J Contemp Psychother (2008) 38:109117

DOI 10.1007/s10879-008-9082-4

ORIGINAL PAPER

Commitment First, Communication Later: Dealing with Barriers

to Effective Couples Therapy
Peter L. Sheras Phyllis R. Koch-Sheras

Published online: 9 May 2008

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Abstract Teaching communication techniques to couples

is a common way for therapists to begin treatment. In many
cases, couples then use these newly acquired skills to
express negative or even hostile information to each other,
sometimes doing more harm than good to the relationship.
Based upon years of clinical experience with hundreds of
couples in treatment, this article presents the idea that
having the couple see themselves as an entity first, not as
two individuals, may be necessary before clear communication can be maximally therapeutic. The article outlines
the Couple Power model of treatment, suggesting that four
basic taskscommitment, cooperation, communication
and communityneed to be accomplished in that order,
postponing the teaching of communication skills until later
in therapy. Theory behind the tasks and suggestions for
effective techniques to achieve the Four Cs of Couple
Power are presented and discussed.
Keywords Couples therapy
Commitment

Communication
Cooperation
Community

The Risks of Pre-mature Communication Training

The major ethical principle of our profession (Principle A:
Beneficence and Nonmaleficence) includes the idea that
P. L. Sheras (&)
Curry Programs in Clinical and School Psychology, University
of Virginia, P.O. Box 400270, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4270,
USA
e-mail: pls@virginia.edu
P. R. Koch-Sheras
211 W. Main Street, 2nd Fl., Charlottesville, VA 22902, USA
e-mail: sherfam@aol.com

psychologists take care to do no harm (APA 2002,

p. 1062). How often, however, do therapists begin treatment by inviting couples to communicate clearly, openly,
directly and bluntly to each other before they have clearly
formulated the goal of the therapy? Imagine teaching a
person to express anger and frustration using a weapon and
practicing on those closest to them without defining the
consequences of such a behavior or the rules of engagement or the outcome desired. Clear communication is a
powerful tool especially for couples, but it may be dangerous if it is taught and used as a weapon before ground
rules and conditions are established. Most therapists are
well versed during their professional training in teaching
communication skills. This article explores issues related to
when it is most appropriate to teach these skills to clients
and presents a model for therapy that makes communication powerful, effective and therapeutic when used
appropriately.
How often have therapists responded to the common
complaint of couples that their problem is poor communication? As marital therapists for more than 30 years, we
frequently hear this concern expressed at the beginning of
treatment by clients in relationships. While it may seem
appropriate to start with some simple exercises to facilitate
communication between partners in a couple, there is possibly a better place to begin. Research and experience
(Sheras and Koch-Sheras 2006; Cordova and Jacobson 1993;
Stosny 2008) have demonstrated that many couples in
treatment are not ready to use communication exercises
appropriately when they first enter therapy. Encouragement
of such communication may increase the expression of anger
and increase conflict. Research by Doss et al. (2002) suggested that common interactions often fostered in marital
treatment, such as arguments and fighting, can lead to an
increase in the types of problems for which the couples were

123

110

originally seeking help. Many issues may need to be

addressed, and it may be the act of commitment which must
precede the effective use of communication training. If a
couple is committed to each other, and to trying to work
things out, the prognosis for the success of therapy is good.
(Cordova and Jacobson 1993, p. 489.) Getting clear about
commitment to the couple can change how the partners think,
feel and speak about their relationship. On the other hand, if
you try to communicate verbally without changing how you
(negatively) think or feel You will almost certainly get a
defensive or otherwise negative response (Stosney 2008).
Without a solid commitment, the best a couples therapist is
ultimately able to do is act as a mediator between two
opposing individuals.
Even when commitment is addressed early on in therapy, however, if not managed properly, it may lead to
unproductive expressions of doubt about sufficient love for
or from ones partner. When people think about commitment in a typical relationship, they usually mean
commitment to the other partner. In that framework, a
healthy couple is marked by thinking about individual
needs and how each person measures up to meeting those
needs. The partners negotiate a relationship designed to
satisfy each of their own needs in a way that they do not
have to give up too much or compromise too significantly.
There is a different approach, however, for dealing with
commitment in couples. In the Couple Power Therapy (CPT)
model, a couple is not seen as two individuals working
independently to achieve their goals: rather it is an entity in
itself striving to reach both individual and common goals as a
team. These goals can include the happiness and fulfillment
of the individuals, but they are primarily designed to have the
individuals operate inside of the framework of being a couple
entity. The sum of the individuals acting together is greater
than the sum of the individuals acting separately. Couple
Power is predicated on the notion of commitment to the
relationship rather than to ones partner per se. The focus of
CPT is more on commitment to what is possible for the entity
than just meeting individual needs. The power of the couple
is generated by the two individuals committing to a joint
vision for their coupleas well as for other couplesas an
entity.
It is truly a paradigm shift to propose that when operating
as a couple, every act is a couple act. By acting as a couple
entity both partners share responsibility for the outcome
whatever it may be. This will eliminate the common problems of blaming and scapegoating. Couple Power is a model
for viewing a couple as a joint force or entity that allows
couples to take on the conflicts and problems of life together
in a new interdependent way, a couple way. Freedom from
being compelled to continually meet ones own needs and
protect ones independence frees up the creative energy that
fuels Couple Power. Combining their energies creates a

