often “difficult” and often challenge us, our methods, and our competence.  We need to be able to see and have compassion for their defensiveness and find a way to access our empathy for their pain. 

They will often struggle to reflect on the experiences in their upbringing that shaped them.  They experience a therapist’s implication that they had a less-than-perfect childhood as a criticism of their person.   Yet suppose we gently persist in our inquiries. In that case, we will find an explanation for the difficulty accepting their blind spots: the father who was grudging with his approval, the mother who was too overwhelmed to be attuned, the teacher who was shaming, the brother whom they were made to feel “less than”.  They will minimise and deflect the importance of these formative experiences. But if we keep linking present behaviour back to early learning, often, they will start to make the connections.  “I don’t know if you are aware, John, that when Sila asked if you had made the booking, your whole body went rigid.  To me, you looked like a kid who was frightened he was in trouble with Dad again.”

For those for whom any admission of error, fault or failing is a confirmation of their worst fears about themselves (“I’m no good”, “I’m a loser”, “I’m a failure”), it requires a confident, empathic and patient therapist to help them accept that they’re allowed to be human and have blind spots just like the rest of us.

As I say to my clients, “Making mistakes, being reactive or insensitive is part of being human.  No one should be judged for that.  It becomes an issue of character in how readily you can recognise and take responsibility for your mistakes.  When your insecurities and fears drive you, when you are too scared of being a failure to own your mistakes, that’s when you’re letting yourself and those you love down.”

If we are patient and persistent and pace our interventions carefully, even those whose blind spot is about their blind spots can be helped to grow and change.

Clients will choose to make themselves vulnerable if they believe that the rewards are worth it. Emotional vulnerability is an essential part of intimacy and feeling truly loved. Everyone has ways to reflexively protect themselves from emotional hurt. For example, your client might be smiley and pleasing (so they don’t offer any threat), or they might be stony-faced and grumpy (so they look tough and dangerous). They are hiding their deeper thoughts, feelings and desires from view so that people can’t use those thoughts, feelings or desires to manipulate or hurt them. They feel vulnerable, so they act defensively.

Remember, the more important someone is to you, the easier it is for you to feel hurt by them. When a stranger ignores, rejects or attacks you, that’s bad enough; but when an Attachment figure does, the pain is so much worse. That pain causes your amygdala to see your loved one as a threat. In a committed relationship, you organise your life around an Attachment figure. A rupture in that relationship threatens not just your feelings but also your living arrangements, your financial security, and your connection with your children (if you have them).

So, when their partner is upset, insincere, grumpy or withdrawn, your client may feel very vulnerable to hurt. Their instinctive response is to protect themselves. But when your client puts up their walls and acts defensively in turn, this is an ineffective way to try to care for themselves. It destabilises the Attachment relationship, making them more open to significant hurt in the long run.

To maintain their connection, they must accept their vulnerability to their significant other rather than fight it. Being vulnerable is part of acting with integrity. Consciously sharing what’s happening inside you does give their partner information they could use to hurt them. It’s a risk. But they are far better to take that risk and find out whether their partner can meet them, as well as whether they can look after themselves when their partner is unavailable.

Being vulnerable requires being Differentiated — knowing and showing how it is for you at the same time as being accepting of and interested in how it is for your partner. Being vulnerable also requires effective management of your neurobiology, i.e. good self-regulation. Your client’s impulse to protect themselves will arise and require managing. Remember, tolerating vulnerability is a hallmark of those who are Securely Attached. If they’re just ‘acting Secure’, then learning how to be vulnerable, rather than focusing on the anxiety of how vulnerable they feel, is a crucial component. The script below offers your clients a structured pathway to being vulnerable with their partner. Feel free to use it in your practice.

Here is a step-by-step guide for how to respond when you feel vulnerable or hurt.

I feel VULNERABLE
(maybe because I have been hurt)

↓

Triggers reflexive impulse to self-protect or act out, distract, feel numb, etc.

