Category: Anger Management

The Tao of Anger Management: A Yield Theory Approach

Posted on by rezendevknowfully.com

“The gentlest thing in the world overcomes the hardest thing in the world.” —Lao Tzu

Brian had been incarcerated for taking a baseball bat to his girlfriend’s truck with her inside of it; he then pulled her out and beat her unconscious. He was out of prison and in my anger management group for two weeks when he reported, “What I did may have been too much, but she deserved it because she stole my money.” He claimed that he shouldn’t have gotten in that much trouble because it was “my truck anyway,” and besides, she “slipped and hit her head on the ice.” Brian was still in the precontemplation stage of change: he didn’t think he had a problem.

Things got worse before they got better. The following week Brian was furious when he came to group, complaining that he had been called in by his probation officer two days in a row to be drug-tested. The only reason for this, he claimed, was that his ex was “sleeping with a cop.” In a state of rage, his face flushed, his fists and feet pounding wildly, he shouted about police corruption and denounced his ex-girlfriend, the “whore” who was just out to get him. 

Instead of asking him to calm down, take a breath, or do anything other than be where he was in the moment, I simply validated him. I imagined what the world would look like from Brian’s perspective as I said, “Man, that’s just plain messed up.” I knew that Brian didn’t know anything other than what he knew in that moment, and he needed someone to see what he saw, so I went with him further: “You know, it sucks that you work so hard to be sober, and then people go and pull this shit, and test you even more.” I paused briefly, made a projection about what he might be thinking and added, “I mean, they tested you literally, but they’re also testing your limits too. It’s like they’re trying to set you back.”

He responded emphatically, “Exactly! They’re pushing me!”

“You know what?” I said, “this was kind of messed up, so I’m not even going to ask you to calm down right now.” I paused, shook my head, and waited for a moment before continuing. “In fact, even if this is supposed to be anger management, it would be stupid for someone to think you need to learn from this right now, because you have a right to be pissed off.”

He nodded his head in agreement, and he was visibly calmer, so I went on.

“I’m not going to tell you to learn anything from this right now, but let’s say this was tomorrow at this time, what do you think you might say about this experience?”

“I don’t know.” He paused. I waited. “I guess I would say that I probably overreacted.”

I then said, “I’m not going to say that you overreacted because it was really messed up, but, I don’t know—I wonder if this was like a week later… I wonder what you’d say about this experience then?”

 “I don’t know,” he said. “I guess I’d say that probation has a right to test me two days in a row in case I’m using or something.” He was calming down more, and moving more and more into his frontal lobes.

So I said finally, “Look, I know you’re pissed off, and I see you’re hurting about this, and we don’t need to talk about this tonight—but if this were a month from now, I wonder what you might say about this whole night?”

Almost completely calm now, Brian replied, “I guess if this were a month from now, I would probably look back on this night and see that I was still doing the same thing I always did: blaming her for me not wanting to be drug tested.” 

The shift occurred. The door was open to future work. 

Behind the Mask

"Treat the people as trustworthy, and they will be trustworthy." —Lao Tzu


When Brian came in furious and outraged, it could have elicited fear in me—he was, after all, an imposing figure—but I knew that Brian wasn’t angry at the world or at me; he was angry at having to take responsibility for something unpleasant. When that happens, people are usually blinded with rage, but not likely to hurt someone they don’t know. Brian was scared to face the world without what he had come to depend on: drugs to alter his state of mind. He was not ready in that moment to genuinely be accountable for what he did—so that was not the time to get on a soapbox and criticize his actions. 

More importantly, Brian didn’t scare me because I am armed with the knowledge that anger masks fear. Just as you wouldn’t walk into a costume party and believe that goblins and monsters are suddenly alive and dancing with each other because you would know it was people dressed in costumes, so too do I see that when people are angry, they are wearing a mask to hide what is really going on inside them. It was important for me to trust the deepest part of Brian’s essence: the part that is, in my view, inherently good. 

As a therapist, my goal is to facilitate people’s journey through the depths of their undiscovered psyches in a way that helps them move beyond the battle of the ego/true-self dynamic so that they can find, hold, and live in expanded consciousness. My working assumption is that the essence of people is much deeper than what we can see on the surface. This assumption helps me view people as vastly greater than their actions, and infinitely more than any pain and suffering they have caused or experienced. 

I specialize in working with people who have been convicted of violent crimes: murder, rape, and the abuse of others. The work is not easy, but it is some of the most rewarding work that I have ever done, due in part to the amazing transformations that I’ve witnessed throughout the years. I’ve watched gang members gain awareness and perspective enough to walk away from their gangs; I’ve seen people who train as fighters walk away from street fights; I’ve seen people who have spent their lives believing that life is about getting “respect,” make incredible changes and learn to more deeply respect themselves and the world around them. 

“No one sets out to be defined by his or her worst moment in life, yet almost every violent offender is judged, convicted, and defined by his or her worst moment.” Just imagine if everyone in your life defined you by your worst moment, that this moment accompanied you like a badge of shame throughout your life, limiting all future possibilities, including your hopes and dreams. It would seem terribly unjust; and yet this is what we do with violent offenders. They carry the burden of our shadow projections and are left believing that they are terrible people because they have done terrible things. And because they lose hope about the possibility of breaking free from these deeply internalized expectations, they live up to their self-fulfilling prophecies by continuing to do terrible things. 

The startling recidivism rates in our country (close to 70% of violent offenders return to a life of crime after imprisonment) should be all the evidence we need to understand that our system of rehabilitation-by-incarceration alone simply doesn’t work, but it’s not. The “more shame, more guilt, and more punishment” approach—though it has a long history among treatment of violent offenders—has led to 7 out of 10 people returning to lock-up. It’s clear that it is time for a new approach to this problem, and it requires a change in consciousness, not only among violent offenders, but also among the population at large. 

Yield Theory

“Knowing how to yield is strength.” —Lao Tzu


My approach to working with clients who have committed the most heinous of crimes is grounded in what I call “Yield Theory,” a powerful and compassionate approach to communication that essentially boils down to radical empathy delivered with intentionality. Taoism is a spiritual tradition—the core of which is seeing beyond the black and white world of either/or, good/bad, and recognizing balance through the single essence of everything. Founded by the legendary Lao Tzu more than 2,500 years ago, “Tao” means the way. For me, the journey that clients take to personal growth is the same as what we all undertake along the way in life.

Yield Theory differs from radical empathy in that in addition to attempting to think and feel entirely from clients’ perspectives, therapists also go with or literally yield to what clients are saying in the moment, with the intention of guiding them to new insight on situations. This approach involves more than simply understanding that multiple factors contribute to violent interactions—you must cultivate the ability to not resist even the angriest outbursts. Yielding entails both joining with the essence of who clients are, and “going with” clients to circumambulate their fight-or-flight responses so they will be more open to the possibility of healthier options.

The underlying assumption of Yield Theory is this: If we lived every day as another human being—not just walked a metaphorical mile in that person’s shoes, but actually had the exact same cognitive functioning, affective range, and life experiences—then we would make every single decision that that person has ever made. Every single decision. This goes beyond simple empathy: it is the capacity to truly recognize the essence of others, and non-judgmentally accept who people are, regardless of their choices and actions—including violence. 

By yielding with others and genuinely trying to understand why they have done what they’ve done rather than judging them, I have found that people are more than just willing to open up and talk—they are also much more open to the possibility of change. I have found that by accepting the essence of people, I have an easier time approaching violence with compassion. The Yield Theory framework has allowed me to rid myself of judgment and do the job I was intended to do: assess people accurately and help them change and lead lives directed by their true selves (their essence), rather than by their egos (introjected identities). 

My anger management program is predicated on respecting all human beings who enter treatment, regardless of their actions, and strives to meet every person where he or she actually is. I call it, “conscious education rooted in compassion.” Even the most resistant clients who ardently deny any accountability for significantly harming others are accepted as readily as those who are actively seeking change. Everyone has a story, and people’s cognitive functioning, ability to process emotions, and life experiences shape and continually influence them.

“Though many therapists and counselors may claim to “accept all people,” in practice, most struggle in their work with people who have violent tendencies.” It could be that the natural fight-or-flight response triggers their survival fears and causes them to write off violent offenders as incapable of change, dangerous, and hence deserving of judgment; but it could also be because human beings tend to value their own standards of living, beliefs, and ideas over those of others and in subtle and often unconscious ways judge people who are different—particularly when those differences appear threatening. 

It is hard for most people to grasp that fully accepting a person who commits a violent crime has absolutely nothing to do with condoning that person’s actions. Truly understanding this, however, makes all the difference in our work with those who are pushed the margins of society. 

Components of Yield Theory

Vulnerability takes courage—especially amongst people who define themselves by how “tough” they are—and yet I have found in my anger management groups (which are open, so there always new people coming in) that people share with the same level of vulnerability and honesty as any therapy group I’ve ever witnessed. I believe this is due to the key components of Yield Theory that I apply in my groups: acceptance, the elimination of shame, mindfulness, creativity, conscious education, non-attachment and authenticity.