123

J Contemp Psychother (2008) 38:109117

synergy that supports both people in the relationship. John

Welwood refers to this sort of action as conscious commitment that emerges organically from the relationships
own ripening (Welwood 1990, p. 88). With this conscious
commitment, together a couple can create more force, more
energy, more love, and more personal satisfaction than two
individuals alone.
Once the entity couple is created, it is this organism
which takes on the problems, solutions and goal setting.
Poor communication, lack of cooperation, feelings of being
stifled or absorbed, even issues such as weight loss, hobbies, or some forms of violence and addiction are taken on
as the joint responsibility of the couple not just the individuals alone. In cases where physical threats severely
impair a couples feeling safe enough to be together such
issues need to be addressed in conjunction with or before
couples therapy can begin. Addiction issues such as
enabling and co-dependence may be explored effectively in
the context of this work. However, severe substance use or
addiction may be a contraindication for any couples therapy until these behaviors are addressed in treatments
specific to these problems.

The Steps in Treatment

For many clients and some therapists, good communication
appears to be the goal of treatment in and of itself. However, in CPT, communication is more a means to reaching
some larger goal, that of achieving a healthy and functional
relationship. Before this tool of communication is used,
partners need to see that there is a real desire to be in the
couple and to have the ability to work together. Thus, the
first step to be taken in treatment is to help the couple see
that there needs to be a commitment, not just to their
partner, but to the entity called the relationship. Creating
the entity of couple is paramount. Viewing the couple as an
entity with a joint commitment is a paradigm shift for both
therapists and clients. Such a shift will also influence the
definition and accomplishment of the next steps in
treatment.
Many couples begin therapy, even though they may have
been together for a long time or even married, without a clear
commitment. Creating a commitment to the entity of couple
involves shifting the focus from individual needs and problems to what works for the couple as a whole. This is similar
to the concept in family systems theory of viewing the couple
as a total, integrated system with each persons behaviors
impacting the functioning of the entire system (Satir 1972).
Although some couples come to treatment with the thought
of breaking up, ending the relationship is not included as one
of the options at this point; rather, the intention is to give
clients the opportunity to examine all the possibilities for

J Contemp Psychother (2008) 38:109117

maintaining and enhancing their relationship instead of

getting discouraged and giving up, as many do. A commitment to the therapy, even for a brief period of time, is
established in this context.
The second step in treatment is envisioning what the
relationship they have committed to working on together
would look like if they could have what they wanted. How
would they like it to be, and what possibilities are available
if they are willing to create them? If they do not agree on
how they want it to be, the therapist encourages the partners to keep going until they find something that inspires
them both. Likewise, the therapist must be convinced that
what has been created lights them up. If one partner
merely agrees without being engaged, the joint vision has
not been mutually created. If clients become discouraged,
the clients persistence here must be supported by the
therapists belief that something will be generated. How to
design an inspiring statement, of their vision a couple
proclamation, is described below and becomes in early
object of the treatment.
The third step is to establish commitment to the vision
of this new couple entity. Once created (in CPT, it is called
co-created), couples may see that achieving this commitment is empowering and even moving for them. Often,
creating a vision statement about the couple is so inspiring
that being committed to this way of relating becomes
obvious. It is also important to teach couples how to keep
their commitment alive. This can be achieved through
setting up practices, rituals or routine behaviors that remind
them of their commitment.
The fourth step is to practice setting milestones or goals
from the new couple perspective rather than an individual
view. Now, after having completed the first task, commitment, the couple is ready to put their vision into action.
This is accomplished by achieving the final three tasks of
CPT: learning to cooperate, communicating effectively
then it can be maximally useful and, finally, finding or
establishing a community where the values of being couple
are fostered or maintained. Together with commitment, the
last three tasks make up the Four Cs of the Couple
Power model. The order in which these tasks are addressed
is very important. It is not just having tools in the tool box,
it is knowing when to use them. In couples therapy, there
is no sense teaching communication skills until the prerequisites and goals of treatment and healthy interaction are
established.