↓

Recognise the impulse for what it is, allow self to feel the VULNERABILITY and don’t let yourself act impulsively

↓

Go slow and self-soothe — attend to VULNERABLE or hurt feelings (including reaching out to friends and other supports)

↓

Organise your thinking — maybe write some notes, or practise talking out loud to yourself or a friend, so that you have clear, non-judgemental language to describe what’s going on for you

↓

Be VULNERABLE
Open up to partner about the original VULNERABLE or hurt feelings (use non-blaming descriptions)

↓

Compassionately explore and discuss the VULNERABILITY, focusing on meanings you make, your interpretations and insecurities (not the same as justifying self-protective behaviour)

↓

Be sure to talk about how much VULNERABILITY and hurt is from your upbringing rather than focusing on what your partner did

»»»

In childhood, many boys will have the experience that if they show emotions they are punished (in the Classical Conditioning sense). Sometimes the punishment is violent and brutal.  As a client of mine recently said “I grew up as a boy in NZ and if you showed emotion you got beaten up”.  Note this is a boy from a middle class family who went to a few different schools. Sometimes the punishment is as subtle as the frown on a parent’s face or a “you’ll be alright” which is meant to encourage but actually invalidates.   Especially when, as happened to a different client, the kid actually needs eight stiches.

The trouble with this approach to parenting boys is that kids are bad at NOT showing what they feel.  So when boys are punished for showing feelings, they have to learn not to have them or, more accurately, not allow themselves to notice they are having them.

In Pavlov’s experiment, the dogs ended up salivating at the sound of the bell.  Repetitve punishment means many men feel fear or anxiety the moment they experience an emotion.  Having a feeling is an aversive experience for them.  So when their partner’s criticise and, often, shame them for being unresponsive or emotionless, they are inadvertently adding to the aversive conditioning.

To make matters worse, fear and anxiety are, of course, feelings.  So what what can the men do about their fear, then?  If they can’t avoid, suppress or deny it, they project it outwards as anger and blame.

Recent research out of the University of Auckland’s “REACH” relationships lab ,stresses that men who are behaving aggressively usually feel disempowered.  

As therapists, it is easy to become frustrated with shut down, walled off, unempathic male clients.  And to be appalled at the toll of emotional and physical harm they leave in their wake.  Yet, if we can’t find a compassionate understanding of how they got that way, we are unlikely to help them to change and that does nothing to help the people who love them who are being hurt by them.

In adult attachment, there are real dangers if we simplistically apply this picture of what a “stable attachment object” looks like to our intimate relationships. While it is unhealthy to deny our emotional and practical dependence on our partner, it is also unhelpful to have unrealistic expectations of their ability to meet our needs without help. As adults, we have much more complex needs than an infant, many more resources of our own and we are wired for autonomy as well as dependence, so we have to strike the right balance between self-care and being cared for.

Our relationship needs to be one of interdependence, of teamwork and mutuality. A leading attachment researcher, Jude Cassidy, suggested* that to make adult attachment work we need to both need to exercise four key abilities.

1. The ability to seek care

If we are feeling stressed or threatened, it is important that we reach out for help, rather than isolate and avoid. This requires trust that other is reliable/responsive and also trust in the self as lovable (developing a positive image of self may require healing). Note that, unlike an infant, an adult is expected to ASK for care. In developmental terms, thinking that your partner “should know” what you need without you asking is a key sign that a person is still in the “symbiotic” stage of development.

2. The ability to give care

If our partner is the one who feels stressed or threatened, we need to be able to recognise this, respond to their requests for help and make our selves available, to put their emotional and psychological needs first (temporarily). As well as being loving, this requires respecting the truth of another, accepting a range of ways of being and feeling that are different from our own (i.e. supporting your partner the way they need it not the way you want to give it).

3. The ability to maintain an autonomous self

Intimacy requires knowing what you think, feel and want as well as taking individual responsibility for your actions and being able to regulate your own emotions. Many of us either are either overly dependent on our partner to feel acceptable, loveable, sexy etc OR we emotionally isolate in an attempt to avoid all emotional vulnerability. Maintaining a strong sense of self whilst staying connected to your partner, regardless of their mood or behaviour (within reason) is essential for relationship stability.