Acceptance
The potential for everything great and everything terrible resides inside all human beings. If a human being has performed an act, then it is accurate to say that it is “human nature.” If we can accept the nature of human beings (that we will at times be loving and kind, at other times hurtful and cruel, and everything in between and beyond), then we can evaluate others, as well as ourselves, in terms of trying to simply understand human behavior. Furthermore, if we accept the premise that we cannot do one single thing to change the past, and we merely have the ability to impact the present to shape the future, then we can see that pejorative, judgmental approaches do little to impact the present or future in positive ways; whereas acceptance of what is, along with acceptance of the essence of people, can set the stage for conscious learning and change.

With Brian, it was important to accept him for the essence of who he is, and from there to accept where he was cognitively and emotionally in that moment. From his perspective, after all, things were unjust and unfair, so acknowledging that was an important first step.
 
Shame
Years of studying people who commit violent crimes has led me to the conclusion that people who live in shame act out of shame.Eliminating shame, therefore, has become central to my work. At first glance, it may seem difficult to swallow the idea of not shaming someone who has committed a violent act; however, as David Hawkins (2002) suggested in his “map of consciousness,” shame is the lowest form of consciousness that human beings experience. What I have learned is that it is difficult for human beings to make highly conscious choices from low levels of consciousness, so helping people have expanded consciousness becomes paramount to changing their actions.

It would have shamed Brian to try to get him to see what he did wrong while he was in a state of fear and anger. It was not the time to have him acknowledge responsibility or even awareness of anything he did that was hurtful. Instead, it was important to work with what was available for him cognitively and emotionally in the present moment.

Mindfulness
Mindfulness was first described in the Dhammapada as a way that the Buddha taught others to observe and keep constant watch over their thoughts. Engaging in “right mindfulness” entails expanding the awareness that we have not only for ourselves, but also for the world around us. The more mindful we can be in every moment, the more likely we are to consider alternative ways of interacting with others. Mindfulness begins with self-awareness, but it also extends to an awareness of the environment and what is going on inside other people as well. As a group leader, I both practice and teach mindfulness. Though it is fairly easy for therapists to learn how to teach or simply read a basic mindfulness exercise in a group setting, it is the role modeling of mindfulness (i.e., the therapist’s constant awareness of present moment intra and interpersonal experiences) that seems to make the biggest impact on clients. As many people who teach mindfulness would explain: mindfulness must be lived to be understood. 

It was important for me to be mindful and aware of my own thoughts when Brian began railing against his parole officer and his ex, and to be careful not to get caught up by them. I tried to be as aware as possible about what might be going on inside of him, based on what I was seeing in him and my own internal reactions, but ultimately the best we can do as therapists is project what we imagine others are thinking, and then check those projections. In this instance, my projection appeared to be accurate. But mindfulness goes much deeper than just awareness of my thoughts and his; it is also an awareness of the environment in the moment, and a willingness to stay present with whatever unfolds without reverting into a reactive or defensive posture.

Creativity
In my experience, having the ability to genuinely meet a diverse group of clients where they are separates average therapists from very good ones. If we are charged with meeting people where they are, then we must consider that people have varied learning styles, and forcing clients to only get information in the way that we think works is, in my view, irresponsible. To implement creativity in therapy is to constantly evaluate one’s own communication style, and to be open to adjusting it accordingly to what people need. I believe the onus of communicating effectively rests with the therapist, so when clients are not getting what we are communicating, I believe it is our responsibility to find creative ways to meet them where they are. Creativity can come in the form of analogies, metaphors, techniques, or even just in the openness to develop new ways to say things in ways clients can fully hear. 

In the heated moment with Brian, I chose to use a future-self technique with him. I have found that in working with a largely angry population, being able to think quickly and creatively is not only a bonus, but a necessity. 

Conscious Education

“What is a good man, but a bad man’s teacher? What is a bad man, but a good man’s job?” —Lao Tzu

In my view, it is the responsibility of therapists to offer something more than just listening to their clients. Teaching skills is essential to helping people who are struggling with anger. We cannot expect people to respond differently to the world until we teach them different options. For counselors to implement conscious education, they must be willing to teach concepts patiently and compassionately until clients understand the ideas. This is quite different than simply relating concepts and assuming that clients understand them. In conscious education, therapists do not assume their clients should already have specific information; instead, they make the effort to teach in compassionate ways that meet diverse learners where they are.

As a former tenured professor, I know all too well how lengthy the discussions can be over the semantics of what does and does not constitute teaching. Outside of the world of academia, however, I would argue that we are always teaching others—even if the lesson is about how we are likely to respond in a given situation. I know from further interactions with Brian that he learned that day how to implement the future-self technique. He subsequently reported using it several times and even taught it to another group member during an anger management session.

Non-attachment
The idea of non-attachment is at the foundation of healthy learning. Whereas it is fairly easy for most Westerners to understand the idea of attachment to material goods through identification (“I’m a homeowner” or “This is my car” or “I am a good person because I have a high-paying job”), the notion that we are equally attached to our ideas seems far less widespread. “As long as our ideas are a part of who we are, we become defensive when people disagree with us.” When we can separate ourselves from our things, as well as from our very ideas, we are engaged in the process of non-attachment. As therapists model this concept, they create a safe path for clients to learn to express themselves openly, knowing they will not offend their therapist in any way. 

As a caution to those becoming too attached to the idea of non-attachment, Zen practitioners offer the concept of the “soap of the teachings.” Consider that to clean a shirt, it is necessary to use soap; but if the suds are not rinsed out, the garment will not truly be clean. In this same way, non-attachment to the idea of non-attachment becomes central to practicing the concept. 

In the case of Brian, I was not attached to his response, and would have been content with being off base had he told me that was the case. I was also not attached to the technique I was using with him; had it not helped, I was ready to readjust my technique to something more useful. 

Authenticity
People can spot disingenuousness easily. Mirror neurons are not only the root of vicarious learning, but are also the key part of our neurology that helps us identify when people are being authentic with us or not. It is well known in our field that clients will use the inauthenticity of their therapists as a reason they cannot or should not have to change. On the other hand, when people experience authenticity and know that we sincerely have their best interest at heart, they are much more open to learning about themselves.

The most pragmatic way therapists can convey authenticity is to regularly practice the ideas that they are teaching in their personal lives. It is paramount to practice what we preach. We do not have all the answers, nor should we purport to. We make mistakes as equally as our clients: not better or worse mistakes, just different mistakes, and we are all in this process of experiencing what it is like to be fully human. 

Conclusion

“Can you love the people and lead them without imposing your will?” —Lao Tzu

To understand people’s stories is, in a sense, to journey with them to the depths of their psyches. As a modern journeyman, I like to use vehicles as an analogy for journeying. Here’s my analogy for using Yield Theory to work with clients: Imagine that you are riding in a car and you come to a merge point (a yield sign). You merge with another car until you are side-by-side. Suspend what you know about reality, and imagine that as you travel beside the car long enough, the other driver sees that you are going in the same direction, so he invites you into his car. 

As a passenger now in this person’s metaphorical car, you have a better opportunity to see the road as he sees it, through his windshield. As the trip goes on, perhaps the driver gets tired and is ready to rest for a bit. You are now trusted enough to take the wheel. When you do, you can help steer the car down a more effective path. 

Lao Tzu said, “What is painted on these scrolls today will appear in different forms in many generations to come.” Similarly, the words of all therapies emerge at different times and come in different forms, but they are always essentially the same. For Yield Theorists, accepting the core of who people are, finding creative ways to communicate so that we are actually heard, teaching in some form, modeling openness, facilitating awareness and being authentic are therapeutic concepts that are simultaneously a way of life. 

The first practice of the Tao is something called undiscriminating virtue. It means taking care of those who are deserving and also—and equally—taking care of those who are not. When therapists practice Yield Theory, they are practicing undiscriminating virtue by immersing themselves into the psyches of others—regardless of anything they have done up to that point. Violence as a human construct probably cannot be eliminated; however, people—even those with the most violent backgrounds and intense struggles with anger—can learn a different way. 

We can continue to stand on our soapboxes and preach against violence and against the people who perpetrate it, but violence will always exist and shaming people simply doesn’t work. If we truly want to help people overcome their violent tendencies, we must work from a place of consciousness, choose to merge with others—see the world as they see it, attempt to understand what they understand, and help support them in their journey to new levels of awareness and peace. 

“To the highly evolved being, there is no such thing as tolerance, because there is no such thing as other.” —Lao Tzu



 

Assessing Partner Abuse in Couples Therapy

Posted on by rezendevknowfully.com

Mark and Julie were in their late thirties, and had been married for seven years after living together for three. During their initial session with me, they expressed concern that they had been drifting apart over the past year. They were both under considerable stress. Julie’s planned six-month leave of absence from her job following the birth of their son Brandon had now lasted four years. Brandon required lots of Julie’s time: he was highly impulsive, displayed frequent temper tantrums, and recently bit another child at daycare. Mark supported the family as a salesman for a medical equipment firm, but getting along without Julie’s income meant longer hours and more frequent travel.