Barriers to Therapy
Changing the paradigm of what a relationship is and the
goals to be met can be difficult and frustrating for clients
and therapists as well. Barriers to proceeding effectively

111

are generated from a variety of sources both psychological

and cultural. Most therapists are trained in identifying the
psychological obstacles but may not be as aware of the
many cultural variables and how they may impact clients in
treatment. The same obstacles that couples confront in the
world when they leave treatment are brought with them
when they come in for therapy. Our culture is rife with
manifestations of individualism and other barriers to creating couple, and they have a profound effect on couples
that is often out of their awareness. It is up to the therapist
to be aware of these obstacles and to help clients
acknowledge the impact of them on their relationships. As
in Narrative Therapy (White and Epson 1990), CPT
addresses the cultural context affecting couples (Sheras and
Koch-Sheras 1998) and how it can be used to externalize
problems in the relationship that the couple can work on
solving together.
Barriers for Clients
The most obvious way that barriers to couple show up with
clients is through the myths they have about relationships
(Lederer and Jackson 1968), that is, what their prevailing
paradigm tells them about how the world is. As mentioned
earlier, one of the most potentially damaging myths for
clientsand often therapists as wellis the mistaken
notion that communication is the primary problem and that
they need to immediately start learning better communication skills in order to fix the relationship. This notion
may create resistance to seeing the need to stop and get
clear about creating a foundation of commitment and
cooperation before proceeding to work on communicating
about their problems.
Other damaging myths include the idealized images that
permeate our educational systems and the media, creating
unrealistic expectations for both individuals and couples.
Moreover, these irrational beliefs have negative effects on
marital adjustment, marital stress, and expectations about the
outcome of therapy (Ellis 1962; Epstein and Eidelson 1981).
Based on the idealized relationships they encounter in the
media, people often develop the romantic myth of finding
Mr. or Ms. Right. If their partner doesnt fit their picture of
the perfect love and sexual partner, they may turn to self-help
books which often guide them to fix each other through better
communication skills. When using these techniques doesnt
work, they may become more discouraged. Couples are
taught to communicate their needs which may further
encourage a sense of entitlement for obtaining the kind of
perfection they see in the media. In fact, rather than helping,
these books, as well as television, movies, tabloids and
popular music, have been shown to increase ideals of sexual
perfectionism, stimulating the desire for sex in reality to
live up to the fantasy quality of the media in confirming the

123

112

belief that sex should be automatically perfect (Shapiro and

Kroeger 1991, p. 233).
Another myth that couples confront, relates to gender
identity, that is, that the man should be the primary
breadwinner. When that is not the case, as often happens in
our volatile economy, one or both partners may express
serious dissatisfaction with the relationship. Once again,
this kind of communication, if not grounded in commitment and cooperation, may make matters worse. Studies
show (Kingston 2004) that the old gender stereotypes are
still alive and well, with even young career women
expecting their husbands to be the breadwinner of the
family. The feminist movement to create more egalitarian
gender roles, while admirable, created some of its own
problems, including the myth of the Superwoman who
should be able to do it all (Shaevitz 1984).
The romanticized notion that having a child should bring
instant happiness and can save the marriage is another
destructive myth. Actually, childfree marriages tend to
demonstrate more intimacy, cooperation, and egalitarian
gender roles than marriages with children (Hoffman and
Levant 1985), which show increased disillusionment with
marriage after children are added to their lives. This
obstacle may be aggravated by the myth that children
always have to come first before the couple. Certainly,
children need to be cared for; but no matter how much the
couple communicates and shares about being parents, if
they do not make their couple a priority, the whole family
is likely to suffer.
Couples outside the mainstream traditional male-female
model of marriage face additional obstacles to a successful
relationship. On top of everything else, they may have to
face prejudice, discrimination, and alienation from families
or society at large. Such couples include gay and lesbian,
intercultural, interfaith, and interracial relationships. The
alienation they may feel often extends to therapy as well,
manifesting as a distrust of the process and a difficulty
committing to therapy.
Of all the barriers for clients that therapists encounter,
the most pervasive and subtle limitation appears in our
clinical experience to be the paradigm of individualism
that notion that ones individuality and getting ones own
needs met is the priority in personal functioning. There are
certainly benefits of an individualistic view, such as
increased freedom of expression and self-differentiation
and less emphasis on staying in a relationship out of duty or
obligation. However, there are too many premature and
unnecessary casualties of individualism among struggling
couples that may be due in good part to the cultures
exaggerated sense of individualism (Dion and Dion 1988,
p. 286). It may be this ethos of radical individualism
(Popenoe 1991, p. 52) which has fostered the me generation of recent decades, leading to egocentrism and a