4. The ability to negotiate closeness

We have to be able and willing to deal with the anxiety raised by difference, especially around how much closeness and intimacy we want at a given moment.   Partners are often not automatically in sync and so need to NEGOTIATE the level and nature of contact. To be able to negotiate closeness, having positive learning experiences help. Examples include:

• Trust in self (“knowing yourself”)
• Trust in others/the world as reliable
• Trust that this relationship is solid

As well as being essential for secure attachment, points 3 & 4 are crucial to the process of Differentiating (see our previous blog for an explanation of this concept). Note how much these abilities rely on the autonomy and self-regulation of the individual. While we do want people in intimate relationships to be able to rely on each other, it is important that therapists do not over-emphasise the role of the partner in providing emotional regulation. A key reason for this is, when it is a conflict with my partner that is causing me distress, it is often not practical for me to look to them for assistance, at least in the short term. I have to be able to settle myself, soothe my own hurts and behave in a way that is constructive for myself and our relationship.

Paradoxically, if we can both do that, then we will be much less reactive or avoidant in the relationship and hence become “stable attachment objects” for each other over the long term.

* “Truth, Lies and Intimacy – an attachment perspective” by Jude Cassidy (2001). Attachment and Human Development, Vol 3 No 2 September 2001. 

This kind of scenario puts a lot of people off working with couples. And those fears are not groundless. If you work with couples, it’s only a matter of time before you will encounter people like this. These couples can evoke many feelings in us as therapists – fear, dismay, frustration, helplessness and incompetence to name a few. They certainly are the couples feel like steering clear of.

But it’s not all bad news – there are ways you can feel productive and competent with couples like this. In this blog we’re going to use a case to give you a taste of how the Developmental Model provides a secure framework to make sense of and work with people like this. These cases are complex – so it’s a longer blog than usual.

The Case of Jane and Paul

Jane and Paul had a complex history of loss and trauma in their long term relationship of 20 years. They had “survived” many psychosocial stressors (including financial crises, multiple untimely deaths of loved ones, city relocations isolating them from personal support networks) and each had experienced major depressive episodes during their long term relationship. They were a highly distressed couple.

They fought a lot, at home and in session. For many sessions they would begin by talking over each other, often discussing two different topics within the same dialogue. They talked across each other bringing up all manner of things so that it was hard to make sense of what either was trying to say.

Here is an example of how they interacted:

Jane exploded, voice raised, posture forward, arms and hands raised:  “You didn’t back me, YOU blamed me, YOU always do that, you told the kids I did it for attention, that I am damaged, will never be the same. You made me feel an idiot. You always just do that, then you take over, control everything”

Paul interjected, eyes narrowed and staring, voice deep and loud, fingers pointing at Jane: “I did not! You don’t even know what I did, you weren’t there. I would NEVER think that of you. But you did need help. I was there defending you! You always blame me for everything. Yeah, yeah, I am the wrong one, the bad one. Why do you bother staying with me the? But look, you did need help. I helped, calmed them, explained to them, I also tried to sort you. You were sick. But I told them.”

Jane interrupted : “You told them alright, you just got in there didn’t you? You made me the bad guy, for us all to remember and you the big hero, the big man …”

Jane is aggrieved by what she perceives was Paul’s disloyal behaviour during a time of crisis. In the fantasy of symbiosis, he should be there unconditionally for her. He should act in just the way she wants and expects. Struggling to tolerate the fact that he is a different person with different experiences than her, she is pressuring him to see it her way.   Of course, Paul is angry that his view is not being heard, his good intentions not recognised and he, too, struggles to accept that she can see it very differently from him.

Jane and Paul do not yet each have a way to manage their own reactivity, nor resolve conflict. They deny the impact of their own behaviour and use ineffective behaviours to cope with the anxiety this generates. They are looking to their partner to be exactly as they want. They are inevitably disappointed. A negative cycle ensues as their self-protective responses escalate the other. Attachment systems are triggered and reactivity unleashes.