“We hardly ever have time for each other anymore,” said Mark. “And I’m out of town so often these days that it’s hard for us to readjust when I get home. Julie is always preoccupied, either with Brandon or something else, and our relationship isn’t a priority for her the way it used to be.”

“We don’t communicate well,” added Julie. “We argue about parenting Brandon, about my housekeeping, about Mark’s being gone so much of the time . . .”

“There’s an example of one of our problems,” Mark interrupted. “ I don’t feel like she appreciates how hard I work to support us. Traveling on business is no picnic, I can tell you. I miss being home with my wife and kid.”

To most outward appearances, this was a couple caught in the typical dilemmas of our age: how to balance work and home life, how to be both parents and intimate partners, how to get one’s own needs met while meeting the needs of the other.

Mark and Julie had been in conjoint therapy twice before; each stint had lasted about one and a half years. Their first therapist, they told me, helped them understand how their relationship replicated themes from childhood. A couple of years later, when their arguments grew more frequent, they decided to try a new therapist. Mark liked their new therapist’s pragmatic approach and appreciated learning how to make “I statements” and practicing reflective listening. Mark felt that he had finally gotten through to Julie about his concerns. Julie agreed that the therapy had been helpful, but wasn’t willing to continue because there was too much focus on Mark’s concerns and not enough on hers.

When I asked Mark and Julie how they argued, they reported that Mark frequently raised issues in an angry way. Julie would withdraw, and Mark would press for resolution. She sometimes burst into tears during these encounters, and he saw this as her way to avoid addressing his concerns. Yet they both reported that their arguments “never get physical.”

Over the next few sessions, I gave Mark and Julie typical homework assignments. We discussed taking time-outs when their interactions grew too heated. We reviewed and practiced reflective listening skills. They voiced an appreciation about each other every day. And despite difficulty finding a babysitter who could handle Brandon, they managed to schedule two “date nights” over the next two weeks.

I did not yet realize it yet, but I was making the same error as their two previous therapists: I was attempting to do couples therapy with an abusive relationship.

Obligation to Assess

Many therapists, including those of us with extensive clinical experience, frequently plunge into doing therapy before we have adequately assessed whom and what we are treating. It is in the nature of the therapist-client relationship that we cannot know the whole story from the outset. Our clients may be lost, confused, withholding, or in denial. They aren’t ready to divulge everything at a first session (and if they were, we would probably wonder why). In the cause of establishing a working alliance, we leave avenues of assessment unexplored until a more opportune moment. Assessment and treatment necessarily walk hand in hand as the ongoing process of discovery and healing unfolds.

However, none of this relieves us of the ethical and professional obligation to carefully assess factors that may undermine treatment. “Sometimes we collude with our clients’ denial systems, deliver services that are misdirected or even harmful, and allow problems to get worse, under the guise of providing treatment.” Meanwhile, our clients continue to believe they are getting help, and we continue to collect our fees. Whether the undiagnosed problem is addiction, bipolar illness, domestic violence, or some other weighty issue, part of our job is to make educated guesses and follow up on them.

One error I encounter with troubling frequency is the failure of couples therapists to assess adequately for partner abuse. By partner abuse, I mean the use of force, intimidation, or manipulation—or the threat to use any of those methods—to control, hurt, or frighten an intimate partner. Note that the definition can be met even if no physical violence is involved. Verbal and psychological tactics are more common; frequently, they are also more effective at controlling, hurting, or frightening another, and they can be more emotionally damaging in the long run.

I have met with couples whose seasoned therapists, over the course of several years’ treatment, missed the extent and severity of the physical and emotional abuse taking place at home. We might be tempted to believe that clients bear some responsibility for staying silent on the issue (whether out of fear or outright denial), but the obligation to assess rests firmly on our shoulders. For example, an abused partner may feel unsafe bringing up abuse in the presence of the other because of likely retaliation, yet many therapists have a policy of never meeting separately with one member of a couple they are treating jointly.

Regardless of the reason for the assessment failure, the tragic result can be months or years of continued abuse. “Suffering” is a pallid word to describe the soul-damaging, spirit-deadening impact of ongoing abuse on the abused partner and the children who live with it. The corrosive nature of some abuse leads to an erosion of the self that can be extremely difficult to reverse. The effects are cumulative and must stop before healing can begin. Additionally, abuse generally grows worse without intervention. Meanwhile, clients incur a sizable expenditure of time and money, and the therapist (and, by extension, our profession) loses credibility.

Common Misconceptions

Several common misconceptions hamper or prevent an adequate assessment of partner abuse.

“The couple report that they yell at each other, so they both contribute to the problem.”
Loud arguments should always suggest the possibility of partner abuse. Most abusive relationships involve some angry behavior by both parties; some involve mutually abusive behavior as well, although the degree of fear is generally much greater for one partner than the other. While both partners are responsible for their own behavior, one of them probably contributes disproportionately to the abuse.

“I spoke to them about partner abuse and they deny it is going on.”
As therapists, we know better than to accept clients’ analyses of their difficulties and to probe more deeply. “If an angry client reports that he believes in firm discipline but would never abuse his children, do we simply take his word for it?”

“It is my policy never to meet individually with clients I see in couples therapy.”
Adequate assessment for abuse cannot be accomplished with both partners in the room. Asking directly about abuse in a conjoint session puts the abused partner in a no-win position: to disclose and risk reprisal, or to deny and thereby avoid getting needed assistance.

“I have a ‘no secrets’ policy, so clients know that anything they share with me individually will be brought into the couples session.”
In my view, such a policy is designed to relieve the therapist’s anxiety and hinders rather than helps the client. As therapists, we often learn things we cannot or choose not to divulge. Holding some information in confidence is a small price to pay if it allows us to leverage our clients into the right form of treatment.

“Even if there is undiagnosed partner abuse, I’m helping them resolve the underlying relationship dynamic.”
By its very nature, abusive behavior prevents the resolution of other issues. Abuse skews the relationship dynamic and leaves most of the power and control in one partner’s hands.

“I can teach them better communication skills until they trust me enough to disclose the issues they are withholding.”
Abusive partners easily subvert communication skills at home. “I” statements are meaningless if the intent is to hurt, control, or manipulate.

“I’m not taking a stand on the issue because I’m afraid the abusive partner will bolt from treatment.”
Again, the delusion here is that some treatment is better than none. What is needed is a referral to appropriate treatment, rather than maintaining the fiction that the couple is getting help while the abuse continues.

An Abusive Dynamic

At their next session, Mark and Julie reported that their second planned date night had started out well. They ate dinner at a quiet restaurant, reminisced affectionately about the first time they met, and held hands as they shared a frozen yogurt. Brandon was asleep when they got home, even though it was still relatively early. When they went to bed, Mark anticipated they would make love; Julie was tired and just wanted to curl up and go to sleep. Mark persisted, saying that this was the only chance they’d had for sex in a while so they’d better take advantage of it. Julie said she was tired of his “guilt trips.” He said she was frigid and accused her of withholding sex to punish him.

They had carried on late into the night as the argument broadened to include many other areas of disagreement. The conflict continued in my office the next evening.

” . . . And I appreciate how hard he works to support us,” Julie was saying. “But when he gets back from a business trip, he’s constantly finding fault with the way I keep the house, the things I wasn’t able to get to. He thinks I’m too soft with Brandon and that’s why he’s been acting up at daycare. It’s true that I could do a lot better job of housecleaning, and I paid the credit card late last month. My hands are so full with Brandon that everything else seems to take second place. I know I need to get better at setting priorities, like Mark says, but I feel like I’m doing the best I can and I wish he appreciated how hard my job is.”

Mark was restless but listened quietly while Julie spoke. When it was his turn, he spoke quickly, with increasing agitation and volume.

“She talks about not being appreciated. Well, she doesn’t do a very good job of appreciating me. I work really hard to support us at this level, and you’d think I could at least come home to a house that didn’t look like a bomb hit it. And Brandon is out of control because she doesn’t know how to set limits with him. He never acts up with me the way he does with her. Plus, she has the entire day to spend at home and take care of the things I can’t get to because I’m out of town. Brandon’s in daycare now, and she has so much free time to get together with her girlfriends for coffee . . .”

“Now, wait just a minute!” said Julie angrily. “That only started a couple of weeks ago!”

“No, you wait a minute!” replied Mark in a louder voice. “I don’t appreciate your angry tone, and I didn’t interrupt you when you were talking. I’d appreciate it if you could show me the same respect!”

“It’s hard to sit still while you misrepresent things,” she said petulantly, slumping in her chair.

“There you go again. When I give my point of view, I’m misrepresenting things. “ He turned to me. “You see how this goes. She never seems to respect my opinion. Everything I say, she counters it.” He raised his voice. “She treats me like she doesn’t even like me anymore! Ever since Brandon came along, our sex life has gone out the window. She always has something else on her mind, or she’s too tired, or I don’t know what.”

“Maybe if you treated me with more respect, I’d feel more like getting close to you,” Julie replied softly.

“See, there you go again. It’s always my fault!” said Mark. “We disagree on so many things, I’m really not sure what’s keeping us together anymore!”

There was a pause. Mark’s face grew darker and his brow furrowed as he spoke. The skin around Julie’s temples grew taut and her shoulders sagged.