123

J Contemp Psychother (2008) 38:109117

crippling fear of intimacy that limits the ability to cooperate as a team. While it important to strike a balance
between individualism and couplism such that each partner
does not feel enmeshed or fused with the other, the current
emphasis in our culture is so heavily skewed toward individuals that the needs of a relationship are almost never
seen as a priority. In the Couple Power model, each partner
comes to know and respect themselves more thorough their
commitment to a joint couple vision supported by each of
them. The couple support strengthens the goals of each
individual, which may be especially important to women in
our patriarchal society. Rather than feeling submerged in a
relationship, they can feel empowered by it. On the other
side, the more dominant partner may feel generous,
because he or she is not worried about losing power. The
power resides in the couple they designed together to meet
their needs.
Barriers for Therapists
The same influences of the general culture that affect clients affect therapists as well. Professionals are not immune
from the culture of individualism in their personal lives,
and it is pervasive in clinical training as well. So it is not
surprising to hear that many therapists report having difficulty or dislike working with couples. To overcome this
difficulty, therapists must first examine their own relationships and values to see how their personal history or
expectations about relationships may be limiting the possibilities for their client couples. Without monitoring
personal biases, therapists risk being part of the problem
rather than part of the solution.
Potentially damaging to couples therapists is the individually oriented psychodynamic or even behavioral
training that many therapists receive. While such training
certainly has its utility in treating certain individual clients,
it may become an obstacle for the treatment of couples and
couple issues. Without a context of the goals for the relationship, the focus will likely remain on meeting the selfabsorbed needs of the individual rather than commitment to
the couple. The therapeutic language used in working with
couples with its stress on self-developmentundermines
a larger language of commitment (Bellah et al. 1985,
p. 106). Moreover, the language of psychopathology and
diagnosis of disorders may create a negative context for
looking for what is wrong rather than what is possible.
Couples therapists often start therapy by asking the partners to describe what they see as the problem and even
have them say it directly to each other. This kind of
approach is likely to reinforce individualistic needs,
creating more negativity in communication and leaving
little space for the couple to develop as an enduring or
viable entity.

J Contemp Psychother (2008) 38:109117

The same individualistic bias is true of research about

couples, which measures individual happiness rather than
the couple as a whole. Conducting couples therapy and
research from the point of view of a relationship being
primarily a means to serve 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
(Fowers 2000, p. 98).

Doing Research in the New Paradigm

The use of the treatment model described here (CPT)
constitutes a new way of looking at relationships, or a shift
in the paradigm. It is useful to ask at the outset how such a
different approach can be validated. Research on marital
happiness has been ongoing for many years based on
measures of marital satisfaction (Spanier 1976). These
measures are predicated on the assessment of each individuals satisfaction. If a couple is an entity, how is it
possible to measure the functioning and satisfaction of that
unit or more importantly, with the exception of looking at
rates of divorce or separation, what are the appropriate
measures to use? Instruments such as the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier 1976) ask each individual to report
their responses. Even if a measure is filled out together, it
might be difficult to ascertain if the answers are mutually
agreed upon or overly influenced by one partner. It is clear
that the model presented here is in need of empirical validation and new methods of research. However, the work
which served as the basis of this article in many ways
meets the criteria for empirically based practice in psychology (EBPP). The American Psychological Association
Report of the Presidential Task Force on Evidence Based
Practice defined EBPP as the integration of the best
available research with clinical expertise in the context of
patient characteristics, culture, and preferences (APA
2005, p. 5). This definition of EBPP closely parallels the
definition of evidence based practice adopted by the
Institute of Medicine (Sackett et al. 2000; IOM 2001,
p. 147).
This article is based upon the authors clinical experience with more than 200 couples in treatment over a period
of 30 years. It includes case formulation, decisions
regarding successful termination of treatment, and first
hand qualitative reports of couples regarding their progress
and satisfaction. More detailed case examples are available
in other sources (Sheras and Koch-Sheras 1998, 2006)
which space prohibits presenting here. This information
has been used in developing the methods and refining the
theory described in this article.