This type of interaction is typical of a hostile-angry couple stuck in symbiosis, unable to complete the “differentiation” developmental stage. Seeing them as simply stuck in their development allows us to avoid getting focused on pathology and can help us as clinicians to feel less overwhelmed. They do not yet have the skills to assertively define or regulate themselves, nor the ability to make room for the presence of the other as a different, separate entity. The idea that the other may hold a different view or perception is not tolerated.

So what do you do with couples like this??

The Developmental Model teaches us as therapists to take an active role and set the stage to create a powerful start with these types of couples. If therapists are passive in this situation and cycles are left to continue to play out in the room, the couples will lose motivation and feel hopelessness. They will feel there is no difference between what goes on at home to what happens in the therapy room. So it is important for the therapist to hold up the vision of what is possible and for therapy sessions to give them experiences that instill hope.

To lead couples out of these cycles we can as therapists:

• Call a respectful but firm stop to the ineffective behaviours and diffuse conflict quickly
• Normalise people being triggered by their partner’s mere presence
• Get couples to talk to you (through you) instead of at their partner when they are too triggered
• Catch the reactive cycle, interrupt it and describe it clearly so couples can see it in action and recognise that A) stopping it is possible; B) they each have a role to play in stopping it and C) it is possible to talk about what’s going on without blaming and shaming
• Where appropriate, help them recognise their insecure attachment style and take responsibility for the ineffective behaviours this generates
• Assertively refuse to join the negative interaction cycle and laydown clear boundaries
• Build in accountability and ownership for their own behaviour by setting specific individual goals*
• Disrupt the symbiotic pattern, catch the “we” and ”you should” language and thinking, and look for, or help create, the differentiated “I” language and thinking
• Recognise efforts and changes each makes as quickly as possible and give positive strokes
• Help them repair the relationship ruptures; acknowledge and normalise healing, teach calming skills and help partners learn how to take responsibility for their own behaviour and apologize to each other
• Assess for and identify the moments of connection in their broader story and build on these caring behaviours to help the establish rituals of positive connection.

To learn more about how to achieve these steps through our training programme click here

The Developmental Model reminds us that these couples have tremendous developmental potential. As therapists, if we recognise the developmental stages we can identify the developmental opportunities. We can help them identify the internal conflicts that interfere with couple development. We can help them stop triggering and traumatizing each other and repair the ruptures.

Paul and Jane agreed to work on specific individual goals towards being the kind of partner they wanted to be. They focussed on challenging their own ineffective coping behaviour. They practiced tools, in session and at home, that helped them calm themselves down.

It took about 6 sessions before they were really starting to recognise and own this and be able to settle themselves down. Although there were still many ruptures of relationship, both were getting better at recognising the influence of their insecure attachment and realising that not all of their feelings and thoughts had a basis in their partner’s behaviour.

At this point the Initiator-Inquirer Process (“eye to eye” or “i2i”) was introduced. This tool is like trainer wheels for couples struggling with differentiation. It separates out “differentiation of self” and “differentiation from other” into two separate roles so that people can just focus on one aspect of differentiation at a time. On the one hand it helps people learn how to express themselves clearly and cleanly and take responsibility for their contribution to difficulties (differentiation of self). On the other hand it provides training in being open to your partner’s experience, showing curiosity, caring and acceptance of how it is for them without insisting on your own version of events (differentiation from other)

When using the i2i, Jane was firstly asked to clarify what topic she would like to bring up. This was a challenge for Jane as there were many memories of hurt and problems in the relationship. She had to learn to calm herself enough to focus her thinking more clearly. Guidelines and limits were shared: no blaming, criticism or name calling. Jane was asked to express her thoughts and feelings about the issue, to try to be open to learn more about herself, to consider her own goals in how she aims to be as an effective communicator discussing this topic.

Jane had previously been helped to refine her own goals. They included one around autonomy (or differentiation of self) “I want to be able to back myself, believe in my own judgement and experience, independent of whether Paul agrees with my view” and one to claim responsibility for past ineffective behaviours (and, not coincidentally, differentiation from other)“I want to stop shaming him, putting him down, and dismissing him and let him have his view, separate to mine”.