“Tell me, is this kind of how things go at home?” I asked. “You start to talk about an issue, and things escalate? Mark, you seem angry and frustrated, and Julie, you seem angry and resigned. I can see that there are a number of issues on the table. But I’m wondering if I’m getting to see how your efforts at communication get off track. Is this how things go when they don’t go well?”

They answered simultaneously. “Pretty much,” said Mark. “This is mild by comparison,” said Julie.

“So what would typically happen at this point?” I asked.

“Mark usually kicks something, then leaves the room,” said Julie, hands crossed over her chest.

“Oh, really? What about you turning on the water works, then giving me the cold shoulder and playing the Ice Queen for three days?” said Mark, pointing his finger at her. “You left that part out. As usual!”

“OK, hold on a moment, both of you,” I said. With ten minutes left in the session, I felt the need to intervene, based on the growing escalation, the content and tone of the communication, and Mark’s increasing impulsiveness. I also feared that their disagreements were severe enough that continuing to talk about them would result in yet another argument as they left my office.

“There’s been a lot of heat expressed in this office today, and I’d like you both to cool off before you leave. I want you both to take a few nice deep breaths, s-l-o-w-l-y. Good. I want you to drop this argument, and I want you to agree not to talk anymore about these issues today.” We spent a few minutes addressing the difficulties they might experience in keeping to this agreement.

It was now clear to me that this couple was caught in an abusive dynamic. Mark had initially given the impression that he was listening to Julie, but he shifted restlessly as she spoke; when she finished, he responded quickly with an increasingly angry and critical tone. He blamed her for their problems and employed various strategies—such as exaggeration, distortion, and counterattack—to deflect any suggestion that he might also bear some responsibility for their difficulties. When Julie attempted to correct his misrepresentation of her coffee dates, he turned the tables by attacking her for the interruption and accused her of having less respect for him than he had for her. Mark felt free to express his anger but could not tolerate Julie expressing hers. He accused her of employing the very tactics he used (for example, “Everything I say, she counters it”). Mark demeaned Julie for the upset feelings she experienced following his angry outbursts and her subsequent need to pull away.

By contrast, Julie recognized some of her contributions and validated many of Mark’s concerns. Her brief efforts to defend herself were quickly overwhelmed by Mark’s responses. Her petulant tone and slumped posture were signs of defeat.

Indicators of Partner Abuse

Like Mark and Julie, clients in abusive relationships present with typical complaints: “We don’t know how to communicate with each other.” “We’ve been arguing a lot.” “We’re both under a lot of stress.” “We’ve needed counseling for a long time and he/she finally agreed.” “We disagree about disciplining the children.” Usually, their level of intimacy has declined.

More telling indicators are embedded in the relational dynamic that emerges in the consulting room. There may be unexplained tension in the room; certain topics appear to be off limits. “There may be a marked difference in the way and the degree to which each partner participates in the session.” The abusive partner may always start the session or, alternatively, always make the abused partner begin. One partner may be highly critical and judgmental, or exercise control through silence, intimidation, and manipulation. The other may speak hesitantly and haltingly—or, alternatively, may be hostile, resentful, and angry, seemingly out of proportion to the subject under discussion.

They may disagree on basic facts and have widely divergent views of the same events. Frequently, both partners are highly defensive and misconstrue what the other says, as though looking for an opportunity to act angry or hurt. They report or exhibit destructive communication patterns, such as escalation, invalidation, or a demanding/withdrawing dynamic. Impulse control may be poor. Problem-solving and conflict resolution skills are lacking.

Any of these symptoms are sufficient to raise suspicions of partner abuse. Alternatively, many abusive relationships present as typical relationships with occasional heated arguments that both parties have come to see as the necessary though undesirable price of an intimate partnership.

Assessment Protocol

When a couple comes to see me specifically because of my expertise in treating partner abuse, I typically employ a four-session protocol. I meet once with the couple, once separately with each partner, and then once more with the couple (or twice, if I need to gather further information or test hypotheses) to deliver my recommendations.

Alternatively, a couple like Mark and Julie may come to see me because they’re having difficulties and have decided to try therapy, and I might not begin to suspect partner abuse until they have seen me a few times. When I recognized the abusive dynamic in Mark and Julie’s relationship, I said to them:

“I think it would be helpful for me to set up an individual appointment with each of you so that you can share your concerns without having to worry about the other person’s reactions. I frequently do this in couples therapy, and given the volatility of today’s session, now seems like a good time.”

With an even more highly volatile couple, I might say something as innocuous as:

“During the last several sessions, I’ve had a chance to see how you interact with each other. As part of our work together, and in order to get to know you better, I’d like to schedule an individual appointment with each of you. I want to find out more about you, your childhood, family history—that sort of thing.”

I wait until the individual sessions to address the issue of confidentiality and “secrets.” With Mark and Julie, I began their separate sessions this way:

“This is a rare opportunity to get together with you, and I’m wondering if there’s anything you’d like me to know that you’re not comfortable saying with your partner in the room? If it’s something you want to tell me in confidence, I can keep it to myself. If it’s something I think would be helpful to discuss in a joint session, I’ll let you know that today, but I won’t disclose anything you don’t want me to.”

I also tell each partner that I would like to ask a series of questions about the kinds of behaviors that have occurred in their relationship. With the abusive partner, I am especially interested to learn whether similar behavior has occurred in any previous relationships, because it counters the common belief that the current partner is in some way responsible for the abuse. For this purpose, I use my own Abusive Behavior Inventory, an abridged version of which is included at the end of this article. I frequently supplement the specific questions on the inventory by inquiring about the first, last, and worst conflicts the couple has had.

Choice of Assessment Tools

To develop the Abusive Behavior Inventory, I spent one dreary weekend reflecting on all the variations of spousal abuse I had encountered during several years’ clinical experience and incorporated them with similar questionnaires employed at two agencies where I worked. I also referred to Patricia Evans’s The Verbally Abusive Relationship: How to Recognize It and How to Respond (Bob Adams, Inc., 1992) and Ann Jones and Susan Schechter’s When Love Goes Wrong: What to Do When You Can’t Do Anything Right (Harper Collins, 1992). An instrument similar to mine is R. M. Tolman’s Psychological Maltreatment Inventory (see “The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by their male partners,” Violence and Victims 4 (3): 159B177, 1989).

I do not employ the self-administered Conflict Tactics Scale, developed and revised by noted researchers Murray Straus, Richard Gelles, and Susan Steinmetz. Despite broad acceptance as a research tool, it has numerous shortcomings in a clinical setting. For example, it measures violence only during the preceding 12 months, even though just one violent incident from many years ago may still be casting a shadow over the relationship. It does not ask whether the violence occurred in self-defense. And it equates acts that are inherently unequal due to men’s generally greater physical size and strength and women’s generally greater level of fear that men’s anger will erupt into abuse.

Using the Abusive Behavior Inventory in the individual interview allows me to uncover whether a pattern of abusive or controlling behaviors exists. This is accomplished best in the context of a clinical interview, for two principal reasons. First, clients provide much more information—factual, psychological, and emotional—than they would with a self-administered questionnaire. Second, clients may be so disturbed by their answers that they need an opportunity to process their reactions.

Comparing their answers side by side is an exceptionally useful diagnostic tool. Couples who corroborate each other’s answers generally exhibit greater awareness of problems in their relationships and are more often motivated to do something about them.

Suspicions Confirmed

As I suspected, my individual meetings with Mark and Julie revealed a long-standing pattern of moderate partner abuse. Despite their earlier contention that their arguments “never get physical,” on several occasions Mark had prevented Julie from leaving the room during an argument by standing in the doorway. Once or twice, he had slapped her shoulder as she walked away. He had grabbed her wrist a few times, in one instance hard enough to leave a bruise. He had also thrown several television remote controls and a cell phone when angry, and he frequently punched walls and slammed doors.

Mark sometimes used what he had learned in couples therapy against Julie: for example, by couching frequent critical and demeaning comments using a distorted version of an “I” statement, or by asserting that she was projecting her father onto him. When Julie raised a sensitive subject, Mark frequently got angry, yelled in her face, declared a time-out, stomped out of the room, and never returned to the issue.

Julie reported that her self-confidence had plummeted over the past few years, and she was feeling helpless and hopeless about her marriage. She said Mark had little sympathy for the chilling effect his behavior had on her libido and often criticized her for her infrequent interest in making love.

Recommendations for Treatment

When Mark, Julie, and I came together following my individual sessions with each of them, my recommendations went something like this:

“I have some thoughts about your therapy and where we go from here. We’ve discussed the issues and difficulties you experience together. For example, neither of you feels adequately appreciated, and you both report difficulty getting the other person to recognize and meet your needs. You’re both pretty good about identifying each other’s shortcomings but not so good about identifying your own. And it’s hard for you, even with me in the room, to discuss sensitive issues without getting into a heated argument.

“I think it’s clear to all of us that the two of you need couples therapy. But I think it’s premature at this point. It’s really just a matter of timing. You’re going to be spinning your wheels until you both have a chance to address your own issues. Then you’ll be able to take advantage of what couples therapy has to offer.”