113

Theory and Techniques of the Four Cs of Couple

Power
A brief description of the Four Cs model based on the
paradigm shift to couplism is presented here. The four tasks
should be assessed and then addressed in the following
sequential order.
Creating Commitment: the First C
Creating or re-creating commitment can be a difficult task. It
is essential to successful treatment, however. Commitment
to the relationship is the platform on which the remainder of
treatment is based. If the couple will commit to the relationship they want and promise that no one will be leaving
any time soon, they can then proceed to having the relationship itself, the entity of couple, take on the work of
solving problems and creating or reaffirming trust. This
subtle shift in emphasis may allow them to put aside their fear
and see that a couple is not a place to get to; it is a place to
come from. They then actually establish commitment by
saying that they are committed and then acting consistently
with that statement. Partners begin with the idea that they are
willing to work toward solutions as though they will stay
together. This approach is consistent with the methods of
Solution Focused Therapy (Hoyt and Berg 1998).
Establishing the notion of the couple entity and then
describing it together with ones partner is the first step.
This is done through the creation of a vision for the relationship. Such a vision or mission statement is elaborated
in a back and forth process in session or given as homework between meetings. The therapist may work to have
the couple remember or imagine what they would like their
couple to be like. This is not just confined to what partners
might want to be doing together, but who they are being
together as a couple. Do they want to be loving, demonstrative, caring, trustworthy, relaxed or passionate?
Constructing this future can be fun and interesting. It is the
story of their life together they agree upon as unique and
empoweringa love story that they re-write (Hudson
and OHanlon 1991). If couples enter treatment with anger,
resentment or despair, they begin by inquiring into their
desire to be together when those feelings are not present.
Then a commitment to work as though this were possible
may free them to imagine the future they could have. One
way to help create the couple vision is to ask the clients
what they want their couple to be like in the next year,
5 years or even 10 years; then have them imagine where
they will be and what an average day might look like. For a
couple who feels hopeless or unable to agree on a vision,
the therapist might ask them the miracle question (Berg
and de Shazer 1993): If a miracle occurred and you could
agree on what you wanted, what might that be? Therapists

123

114

may also use the past to help here, for example, What was
it like when you were first together or most happy? What
were your wedding vows like?
The key here is for the couple to imagine a future that
really inspires both of them. Their ability to be excited
about a future they have created together is a good prognosis for treatment. If they cannot agree on a vision or
imagine being together under any circumstances, then the
prospect of not continuing with couples therapy must be
explored here. This exploration is an accomplishment in
itself, if it gets them to be honest about their unwillingness
to work on the relationship rather than blaming their
partner for their unhappiness. If a couple is willing to
consider being committed or has agreed that they are
committed already and are merely frustrated by their
inability to function well, therapy continues to explore new
possibilities not yet invented together.
Once a common vision is agreed upon, the next step is to
create a commitment to the couple they have imagined.
Consistent with the tenants of Narrative Therapy, CPT
directs that this be done first in language. Couples are
asked to create a couple proclamation, that is, 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 (Sheras and Koch-Sheras 2006,
p. 78). This proclamation is an affirmation but also, more
importantly, a reminder of their commitment to their couple. Just as a team may set a goal of being national
champions, a couple entity can imagine itself as caring,
cooperative and supportive. Like giving birth to a new
child, the therapist guides the partners through the steps of
birthing their new couple entity.
The important characteristics of the proclamation are
that it be a positive statement for the current moment stated
in the present tense, not a wish for the future, that it has a
couple not individual focus, and that it be inspiring to both
partners. Examples of some powerful proclamations from
couples we have worked with include We are a playful
dance, We are simply irresistible, We trust our couple, We are cute, The magic is back, We are home
for each other. The best proclamations are short, to the
point, and easy to remember. The sign of a successful
proclamation is that it lights up both partners, they are
inspired, moved or smiling.
Once a proclamation is created, it is important that the
couple be taught how to keep it alive. Like any skill, it
takes ongoing repetition and practice to be effective. It is
recommended that couples say their proclamation at least
twice a day to each other at home, say it some time at the
beginning of the therapy session and any time during
arguments, as needed. Proclamations should be modified
and new proclamations created every few months or so for

