The Process of Couple Healing Following Infidelity

Clients’ Relational Conceptions of Conjoint Couple and Family Therapy Quality: A Grounded Formal Theory

“…In conjoint couple and family therapy, clients seem to prefer a sense of balance on the part of therapists in their interactions with all family members. This apparent desire is sometimes expressed by clients as wanting therapists (a) to make both partners feel heard and acknowledged (Bowman & Fine, 2000), (b) to give partners equal time (Wark, 1994a), (c) to remain “neutral and non‐blaming” (Bird et al., 2007, p. 13), (d) to not permanently align with one spouse, (e) to understand each family member’s perspective, (f) to give all partners the opportunity to express themselves (Christensen et al., 1998), and (g) to avoid entering “into triangles with their client(s)” (Davis & Piercy, 2007, p. 349). This sense of balance is expressed in terms of the therapists’ abilities to act as a conduit and buffer for couple interaction (Gehart‐Brooks & Lyle, 1999) in the manner of “a mediator who facilitates softening by heightening positive interaction and encouraging” (Andersson et al., 2006, pp.…”

“…Family members appear to recognize this balancing of the needs of individuals within the context of the whole family or couple (Allen & St. George, 2001) as a positive part of the therapists’ facilitation of face‐to‐face interactions. If done well, clients will experience their therapists as conducting therapy with the family or couple collectively, instead of serial individual sessions (Bird et al., 2007). Conversely, when clients feel therapists are focusing too much on one family member’s agenda and perspective at the expense of those of the other family members, they can become frustrated and can perceive the therapist as being biased (Bischoff & McBride, 1996; Bowman & Fine, 2000; Kuehl et al., 1990).…”

“…Clients seemed to differ on how directive they wanted their therapists to be (Wark, 1994b), with some clients calling for therapists to strike a balance between structuring the session (James et al., 2006) and allowing the session to “flow” (Andersson et al., 2006; Davis & Piercy, 2007). Areas in which clients appeared to want therapists to direct the flow of communication included (a) helping couples to attend constructively to the positive aspects of their interactions (Bird et al., 2007), (b) instructing clients to repeat positive comments when it seemed their partners had not heard them (Andersson et al., 2006), (c) normalizing behaviors and helping to create a sense that clients could overcome their difficulties and create change (Bird et al., 2007), (d) setting ground rules related to improving listening and lessening or eliminating any type of verbal abuse (Bowman & Fine, 2000), (e) encouraging participation in enactments (Andersson et al., 2006), (f) assigning homework (Sells, Smith, & Moon, 1996), and (g) helping to close sessions positively (Bowman & Fine, 2000). Those clients preferring less directive therapists expressed interest in a therapist style of listening, collaborating, being responsive, and not following an agenda too closely (Stanbridge et al., 2003).…”

“…Family members discussed the importance of therapists in helping to set goals and objectives for therapy, especially when this process was perceived as being collaborative and fitting with clients’ understandings of their problems and core issues (Beck, Friedlander, & Escudero, 2006; Bird et al., 2007; Bowman & Fine, 2000; St. James O’Connor et al., 1997; Stanbridge et al., 2003).…”

“…James O’Connor et al., 1997; Stanbridge et al., 2003). Clients preferred therapists who “accommodated not only the clients’ general goals of therapy, but also when therapists adapted to the clients’ needs session‐by‐session” (Bird et al., 2007, p. 9). In this collaborative endeavor, clients favored therapists who provided feedback on the goals and helped clients in “mapping realistic expectations for therapy” (Bird et al., 2007, p. 9).…”