In recommending separate treatment, there is a risk that the abusive partner will accuse the abused partner of having disclosed sensitive or confidential information that led to the recommendation. To minimize that risk, I cite only the behavior I observed or heard about in meeting with the two of them together when explaining my recommendation. If the abusive partner has acknowledged any abusive behavior—and it is extremely rare for the Abusive Behavior Inventory to bring no abusive behavior to light—I will refer to that as well.

In his individual session, Mark confessed that he had grabbed Julie’s arm once and frequently got so angry that he hit things. He also expressed remorse about it and a desire to change. So I added:

“And I appreciate your forthrightness, Mark, in acknowledging that you grabbed Julie’s arm and you don’t like the way you act when you get angry. That’s definitely something I can help you with.”

In the typical abusive heterosexual relationship, I generally refer the man to a men’s group with a focus on partner abuse (one of my own groups, or a colleague’s). I refer his partner to a group for women in abusive relationships. Other options include individual therapy with a therapist who has experience treating partner abuse, and group therapy for abusive women. I generally refer men who are being abused to individual therapy, since groups for this population are rare.

It is important to be resolute about my recommendations prior to the final assessment session so that I keep to them, whether or not the couple finds them acceptable. One or both partners will sometimes attempt to mount a persuasive argument for being seen together, and occasionally one of them will insist on having therapy together or not at all. My express purpose is to send a clear and unwavering message at this stage of treatment that couples therapy is premature—just as I would regarding family therapy with a parent who currently abused the children or who was an active alcoholic.

Arguments for and against conjoint treatment in cases of partner abuse are often heated and polarized among treatment professionals, in a process that runs parallel to the typical dynamics in an abusive relationship. By training and experience, I believe in the paramount importance of holding the abusive partner (or partners) accountable for his or her actions, regardless of what the other partner says or does. In abusive relationships, couples therapy undermines this goal by communicating, either overtly or by implication, that both partners bear some responsibility for the abuse.

There are practical considerations as well. Abusive couples who leave a session with unresolved issues are more likely to erupt afterwards. (I know, because many years ago I heard them yelling outside my office or pealing out in separate cars!) Additionally, conjoint therapy is generally not productive when control issues distort the therapeutic process or when either party fears serious repercussions for speaking the truth.

When is Couples Therapy Indicated?

Before I would consider treating an abusive couple together, they would have to meet several conditions.

  1. Their answers to the Abusive Behavior Inventory match closely.
  2. Past abuse was moderate to mild; currently, abuse is extremely mild or entirely absent.
  3. The couple can adhere to a contract of no further abuse.
  4. The abused partner is safe, unafraid, and able to mobilize resources if needed.
  5. Both partners are motivated for treatment out of a sincere desire to grow and change.
  6. Both partners are willing to be accountable for their behavior, without blaming the other.
  7. The couple can use basic communication skills in a non-manipulative manner.

In short, couples therapy is appropriate when the dynamics of the relationship, not the abuse, is the proper focus of treatment.

I presented Mark and Julie with two choices. They could each seek treatment with other professionals and keep me in reserve as their couples therapist at some future date. Or I could take Mark into one of my men’s groups, refer Julie to another therapist, and help them find a new couples therapist when Julie’s therapist and I thought they were ready. Mark’s reluctance to join a group, much less one led by a different therapist, led us to conclude that the second option was preferable.

Over the next three years, Mark and Julie both participated in group therapy supplemented by short bouts of individual work. I consulted regularly with Julie’s therapist to coordinate our treatment efforts, and we met together with the two of them from time to time to coach the couple through especially difficult logjams. Once Mark had achieved more than six months of abuse-free behavior, he and Julie began working with a seasoned marriage therapist who understood the dynamics of abuse. Julie ended her group work, but Mark remained for another six months because he had discovered that being accountable to other men helped ensure his continued recovery.

Conclusion

Treating partner abuse is a specialized field. Trainings in recognizing and treating the problem are helpful, but the only way to develop real expertise is through direct experience. To that end, I recommend that you become familiar with an assessment tool like the Abusive Behavior Inventory and practice administering it to a few colleagues. As with any new tool you add to your clinical repertoire, the greater your comfort in using it, the more at ease your clients will be.

Then, the next time you suspect partner abuse, you’ll be ready to assess for it. When you do, share your findings with colleagues, a supervisor, or an expert. If you discover your suspicions are groundless, you can breathe a sigh of relief. If your suspicions are confirmed, refer the couple immediately for further assessment, if necessary, and appropriate treatment. The hazard of proving your suspicions incorrect is small compared to the danger of leaving partner abuse undiagnosed and untreated.

In many ways, Mark and Julie experienced an ideal outcome. Their commitment to each other and to the process of change allowed them to leave their abusive dynamic behind. Mark was able to give up his sense of entitlement and develop greater empathy for Julie. Although some emotional scars remained, the damage was not so severe that Julie was unable to reclaim the genuine affection she had once felt for Mark.

But they were lucky: without any of these factors, a divorce was likely. And without appropriate intervention, the probable outcome would have been an uninterrupted, escalating pattern of abusive behavior, accompanied by additional years of unnecessary pain and suffering and the possible transmission of abuse to the next generation.

Susan Heitler on Couples Therapy

Posted on by rezendevknowfully.com

The Interview

Randall C. Wyatt: Dr. Heitler, it’s good to have you here. Let’s start with how you first got into conflict resolution and marital therapy work?
Susan Heitler: I think this is a profession I have been in since I was 3 or 4 years old. When I was just a child, my parents would battle and I would be the one that would step in and bring some calm or reason to the situation.
RW: Were your parents a high conflict couple?
SH: My father was a high conflict individual and my mother would react but was somewhat clueless about what to do.
RW: So what did you do? How did you intervene as a 3-year-old?
SH: I have a sense of myself as having my two hands up – one facing him, one facing her, standing in the middle like, "Cut it out." Cut it out would be too strong; "enough," "calm down," "Stop, listen, listen!" would have been more like it. (Laughter…)
RW: As you grew up did your parents listen to you much? Did you get them to stop or quit arguing so much?
SH: I think on the whole they did. It is a little bit amusing now that they are elderly, 91 and 86. And when my mother introduces me, she will typically say, "This is my daughter, but she thinks she is my mother." I must say, though, that she was a marvelous, marvelous mother.

RW: Wow! That’s pretty amazing. We have interviewed several master therapists of all stripes on Psychotherapy.net and that is the earliest beginning we have heard. What began to influence you to get into couples work?
SH: I don't recall a single course in couples work being offered at NYU graduate school ('75) nor at my internships, where I got otherwise excellent training. The phenomenon of couples work just didn't exist like it does now. I was fortunate to work with a doctoral fellow from Israel who was studying at Denver and he knew a lot about family therapy and the beginnings of couples work. He suggested readings and we did cases together. And then the rest of my training has been either from seminars and workshops or from listening very closely to couples. Also, conflict resolution theory and techniques have mainly originated in the realms of business negotiation, international relations, and legal mediation, which I have incorporated into my work.

Conflict Resolution and Marriage

RW: When did conflict resolution enter the picture?
SH: I had the notion that what I was doing seemed to be about helping people to resolve conflict, both intrapsychic and interpersonal.

Yet the only time I heard about it was from a one-hour lecture by an organizational psychologist who talked about the new literature on conflict resolution in the world of business. It stunned me that here we were helping people resolve their conflicts and yet not a single therapist that I had met seemed to know squat about conflict resolution. So I filed it in my mind that maybe, someday, I would learn all I could and one day write a book about it, which I did – From Conflict to Resolution.


RW: In the business world, conflict resolution and communication skills are much different then when people are in love or married. Lovers and married folks can be very touchy and can quickly regress, suddenly losing all the communication skills they have ever learned
SH: Yes, I think it's a sad state of affairs that most people behave far more maturely at work than they do at home. Now, the good news is that means most people are bilingual. They do know how to talk in a civil way and, even if they are beginning to get agitated, they will calm themselves down and resolve conflict in a fairly cooperative way. The bad news is how sad it is that we use a lesser language – the language of arguing – at home.
RW: Why do you think it is that lovers, married folks – who begin with such caring and consideration – find they can’t talk about hard things without arguing or withdrawing? They become their worst selves.
SH:
Why do people become more degenerate, more argumentative, more agitated, and more aggressive at home than at work?
Why do people become more degenerate, more argumentative, more agitated, and more aggressive at home than at work? Early on we see the difference. Many children fight a lot with their siblings and yet when they go to school virtually never have a fight with anybody. Even in abusive situations, many abusive spouses handle work conflict in a more collaborative way. There are three main realms where we learn the language of interaction: interacting with siblings and parents, and watching our parents interact. And, there are many more decisions that need to be made in a family.
RW: At home, it becomes a matter of the heart too and the stakes seem that much higher.
SH: Well, the stakes are higher and decisions need to be made about so much: money, whether to have kids, where to live, intimacy and sex, how to treat in-laws, how to treat children, how to spend leisure time, do we watch the football games on TV or do we have people over for dinner, or do we spend a lot of time going out together. Multiply that over and over again about all the decisions involved in making a life as a team, yoked together as partners. Those decisions are not only more quantitatively frequent but they are qualitatively different.