123

J Contemp Psychother (2008) 38:109117

inspiration, variety, reinforcement of the commitment, and

to meet the new challenges couples inevitably face. Rather
than looking for a new partner when the going gets rough,
couples look for a new proclamation!
Coaching Cooperation: the Second C
Once commitment is established, the therapy proceeds to
helping the new couple entity operate consistently with
what they have promised. A firm commitment creates the
foundation for cooperation to take place. In CPT, cooperation is that which allows the partnership to put their trust
into action, and to work as a team to create behaviors
consistent with their stated commitment. This may sound
easy enough, however, because of competitiveness, lack of
time spent together, or absence of a shared vision of what
they are trying to achieve, many couples actually lack the
skills needed to cooperate. Often they operate independently as individuals doing tasks or making money, and
while they may contribute the products of such activity to
the couple, they may not really cooperating as a team to
produce it. Many clients associate cooperation with compromise. Compromise is often considered to be the price
that must be paid to be in a relationship; however, this
notion is based on the individualistic paradigm. In that
framework, compromise is giving something up without
necessarily getting what you want in return. A partner may
fear being used, exploited or submerged in the other person. In true cooperation, however, the individual commits
to the couple to produce, not a compromise, but a new
possibility of being together. Often partners give up too
easily at generating a new possibility. One partner may
have a history of being domineering and the other submissive. In CPT, they are asked to return to the joint
commitment that is the foundation of what they want to
achieve in the relationship to begin with. This is not an
enmeshment or fusion of the partners but rather a commitment to work as a team to realize a shared vision. In
many cases, the couple entity can take on, at least temporarily, the goals or activities of each partner in a way that
allows the individuals to get what they want and the couple
to feel like it has accomplished a goal together. Consider a
couple where one of the partners wants to lose weight.
They make an agreement that the couple will take this on.
Each week they go to the diet clinic and ask to be weighed
together and only be given their couple weight. By doing
this, their couple team takes on the task of one of the
members together.
Since cooperation is a skill to be learned, homework and
exercises both in the session and at home are particularly
useful and important in completing this second task of the
Four Cs. One exercise is the creation of a cooperative
project, preferably something connected to the couples

J Contemp Psychother (2008) 38:109117

current proclamation, given an inspiring name, and outlined in writing as a contract. The contract is focused on
creating something together, not on fixing an individual,
such as the couple who took on the wifes losing weight
described above. The contract should be stated positively
and include measurable milestones and outcomes. The
therapist reviews the couples progress in sessions, coaches
them on it, instructs them in how to best coach each other
on the project, and how to get support from others in their
community for the project.
A barrier that couples often run into in accomplishing
projects is not knowing how to make requests of their partner
or others clearly and effectively. What couples often see as
poor communication is really one or both of them being
afraid to ask for what they want in the spirit of cooperation.
Resentment often builds up, leading to demands rather than
requests being made. In this regard, a good assignment is to
have the partners practice making at least one request of each
other every week, starting with small requests and working
up to more significant ones. The partner responds by agreeing to grant the request by a specific time, modifying the
request, or respectfully declining it.

115

assignments if they can feel acknowledged by their partner.

One of the major complaints of partners is that they are not
appreciated. By starting with appreciation, it is easier to
discuss other matters and express opinions and make
observations. It is important that the therapist acknowledge
the work of the clients as well, stressing the power of their
commitment and the progress being made.
It is often the experience of couples therapists that
communication techniques are used for a while then forgotten or become useless in the face of anger or conflict. If
such concerns have been managed already by their commitment, and clients are taught that such strong feelings
might be a sign of the intensity of their commitment,
communication tools will be used more often than not.
Clients may be shown that the size of the upset is proportional to the size of the commitment and represents
frustration about the failure of the couple more than the
failures of the individuals. Inside the commitment to couple, good skills can serve like a pump to get water out of a
sinking ship and re-float it, rather than to jump overboard
as individuals. Most therapists have a good model for
effective communication practices; it is knowing when to
teach it that is central to effective couples therapy.