With the i2i guidelines and these goals in mind Jane was invited to discuss the incident that had previously caused her to go on the attack. Here is how she talked about it this time.

“I felt I was blamed for ruining the special family day because of my distress and that the family all looked down on me and that they continue to do so. I felt I did not have you on my side, that I was not backed by you, I felt patronised by you, and that even now, years later the children see me as incompetent, mentally ill. I know it was the illness, the depression was overwhelming and I lost control

In the Inquirer role Paul was working on being an effective listener. He was guided to remember that he does not own the problem, that his partner is a separate person to himself with her own feelings, thoughts, personality and history. His job in this moment was to listen, stay calm, ask questions that took Jane deeper into her experience and not look for solutions. He was able to ask

What did you need at that point that you didn’t get?

In doing this he was signalling strongly to Jane that he was listening and open to how it was for her. She responded like this:

I wanted you to be there for me, to back me, I wanted you to let them know I was vulnerable and it was not intentional but how depression plays outs… I wanted you to be there for me and support me by sharing the knowledge of depression with the kids.

Interestingly she then, without prompting, began to reflect on her own behaviour

I did not ask, did, I? And I think maybe you did try in your own way. I don’t even think I have asked you what you actually said to them. I know now I need to be clearer, I can ask you now, I can get through this hurt, because I still want you to be there for me, I want to repair this with you and the kids. Will you do this with me?”

Here for the first time, Jane began to share her pain, say what she felt inside, express her vulnerability, her thoughts of the event and her wishes for connection with her partner in a way that was so different to what she had tried to do in their past discussions.

Jane experienced a developmental moment defining herself more clearly, taking responsibility for her own feelings and reactions to a very painful experience. She stayed in control as she shared a very painful event with Paul. She reached out to Paul in a way that asked for help rather than expecting or demanding it and allowing space for Paul to have a choice.

Not surprisingly this elicited a very different response from Paul. He listened calmly, nodded as she spoke, focussed on his role as the Inquirer. As she demonstrated more openness his body language softened, he leaned in towards her, tears in his eyes and when she finished he responded within the Inquirer role by first summarising what he understood:

“Jane, I hear now how hard it was for you, on the days before and all that has followed since and how this still bothers you..… that you want to work this out and you want to work this out with me (he looks directly at her and there is a pause) I can see how you have felt blamed, unsupported, judged by me and the kids. That you wanted me there backing you, that you are now not sure what I did do, but that you wanted me to tell them all how hard depression is and how stuck you were.

Then he was able to go on and express genuine empathy for her and a clear intent to work together to do it better in the future

Jane, this has been so horrible for you, I am so sorry, yes of course these memories and ongoing worries trouble you. You want me to help with the kids too, of course, I want to do this with you too.”

At this point Jane smiled, leaned in and reached for his hand.

Jane and Paul are continuing their journey in building their relationship. They still get triggered and have flare-ups but they have some confidence they can do it differently and are seeing the frequency and intensity of their conflicts trending down. When things get reactive, they don’t let them go on and move into repairing the emotional damage quickly.

If you have any questions you are welcome to contact Paula or Nic directly.  If  you want to further your skills and learn more about our training click here. If you want to keep getting our blogs then sign up below

The four magic words are: “…what do you think?”  They do need to be said in a tone that indicates a genuine willingness to hear what the other person thinks but, when said like that, they can work wonders. Tacked on to the end of a critical or demanding statement, this “add on” can take the sting out of the message, flag what is important for the sender and still make room for their partner to have their own opinion (developing “differentiation of other” for those who are familiar with that concept)(if you’re a therapist who is interested in learning about this concept you might want to look at our training).

Here’s an example. Suppose a client angrily says: “I feel like you never want to spend time with me”. That’s pretty unlikely to get a very favourable response from their partner. Most likely it will get something defensive or even a counter-accusation. Now imagine getting them to say it again but with the magic words appended (sincerely): “I feel like you never want to spend time with me… what do you think ? ” Can you, as a therapist, feel how this might create a more engaged, less defensive response in the partner? Try it with something even more extreme:  “You treat me like a piece of crap… what do you think ?”