At work, you know for the most part who has power and what the expected roles are. At home, that needs to be negotiated. So, in families where everything becomes an issue, there are often underlying issues about how much power do I have, how much am I listened to? Or does he love me? Does she really care about me? We know that the more emotional intensity there is, the more likely people will regress in their collaborative dialogue skills.

RW: Clearly, as you point out, love is not enough since most couples love each other to begin with.
SH: Shall I give you the good news?
RW: Yes, the next question is: What can be done about that? What can you offer them?
SH: That's exactly what I was thinking about. I have come to see maturity as a function of skills. For example, as a tennis player, I have observed that there are plenty of people who just go out and play tennis. They never raise their skill level. There are others who go out and get some instruction or watch good players on TV or play with better players. Those people are definitely elevating their skills. It's much more fun for me to play tennis when I play better.

Living well as a couple means living with an excellent skill set – a skill set for dealing with conflicts, for dialoguing and sharing information effectively, for relaxing and enjoying life, and also skills for emotional self regulation. So, instead of getting agitated and angry, people stay calm and are able to use their skill sets to deal with difficult issues.

RW: It is nice when someone can communicate directly and calmly, but this seems unrealistic to expect people to just talk so directly and rationally. Some people tend to be more passionate, emotional, and some people are more private, more casual, shy, and some are super rational. People seem to have different ways of arguing and different ways of solving problems. Plus, there is a great deal of cultural variation in communication styles. How does your approach account for all these different ways since a lot of therapies want people to “speak directly, be clear, be rational,” yet that does not seem to fit everyone’s style so well.
SH: Right, there are certainly cultural variations, many of which are harmless. They are like the multiple flavors of ice cream. There are other cultural variations that have a major impact on how collaborative a couple is going to be or how likely they are going to be split off into separate realms. In some cultures, the roles between men and women are more defined and problems are dealt with indirectly instead of through direct communication. In most American couples, however, there is a lot of necessity for husband and wife to be able to make shared decisions, to function as a team. If the goal is to have a collaborative relationship, then there are certain principles of information flow.

I like to tell my patients I work on flow. A good analogy is traffic flow. Cars crash if the traffic is flowing too fast which is the equivalent to too much emotional intensity. Cars also crash if people don't follow simple traffic rules and guidelines.

RW: I have read that if traffic is going less than 30 mph there will be a traffic jam.
SH: This is exactly right. If you never get on the roads at all, you are not going to get where you want to go which is a mistake that many people make. They never even bring up the issues and talk about what is concerning them.
RW: Going another step: people seem to use communication skills and I-messages when they are calm but lose it when stressed out.
SH: The pivotal factor is that the more important the issue, the higher the level of agitation and emotional intensity, and the harder it is to have good communication.
It is just like driving a car, where speeding takes more driving skills but someone with excellent driving skills can still manage 90 mph. In terms of communication skills, most of us can go up to 30-40 mph with ease but we are in trouble when we go faster.
It is just like driving a car, where speeding takes more driving skills but someone with excellent driving skills can still manage 90 mph. In terms of communication skills, most of us can go up to 30-40 mph with ease but we are in trouble when we go faster.
RW: So what should we do when our emotional speed is too hot and we are traveling out of control?
SH: I teach couples that as soon as they are beginning to get out of their effective zone, just take a break and get a glass of water, learn to calm oneself, and then we go through this step by step. I teach each person this shared choreography so they don't feel like the other person is walking out on them. The agreement ahead of time helps monitor their emotional intensity. And, each person is responsible for calming themselves down and rejoining the discussion.

Heitler takes on Gottman’s Unresolvable Problems

RW: And what has your success been in working with couples to teach them these skills and resolve their problems?
SH: A significant proportion of my clients are referred by divorce lawyers. I also get newlyweds and people who are beginning to have some problems. I really like getting the 'last chance' cases. That's what I am known for in Denver, I am sort of the court of last resort. I would say, of those cases, the vast majorities end up with great marriages; they just never had the skill set.

What I hear over and over again is, "I wish someone had taught us these skills when we first got married. All those years and all that dreadful modeling we have done for our children wouldn't have happened. All those years of suffering, all those years of portraying how to make each other miserable wouldn't have happened if we had just known how to interact more maturely, more effectively."

Now does everybody do better? The reality is some people would rather stay how they are. My approach is a kind of a coaching approach to therapy and just like some people will prefer to stay beginners on the tennis court, some people aren't interested in learning in their marriages.

RW: So is learning the skills the whole of it for these couples?
SH: What you said earlier is very true. Once there are deeply felt issues, it evokes strong emotions even if people take breathers, that when they return they become so emotionally reactive on those issues or to each other that they will have a hard time using the skills. So a combination of skills training and therapy is really important.
RW: How and where does therapy enter into your couples work?
SH: In therapy, as people are getting hot, I would be more likely to help them see where their initial issue came from, their own marital issues or family issues from their past. I agree with the research that says skills alone won't work with difficult couples. First, the guidance of a coach who knows the skill set and, secondly, also knows traditional therapy skills of accessing family-of-origin material.
RW: You have questioned Gottman’s findings that often there are certain interpersonal problems couples have that will not be resolved, rather that over the years they will come to manage or work around these repetitive problems. How do you differ from this view?
SH: Yes, Gottman and I have had some dialogue in this regard and I have given him my books From Conflict to Resolution and The Power of Two. He has looked at them and said, "Yes, that's very interesting." I have been told by others that he refers to my work on conflict resolution in a positive way.
I have continued to hear Gottman say that some conflicts can't be resolved, that conflict resolution is an unrealistic goal. I take great exception to that.
I have continued to hear Gottman say that some conflicts can't be resolved, that conflict resolution is an unrealistic goal. I take great exception to that.
RW: Let’s hear it.
SH: Gottman and others have contributed excellent research on marital communication skills, but his writings do not include the advances in the conflict resolution theory that enable fights to transform into cooperative problem-solving and conclude with mutually satisfactory, win-win solutions – this is where my work is focused.

If there are conflicts between two people who have the cognitive flexibility to really listen to each other and work together till they can come out with win-win solutions, then those conflicts can be resolved. Of course, I would say that we all know some people aren't willing to learn the skills of win-win conflict resolution, but that is the exception. For example, I get conflicts about whether to have children or how many children to have. I have had a number of those cases in my practice and they have always come up with excellent win-win solutions. You would think either we are going to have a baby or not have a baby and that should be a zero-sum game, right? Wrong! It's how you decide to have a baby or if you decide not to have a baby. So even that is quite amenable to a win-win conflict resolution.

Hot Buttons: Geography and Religion

RW: You and Gottman seem to agree that some couples don’t solve their problems, but you emphasize that with the motivation to learn, most issues can be worked through. I would like to see this debated with Gottman, but, for now, what are the most difficult conflicts that you find couples having?
SH: There are some conflicts that are inherently more difficult, the two most difficult issues being geography and religion.
RW: I thought it was politics and religion.
SH: Right now, politics – I have found, that if people have very good skills, that most people can listen to the underlying concern and let it go after awhile.
RW: So then what about geography and religion?
SH: There are deep attachments that people often form not only to their family that might live in a certain area but also to the land. Now, I do think the more mature and more flexible people are, the easier it is.

I am thinking of one poignant couple, for instance, where she was rather a brittle person who felt very much of a New Englander. Now, myself coming from New England, I can identify with that. She grew up in an old small subculture there and she felt safe there, she felt she belonged. Unfortunately, her husband, a lovely fellow who had been very successful in business, went through 3 or 4 years where he was unemployed. It was terrifying for him since he wanted to support his family. Finally, he got a job in the Southwest and she tried to move with him but just couldn't do it. She wasn't able or willing to make new friends. She strongly missed being away from her parents and felt they needed her since she was the only child. It was multi-dimensional and a very difficult issue to find a middle ground on.

Now, remember conflict can be at a shared decision making or conflict resolution level. Shared decision making is what we call the process if it's going smoothly. We call it conflict resolution if the couple is getting oppositional. In this case, they were going beyond oppositional to desperate because they each felt so strongly wedded to their own concerns and unable to embrace it in a broader way to take into account the concerns of their partner.