Teaching Communication: the Third C

Establishing Community: the Fourth C
Once cooperation is undertaken, couples come to see the
need for clear communication as crucial to their success.
Rather than fearing it as many do, however, inside the
context of accomplishing things that are mutually desirable
and being committed to staying together, they feel safe
and welcome communication training at this point. Good
communication now becomes the vehicle to reaping the
fruits of being couple together. It is not used merely to
empty out pent up feelings or resentments but to help in
the process of cooperating. Skills of dedicated listening
(Montouri and Conti 1993) fair fight training (Bach and
Bernhard 1971) and careful observation (Bandler and
Grinder 1979; Keleman 1979; Davanloo 1992) help couples operate from the intention to talk to not at each other,
such that both partners are understood completely. Reframing techniques that is using new language to describe old
behaviors (Bandler and Grinder 1979; Watzlawick 1996),
may help create positive intentions and alter negative
interactions. If fights are renamed intense emotional
commitments to hearing one another, for example, the
outcome of such behaviors may be quite different.
Perhaps the most powerful communications technique
for couples involves acknowledgement, the expression of a
positive statement about the partner. Gottman (1994)
demonstrated that happy couples had a ratio of 5:1 positive
statements to their partner to each negative one compared
to a 1:1 ratio for those couples who described themselves
as unhappy. Couples are more likely to do their

When couples begin to function within the new paradigm

of couplism, terminating treatment may thrust them back
into a world where the individualistic notion of getting
ones needs met is ever present. This may cause them to
feel isolated or even alienated from those around them. For
that reason, CPT includes the last important step of the
Four Cs of Couple Power, community, which is to create a
supportive outside environment for the new couple. Just
as discharging mentally ill patients back into the outside
world requires planning and foresight, completing treatment with a couple requires that some sense of community
with other couples be created or discovered in the world
outside of treatment.
The fourth task of effective couple treatment rarely seems
rarely to be addressed in traditional therapies. This is demonstrated by the fact that many couples benefit from
treatment but have difficulty sustaining their gains once they
have terminated. Community here means a powerful sense
of connection with another couple or group of couples with
whom the couple is close friends (Sheras and Koch-Sheras
2006, p. 151). In these communities of friends, neighbors or
relatives, couples can see models for success as well as
receive advice and support for dealing with problems or
concerns as they arise. As is the case with most terminations
in therapy, treatment planning and the understanding of
external environmental conditions following the completion
of treatment constitutes best practice.

123

116

Couples need to return to a world, during and after

treatment, where community is present. The therapist
should encourage couples to find such communities or
create them. Communities may be horizontal, found among
peers primarily, or they may be vertical, including generations of families, parents, or even children. Homework
assignments to discover communities or begin to create
them (organize a party in the neighborhood, for example)
can make a difference at this point. Some couples feel
isolated as the only couple we know who is doing well
or the only couple who talks about things honestly. Ask
them to reach out to other couples, make friends with a new
couple, or organize a community event. If communities are
not available for some reason, consider referring clients to
a couples therapy group where they can bond with others. It
has been our experience that such groups often speed the
process of community building and creating meaningful
connections for those involved. Dealing with this final,
crucial task may be accomplished thoughtfully as part of
the termination process and might include a referral to a
couples program such as Marriage Encounter, or PAIRS, or
Couples Coaching Couples (Sheras and Koch-Sheras
2006). This task has the power not only to keep couples
from relapsing but to begin the process of changing the
outside world to be more couple friendly.
A brief case example illustrates how the Four Cs were
used with one couple. A couple married nearly 50 years
reported that, despite years of communication training and
pretending to get along, they had been afraid to share their
deepest feelings with each other. She felt the need to give
in, and he often felt distant and removed. They had not
trusted their couple as an entity to support them as individuals. Moreover, while they had many friends and an
active social life, they had not gotten what they needed to
become intimate with each other or their friends. Once they
invented themselves as the entity couple and created the
proclamation, we are exploring deep waters, they began
to share more openly and deeply with each other, their
friends and families in new and profound ways. Experiencing a safer space and more freedom to share, they
brought up concerns with each other that they had never
talked about before, including issues of sexual interaction.
They got in touch with a new richness in their relationship
and were present to the gratitude they had for the differences they had never realized beforeeven after being
together for 49 years!