This is one you can definitely try out on your spouse next time you are feeling exasperated or hurt. When you hear yourself saying some kind of extreme or irrational statement, try adding the four magic words on the end and see if you get a different outcome than ususal.

I’m sure it won’t work all the time but when you see it in action it certainly is less of a “trick” and more a deep secret that can move a conversation through hostility with less wounding and chaos.  Something worth having in your repertoire and trying out when clients are being reactive and defensive; maybe you’ll surprise youself with a little magic.

Nic Beets

How a couple talk to each other and treat each other IS their relationship.  That’s what we need to help them focus on.  Typically couples get into conflict about predictable areas – money, sex, parenting, boundaries, time use (too much time at work or a hobby, not enough time on domestic labour etc).  Also typically, there are many workable solutions to the conflicts that people have.  Getting each person to notice HOW they are communicating about this and then to reflect on WHY they are communicating in that way is much more productive than just helping them have the conversation about a particular topic.  Acknowledging and being curious about the meaning of a particular topic, what associations it has for them, is more likely to deepen their understanding of themselves and each other

2. Taking sides

Sometimes one person’s behaviour seems really out of line; abusive, exploitative, dishonest or worse.  In many cases these people are well aware their behaviour is out of order and are expecting you as a therapist to join their partner in judging and blaming them.  Regardless of the invitation, we shouldn’t “take sides”.  If we wish to remain effective we need to find a way to create an alignment with both partners.  This is not the same as condoning abuse.  Rather it is a recipe for being effective in confronting it.  For to be effective  we have to do it through building an alliance with the abuser, not through alienating them further.

3. Ignoring non-verbal communication

Hogan, K., Stubbs, R. (2003) assert that non-verbal communication represents two thirds of how we communicate. So much of what goes on between couples is in the meta-communication of tone, body language and facial expression.   If partner A is talking and partner B is crossing their arms, rolling their eyes and turning away with a sigh, then this should no more be ignored than if they had called their partner a “stupid fool”.  Likewise, people may be trying to do something constructive but their hurt, frustration or fear means that the tone of voice they use makes it sound like a criticism or attack.   If you as a therapist don’t point this behaviour out and hold them accountable for it, the communication will break down in short order.  Our challenge is to get our clients beyond that defended, self-defeating style of communication and get them acknowledging and being curious about the meaning of what’s going on for their partner, independent of whether they happen to agree with it.

4. Treating one kind of reactivity as morally superior to another

Most of our clients have an understanding that when we feel threatened we tend to “fight, freeze or flee”.  Hopefully we as therapists understand that any regression like this is disruptive to intimate relationship.  However it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the person who is submitting or appeasing (which is the pack animal equivalent of a lizard “freezing”) is somehow doing less damage to the relationship than someone who is being aggressive.  Likewise with people who emotionally or physically withdraw (i.e. “flee” from the stress of relationship).  They may sell themselves as “just keeping the peace” but it’s important that we as therapists don’t assume that the apparently calm person is somehow doing better than the person who is visibly agitated.    Leaving aside issues of outright abuse, we need to treat all forms of self-protective reactivity as equally threatening to the connection between partners and also to the individual’s self-respect.

5. Letting your clients be in charge of the session

Some clients have had a lot of therapy, others have jobs where they are powerful and some have had to back their own judgement since they were kids because no-one else was there for them.  These sorts of people can be difficult to direct in individual therapy.  When you have a couple in the room it gets even more challenging as, for some couples, they are hooked into routines of behaviour that are entrenched and easily triggered, no matter how destructive they know them to be.  This can included entrenched avoidance as well as the yelling, fighting, scary kind.  Yet our clients are paying us to provide a fresh perspective, a new way of doing things.  We are not doing our job if we allow the old ways to be reinforced by even one repetition.  We need to be able to supply new ways of seeing themselves and understanding each other and help them translate that into behaving and interacting in ways that take them forward not leave them stuck.