RW: A very difficult situation, certainly. I saw a couple recently where the man felt strongly that they should move to the country so the kids could have a more peaceful life in a small community. And his wife felt they should stay in the suburbs near her friends and family. They both believed strongly that God was leading them to follow their own path in this matter and they went round and round on it.
SH: With religion too, that is double trouble.
RW: Since they were so adamant, I said, “Maybe God wants you to get divorced, the way things are going.”
SH: And then that would pose problems for me because I see myself very much as a pro-marriage therapist.
RW: My comment was tongue in cheek, said to make the point that they were falling into a trap of using God to support their personal preferences as a fixed solution that they had both become entrenched in; yet it was not merely an either-or solution.
SH: So this situation is extremely difficult.
RW: They actually share many of the same values and goals, but have different ideas about how to accomplish them. Understanding their shared values brought the conversation to a manageable level.
SH: Excellent! And again, if they are flexible, they would find some way to go to the country for the summers and live in the city during the school year.
RW: Yes, they are going in that direction for now at least – they live in the suburbs and go hiking and camping more often.
SH: And that takes both cognitive flexibility and financial flexibility that some people realistically just don't have. So, are there always options? Yes. Are they always within what the couple realistically can do? Once in a while, you find a real difficulty.
RW: Can you speak briefly on religion and marriage?
SH: Religion brings on non-negotiables. For instance, if you are an orthodox Jew, you just don't drive on Saturdays. You don't eat certain foods in certain places. You don't bring certain kinds of food into your home. As a reformed Jew, you can have greater flexibility in these matters. Basically the choices are doing things the more religious person's way, or finding someone whose lifestyle is more like your own. Now even that's not 100% true because there are plenty of orthodox Jews who think flexibly and creatively, who have married less observant spouses, and they find some way to accommodate each other's needs.

Changing the Argument Cycle

RW: You have done lots of consultations with therapists and trainings. What do you find are common mistakes therapists make in working with couples
SH: I see the same pattern everywhere. First, even experienced therapists are quite clueless about how to do conflict to resolution approaches. Second, virtually everyone takes too long to intervene with couples. So when I demo a case or when people watch my video that demos a case, one of the first comments I virtually always get is…
RW: I have seen the video, so it is striking to see how quickly you intervene and interrupt the arguing.
SH: If I am on my toes, they would never argue in my office because I intervene preemptively. Do you intervene after a car has rolled off a cliff or do you intervene when it begins to hit the soft shoulder? In fact, I intervene when they are just beginning to cross the line where there is still a little place before they go on the soft shoulder.

If a couple is accustomed to arguing, that means a lot of intervention. Intervention not just after they have argued but lots of setting them out to do it right. So, for instance, one person starts to says something… I can see the "b" of the word "but" forming on their mouth so I would interrupt them right there and offer alternatives.

RW: What is your thinking behind interrupting them and stopping their argument? Many couples therapists and writers will let them go on but try to help them argue better?
SH:
Well, I don't know what they mean by "argue better." It's an oxymoron from my point of view. Effective dialogue is almost always collaborative. Emotion and passion are fine but only up to a point.
Well, I don't know what they mean by "argue better." It's an oxymoron from my point of view. Effective dialogue is almost always collaborative. Emotion and passion are fine but only up to a point.

I am referring particularly to what I call crossovers when people are labeling others or speaking for the other person versus people speaking for themselves. Are they listening to take in information or they are listening like a hockey goalie to bat it away? Did they digest what the other person said out loud or do they just move on to their own thought? So there can be a perfectly civil collaborative tone but each person ignores what the other says rather than what I call breathing the dialogue. The couple needs to have a positive experience versus just repeating what goes on at home.

Also, many people don't know how to ask good questions. In other words, the alternative to you-messages is not just I-messages, it's good questions. Good questions almost always begin with "What?" or "How?" and many people don't know how to ask those questions. Lastly, many couples lock into a tug-of-war over "I want X," – "No, I want Y." Many people don't know how to switch levels to the underlying concerns that fuel such tensions.

Sharing Therapist Reactions in Couples Work

RW: Couples therapy involves the couple’s relationship and you have a relationship with them too. Are there times when you share your own reactions, personal feelings, your own life stories with clients?
SH: Well, I assume you might have noticed already I get tearful easily, so when I am touched, I am not going to fight it – it shows. And couples have often given me feedback later that my getting tearful in response was meaningful to them.
RW: What about anger coming out or other emotions that are not so tender?
SH: I do have anger. I am a human being and anger is very, very important as a feeling to know when something is wrong. So I use my feelings of anger to validate for myself when I feel that a couple or an individual is getting off track. For instance, I recently found myself getting very angry with a teenager in a family session with her parents. Did I act in an angry manner towards her? No! Did she hear some built-up tension and the firm manner of my voice? Yes! You could label her borderline or you could just say she had real difficulty self-soothing, very quickly misinterprets what is going on, and becomes angry and provocative; she had controlled her parents forever in this way.

So I used my anger in service of the work by allowing myself to feel my own anger and express my experience with her parents… that this girl evoked that response in me and does so with others as well, but the parents continued to enable this oppositional behavior. I essentially told them they needed to address it, talk quietly with her about this, and help her learn skills so she would not continue to be provocative in that way. But I showed them how anger could be used well instead of just going head-to-head with her.

RW: That is nice. It seems more and more therapists of various orientations are using their own reactions to bring about more immediacy in the session, which seems to lead to a more real and effective therapeutic engagement.
SH: That is a very good question for therapists: when and how do you share aspects of your life? The technique I most often use is if there is something in my own life that is relevant to them, I will talk about it in the third person or from a general perspective. At the same time, it's a little too complicated and risky to talk about oneself. But I don't have that as an ironclad rule. There are times when being able to share something about my own world facilitates the normalization of what they are experiencing. At the same time, it's their therapy, it's not my therapy. So that's got me wondering: do I not want to talk too much about myself?
RW: Too much or too little would be a problem.
SH: I think one can't err very often on the side of too little. If you never talk about yourself, I think that's fine. There are moments when something in my own experience could be very relevant and very helpful.

Saving Marriages

RW: Let’s go back to what you meant by pro-marriage. You said that you are pro-marriage and your website states that you specialize in saving marriages.
SH: Correct. Marriage happens to be good for people and there is very good research now out. For example, Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher summarize the research very well. The research shows that people who are married are more fortunate than those who are not in terms of money, sex life, happiness, as well as physical and mental health. Now there are some exceptions to that. In general unmarried women do better than unmarried men. But, on the whole, marriage – particularly a good marriage – is a great blessing in people's lives. I think it's important to therapists to be unequivocal that marital health is good for people and marriage is a great blessing. And even the average kind of marriage seems to be far better for couples for the most part and particularly for men than a divorce.
RW: How does getting divorced or being single play into it?
SH: It's one thing to be single and it's another to be divorced. It turns out that people who have always been single adjust fairly well in life. More and more research is coming out showing not only negative consequences of divorce for the children, but also physical consequences for the couple as far as 20 years down the road. So, you can see why I am pro-marriage. 'Marriage friendly therapist' is the going term now. There is a new website at marriagefriendlytherapist.com.
RW: Marriage friendly therapist?
SH: Yes, my approach is friendly and supportive of marriage and I am dedicated to teaching people how to do it better. At the same time, nothing is simple. It is one thing to be rigidly against divorce and I certainly would not put myself in that category. There are definitely marriages that should be terminated. All people have the right to be safe in their marriage.
RW: So that’s what I was going to ask you, do you ever see couples and think, “Why did they even get married?” or “They should get a divorce.” What do you then?
SH: I lay it on the line to them. For instance, I remember one couple that I worked with over a period of months. She was a very fast-talking, highly energetic woman from New York, a very successful entrepreneur. He was a slow-moving guy, nice looking but kind of laidback Appalachian kid who had grown up in a dirt-poor environment. They had economic clashes plus educational, lifestyle and income differences. She was doing fabulously. He could barely hold a job. They used to argue a lot about everything since his way was radically different from her way.

Yet I was able to teach them some skills and help them to see their family of origin and cultural roots in context. But no real progress was made,
and at some point, I said to them, "I hate to admit this but I truthfully can't see how I can help you make a real marriage out of this. I can't see how to bring the two of you together. I see on each issue that we discussed such radical differences. I don't see how it can work."
and at some point, I said to them, "I hate to admit this but I truthfully can't see how I can help you make a real marriage out of this. I can't see how to bring the two of you together. I see on each issue that we discussed such radical differences. I don't see how it can work." I apologized to them.

To my surprise, they came back the next week and said, "Thank you so much. That was so helpful. We have stopped fighting." They came a few more times and I did not see them for years. I ran into her downtown one day and she told me an amazing story. She said that about three months after they finished therapy, she was diagnosed with breast cancer and he was an angel to her. His real mission in life… this story still makes me cry when I tell it now…was to care for her. And he was so loving, so marvelous. That's really why she made it through. It makes me tear up just to think of them.

RW: It seems you’re admitting how difficult their situation was and your sense of helplessness gave them a way to look at reality and do something about it. Plus, they rose to their life crisis in a way that transformed their lives.
SH: Absolutely. And this was maybe 10 years ago. I saw them recently and they said that they have continued to have a marriage where they both feel very blessed to have each other.
RW: What touched you so much about this couple?
SH: I think probably the limits of my own or of any therapist's ability to know what's good for another couple. They knew at a deep level that they were somehow meant to be together. So I could do what I could do, teach them a few skills, help them see the differences in their background and implications of that. I could go part of the journey with them and that was okay. And such a single limit of my… oh no I will start to get tearful again… of my ability to have to do more there, that there are bigger forces than therapists in the world and fortunately they take care of these things.

Now, at the same time, there are couples that the research would certainly say they ought to get divorced. If couples are fighting a lot, the research is unambiguous that it's better for the children for them to disengage; a climate of war in the house is not conducive to child rearing. Medved and Quayle partnered on a fine book called The Case Against Divorce where they outline 9 factors where divorce is indicated.