Conclusion
If couples therapists learn to avoid pre-mature communications training and other barriers to therapy prevalent in
Western individualistic culture, the negative iatrogenic

123

J Contemp Psychother (2008) 38:109117

effects of treatment may be avoided. Then the ethical

standard to take care to do no harm is more likely to be
met. A couple treated in couples therapy may go forward as
a model for others in their communities, creating the future
of relationships everywhere. Therapists may challenge
restrictive stereotypes of couple, marriage, husband and
wife in society. This is the way to shift the prevailing
paradigm from individualism to couplism, fostering
stronger family values and creating more supportive communities around the world.
While this may sound revolutionary, perhaps that is
what is needed nowa relationship revolution. 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).
References
American Psychological Association (APA). (2002). American psychologist. American Psychological Association, 57(12), 10601073.
American Psychological Association (APA). (2005) Report of the
2005 Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice.
http://www.apa.org/practice/ebpreprot.pdf.
Bach, G. R., & Bernhard, Y. M. (1971). Aggression lab: The fair fight
training manual. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1979). Frogs into princes: Neurolinguistic
programming. Moab, UT: Real People Press.
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.
Berg, I. K., & de Shazer, S. (1993). Making numbers talk: Language
in therapy. In S. Friedman (Ed.), The new language of change:
Constructive collaboration in psychotherapy (pp. 524). New
York: Guilford Press.
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. 481512). New
York: The Guilford Press.
Davanloo, H. (1992). Short-term dynamic psychotherapy. Northvale,
NJ: J. Aronson.
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. 264289). New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Doss, B., Jones, J., & Christenson, A. (2002). Integrative behavioral
couples therapy. In J. Lebow (Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of
psychotherapy: Vol 4. Integrative/eclectic (pp. 387410). New
York: Wiley.
Ellis, A. (1962). The American sexual tragedy. New York: L. Stuart.
Epstein, N., & Eidelson, R. J. (1981). Unrealistic beliefs of clinical
couples: Their relationship to expectations, goals and satisfaction. American Journal of Family Therapy, 9, 1322.
Fowers, B. J. (2000). Beyond the myth of marital happiness. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce: The relationship
between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum Publishers.
Hoffman, S. R., & Levant, R. F. (1985). A comparison of childfree
and child-anticipated married couples. Family Relations, APR,
pp. 197203.

J Contemp Psychother (2008) 38:109117

Hoyt, M. F., & Berg, I. K. (1998). Solution-focused couple therapy:
Helping clients construct self-fulfilling realities. In F. M Dattilio
(Ed.), Case studies in couple and family therapy: Systemic and
cognitive perspectives (pp. 203232). New York: Guilford Press.
Hudson, P. O., & OHanlon, W. H. (1991). Rewriting love stories:
Brief marital therapy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new
health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Keleman, S. (1979). Somatic reality. Berkeley, CA: Center Press.
Kingston, A. (2004). The meaning of wife. New York: Farrar, Straus
and Giroux.
Lederer W., & Jackson, D. (1968). The mirages of marriage. New
York: Norton.
Montouri, A., & Conti, I. (1993). From power to partnership:
Creating the future of love, work and community. San Francisco:
HarperCollins.
Popenoe, D. (1991). Breakup of the family: can we reverse the trend?
USA Today, May, 5053.
Sackett, D.L., Straus, S. E., Richardson, W. S., Rosenberg, W., &
Haynes, R. B. (2000). Evidenced based medicine: How to
practice and teach EBM (2nd ed.). London: Churchill
Livingstone.
Satir, V. (1972). Peoplemaking. Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior
Books.
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

117
the popular media. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 19,
226236.
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.
399418). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
Sheras, P., & Koch-Sheras, P. (2006). Couple power therapy:
Building commitment, cooperation, communication, and community in relationships. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association Press.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for
assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 38, 1528.
Stosny, S. (2008). http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A11L45NZAD9OSC/
ref=cm-blog-dp-artist-blog.
Watzlawick, P. (1996). The construction of clinical realities. In H.
Rosen & K. T. Kuehlwein (Eds.), Constructing realities;
meaning-making perspectives for psychotherapists. The JosseyBass social and behavioral science series (pp. 5570). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Welwood, J. (1990). Journey of the heart. New York: Harper Collins.
White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends.
New York: Norton.
Zaiss, C. (2002). True partnership: Revolutionary thinking about
relating to others. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers,
Inc.

123