What to do with Secrets in Couples Work?

RW: What is your approach to seeing couples together and individually, and how do you deal with secrets?
SH: That's a very important question. I have written an article, Combined Individual/ Maritial Therapy: A Conflict Resolution Framework and Ethical Considerations, that sets me at odds from the conventional wisdom in the field. If a couple is in individual work with another therapist, I make it my policy not to see them in couples therapy unless the individual therapy is done with me. The individual and couples work needs to be under the guidance of one person or else it just doesn't work. If the therapy is split among therapists, they are almost inevitably going to have two different databases so that the therapist becomes a source of iatrogenic doctor-induced damage.
RW: I would think this is even more so with high conflict clients, though yes, it goes against the grain in the field.
SH: The therapist is unable to correct the distortions because they can't see for themselves what the other person is doing. The client in individual therapy presents as being so perfectly nice, very warm, very nurturing, very interested in changing… you see their healthiest side. Many times I saw this in working with just one person then was stunned to see what happens when they are interacting with their spouse.
RW: How do you set up who comes in to see you?
SH: If they are in a relationship or married, we encourage them to come in from the very first session as a couple. Then we will work out to what extent they do individual work, couples work, or some combination of both. Also, when you are stuck in the couples work, switch to individual and you will find out what the 'stuckness' is about. I recommend that they each do a similar number of individual sessions. The client is able to relax and speak more freely, take in new information, or experiment with new stances in a way they may not be allowing themselves to do while the other is watching. Then you have more leverage with that person when you return to the couples work. In real troubled couples, I will consistently see them both alone and together.
RW: What about keeping secrets and confidentiality in this flexible approach?
SH:

It is very important that a therapist have a policy and state it clearly in the first session. The prevailing policy seems to be that there are no secrets: if you tell me something in session, I have the option of disclosing it to the other.

I am truthfully horrified by this no-secrets perspective because it means that if one person really does have some information they don't want the other party to know about for whatever reason, they are not going to disclose it to me.
I am truthfully horrified by this no-secrets perspective because it means that if one person really does have some information they don't want the other party to know about for whatever reason, they are not going to disclose it to me.

After laying out the foundation of confidentiality, I turn to each of them and say, "When I work with either of you alone, the confidentiality that I am bound by limits keep me from saying to your spouse what we have talked about. Each of you can trust in that privacy." Then I explain that they are free to speak with each about their own therapy or to play the session tape because I audiotape every session and give them the tape so they can listen to it. I am the only one that's bound by confidentiality. The tape, by the way, radically increases a therapist's effectiveness since patients benefit greatly from listening to the session.

RW: Many experienced couples therapists I know take an approach that gives each person confidentiality in their own sessions. But I agree with you that the no-secrets approach seems to predominate in graduate training. New therapists are afraid of keeping any secrets for fear of becoming confused about who said what. My experience has been that people keep private things all the time in life and people appreciate it in therapy as well. You don’t necessarily tell one good friend what another friend said about them. With tact and permission, I find that most people want to bring out important issues in the couples session as well.
SH: Exactly. And people tell their spouse information and they don't expect them to tell others. Privacy and maintaining boundaries of privacy is an important maturity skill. I think I learned this lesson years ago when I saw one of my first couples and, sure enough, it was a situation where the man was having an affair. I don't know why it happened that he spoke alone with me at some point, but we had one session on the affair. Through that session, he realized, "I don't want to be having this affair. I want to get out but feel so stuck in it," which is so common. And so we role-played how you end such a relationship and he learned that skill set. He ended it and we subsequently went on to deal with their problems and concerns which we handled virtually immediately.

I saw them some 15 years later when I was downtown.
remember thinking, "Thank heavens I disobeyed the conventional wisdom of the time and did not insist that everything come out in the open."
remember thinking, "Thank heavens I disobeyed the conventional wisdom of the time and did not insist that everything come out in the open." My guess is he has never told her; it was one of those stupid mistakes people do. They have a wonderful relationship. They never wished for Humpty Dumpty to fall apart. And I at least have no responsibility for whether he told her or didn't tell her. I care that they have raised five wonderful children and have a great marriage.

Heitler’s Husband and Tennis Coach Teach Her Some Things

RW: On a different note, what have you learned from your own relationship and marriage to help you in being a couples therapist?
SH: A lot. If it doesn't work at home, I am surely not going to teach other people to do it. My husband has been my accomplice or coach in this whole practice of learning about what principles keep data flow moving comfortably, playfully, effectively. He's been wonderful about that.
RW: Do you have an example?
SH: There is the classic therapist dilemma which is when I know the rules and he doesn't in terms of effective dialogue. It's not going to work for me to coach him when we are in the middle of the discussion because that's what I call a crossover, telling him what to do. And what my husband taught me to do was use my own ideas with him. I can talk about myself or I can ask about him. But it's not for me to either examine his way of talking or tell him how to talk or what to feel or think. So all I can do is model it or ask "How?" and "What?" questions myself.
RW: What about for therapists who are married to one another; often people think they should have some perfect relationship…
SH: And they should.
RW: Really?
SH: If they can't do it at home, what are they doing talking to other people? Would you want a tennis coach who can't play tennis?
RW: We would want a tennis coach who can learn from his mistakes and could correct them, but I think therapists can overanalyze things to a point where it gets in the way of living life. Indeed, some coaches are so good at their sport that they become perfectionists and can’t coach beginners well. Some of the best coaches are just fair players.
SH: That would not be enough for me if he really wasn't good at the game. But yes, some great players have forgotten what beginners do. So I think one doesn't have to have a perfect relationship. One does have to have a good strong skill set, like my current tennis teacher, Charles, who I am very fond of.
RW: I can tell. What makes you so fond of him?
SH: He is a dear of a person, has a marvelous eye for what the next technique is that would move me to the next level of playing. And part of the fun is that although he is a good player, I can still win some points off him. He reminds me of what it is like to be a great therapist.
RW: Let’s hear more about that. What about his coaching is like being a therapist?
SH: As long as I feel like I am learning every single lesson from him, I feel like I still want to be taking lessons from him. He is actually a very unusual tennis coach in terms of where he came from in life. He is an African American fellow in his 20s who grew up in a very poor area where for years he was doing all the riskiest things in his life. But he has always been a very good athlete who had a great tennis coach. Eventually, the head coach at my tennis center found him and said, "Hey this guy is a gem," because he has strong skills and has an engaging charismatic, fun personality. Charles just lets himself be Charles out there. He is upbeat, full of enthusiasm when I do things well, like he really cares how I do. He's really in there, connected with me. So I think what I am saying is that therapy too should be skill-based work and fun.
RW: Good coaching and good therapy have lots in common. What other advice would you give for young to mid-ranged therapists?
SH: You can't coach if you have no skill sets, so a therapist has got to really be well-schooled in at least the main couples techniques that I set out in my book The Power of Two. To me, those are the skill sets that one needs to be a quality therapist.
RW: What about the ability to form a positive relationship or working alliance with couples, to be able to approach problems in a collaborative way?
SH: The ability to have an alliance with a couple is a function of therapist attunement to the couple. If you are only listening without also being a person there commenting on what you hear, then you don't have attunement or a relationship. So I spend very little time at the outset of therapy worrying about building a relationship. I build a relationship because I am an attuned and responsive human being as we talk about their problems. Within the first five minutes of seeing a new patient where we are interacting, I am in there with them.
RW: You are not building a therapeutic relationship, you are having one.
SH: I love that way of describing it.

Heitler's Hats
Coaching Hat: Teach people the skills that enable them to have successful relationships. These intrapsychic and interpersonal skills facilitate self acceptance, coping with stress, emotional self-soothing, and soothing of others. Couples can learn these skills, be prompted, and can reinstate them after failing to use them in a tense situation.
Healer Hat: Use traditional therapy skills to understand the patient's past, family-of-origins issues, understand depression, anxiety, anger, obsessive compulsive and addictive disorders and know how to reduce or eliminate the symptoms.
Mediator Hat: Walk people through their intrapsychic and interpersonal conflict. Help them to tolerate emotional exploration while using the dialogue and question skills that enable them to keep moving forward in the three steps of conflict resolution: express initial position, explore underlying concerns, and create mutually satisfactory solutions responsive to all the concerns of the participants.





Still Having Fun

RW:
SH: Obviously after more than 30 years in the field…
RW: Obviously you have kept your enthusiasm in the field and it shows. What is it that still excites you about the work?
SH: Like with my tennis coach, I enjoy my clients and the work. I am playful, we laugh a lot, we have a good time. I don't think therapy has to be this deeply serious thing all the time. Certainly, there are issues that carry more emotional weight and need to be given their due. Even more than that, when I think of all the next generations that are benefiting from their parent's growth, because the skill sets get passed on from generation to generation. We therapists are very, very fortunate to be able to have this kind of impact on our world and the generations to come. And it's also a great fortune to be able to spend one's life making other people's lives radically better.
RW: Thanks for sharing your work and yourself with us today. I agree it has been fun.
SH: I have enjoyed it as well, thank you.