Human relationships are complex webs woven with threads of joy, laughter, and shared dreams, but they can also bring challenges, conflicts, and moments of uncertainty. When therapists receive a call saying “we’ve tried many things and we’re stuck, please help us,” the assumption of most therapists is that both parties must be present in the office to begin the process. But we are writing this to tell you that both parties do not necessarily need to be there.
We have written this blog to share how you can have an impact on a couple and their system by promoting change with just one member—the one who is most willing to work. We are a minimalist systemic model that aims to save time, money, and quickly advance therapy. We use this initial flexibility to work only with the motivated person in the couple as a means to an end, or sometimes as a starting point to eventually involve the other partner in therapy. We do not need both parties to agree to create a positive impact for both.
What kind of problems can we address with just one member of the couple?
When one person in a committed relationship seeks help, they are trying to resolve something that is causing them pain. By the time someone seeks help, they have often already tried many things to solve the issue and, to their frustration, have not gotten the desired result. We know that pain manifests in different ways for different people, and we treat each couple as unique. Their descriptions of the problem guide us to find the tipping point that, when implemented, will bring about a different outcome—a shift in the desired direction. We can apply this Problem-Solving Model to infidelity, financial issues, parenting problems, communication, symmetrical escalations, life transitions, and decision-making. These are some of the obvious problems, but we can also use this model effectively when alcohol, gambling, eating disorders, or nearly any issue is affecting a relationship.
How is our model different and, therefore, more effective?
We emphasize motivation and figure out who is interested in working on what from the beginning. In fact, once you practice this model, one of the first questions when someone calls for couples therapy is: “How eager is your partner to come with you?” The word “eager” is helpful because it means a lot of what we’re looking for: the willingness to work toward positive change. Once our “client” is in front of us, we build a therapeutic alliance with them, and for this, we don’t need to wait for both partners to be equally committed or share the exact same goal. We also focus on what problem is manifesting here and now, as a way to use motivation to set the pace for our sessions and work with the client on sustainable change.
Our choice is sometimes to do solution-focused couples therapy with just one partner.
We know that there is a communication loop, also known as a feedback loop, that occurs when conflict escalates or when power is divided in a way that keeps couples stuck. Our premise is that if we change one significant element, communication will necessarily change. In a tennis match, we don’t need both players to lower their rackets to end the game, we just need one person to lower it to stop the game. This is especially helpful when one person wants the change more than the other, or for any reason, only one person is willing to truly invest in therapy.
Rather than pressuring someone to invest, and especially when they historically resist when pushed, we can promote change with the willing person or the person who is suffering the most. Karin currently has an example of someone who contacted her for couples therapy. When, after a couple of weeks, she hadn’t received a response, she wrote a brief note asking if they were still interested. The response came quickly: “I’m trying to motivate my spouse to join because, in my experience, we both need to be there. That’s what my two previous couples therapists said.” Karin responded that, based on her experience, that wasn’t necessary.
She has been working with this person now for a couple of months and, wow, there have been changes! The work has involved focusing on how the person has approached the problem in the past that hasn’t worked and finding a way for them to do something different that interrupts the problematic cycle. Often, we can analyze the feedback cycle of communication and consider the other partner’s perspective, even without them being present. We can make it explicit: “I can almost hear your partner’s point of view on this: they would say that you haven’t been as involved in parenting, or that you haven’t earned most of the household income.” It is common practice to emphasize communication when working with someone who reports relational problems and distress. However, we provide an exceptional lens that allows us to focus on communication with just one partner, because when one partner acts differently, new options become clear for the couple, and the problematic feedback cycle is harder to maintain. We aim to interrupt the painful problematic pattern. Sometimes it’s quicker to do this with just one partner.
Couples therapy results: Are they sustainable with just one partner?
Here’s an example of a case. A couple came to Esther during a period of high conflict. Their main complaints were weekend blowups and constant arguments. They came from two cultures: their ideas about work-life balance differed, as did their communication styles. One was concrete and structured, while the other was abstract and spontaneous. In many ways, they complemented each other, which worked well in some areas, and no one had complaints about it.
However, on weekends in particular, and on issues related to parenting, they would get into shouting matches that escalated to intimidation and hostility. They alternated between avoidance and provoking each other. In the first two sessions, it seemed like both were committed to change and had identified the goal of listening to each other better and accepting each other’s limitations. They had agreed to work on these goals, especially around parenting and making the most of unstructured weekend time. However, in the third session, it became clear that the husband was saying “yes, but” to interventions, and although he agreed to implement strategies, he wasn’t following through. This created additional escalation. The wife became more frustrated, and we decided that she would continue therapy without her husband, as, from her perspective, he was showing up for sessions but not changing any behaviors.
She was very interested in controlling her temper, and there were plenty of opportunities for her to work on that. We were able to use counterintuitive interventions when conflict arose, which is often the tipping point toward something new. When they would start arguing, she would say, “Is this going to be our big fight of the weekend? I only have energy for one big fight, is this what we’re going to use it on?” Or she would say, “We’ve been getting along for a few hours, I suspect a fight is coming—will it be about parenting or who gets half an hour to themselves?” If they spent an entire day without fighting, she was asked to invent a fight, either about parenting or how to spend the free time before the day ended. However, each time they fought, she was asked to set a timer and stop after 5 minutes, regardless of whether the discussion was going anywhere. She was also asked to allow her partner 5 minutes to vent when he did so, but not give in to any of his demands or requests when he was in that state. Simply let him vent but not give in to the demands.
We implemented each of these strategies over the course of a month, one at a time, based on motivation and the ability to follow through. This client had a good sense of humor, which played a role in these interventions. We don’t recommend implementing these strategies suddenly with all your clients who argue; we guarantee it will take careful consideration with each client, their complaints, and the specific context of their partnership.
Over time, she began to choose to walk away from arguments by stopping herself and responding differently when her partner was shouting. She also began rebelling against the idea of inventing a fight on the weekends. Then we discussed what amount of fighting was acceptable, and the acceptable amount was one big fight a month and a dispute that could be easily recovered from. She met that goal, and their weekend fights were resolved at a manageable level, and conflict was no longer a problem. Her husband also learned a trick or two from her, which is part of the positive change in the feedback cycle and then reinforces the positive change.
Does solution-focused therapy work with more complex problems too?
Yes, Problem-Solving Brief Therapy works with many problems presented. When people begin to think in terms of possibilities and act differently, relationships and the system change. We don’t have to teach a new language for people to change their approach in one area. However, we do need to approach each couple as unique, so when we recognize what doing something different would look like, we can communicate it in a way that aligns with their motivation. We also have to ensure that it’s a realistic expectation for where the client currently is and their ability to move forward.
Effective and sustainable couples therapy doesn’t need to take years.
When we take the time to figure out who is interested in working and what, we can implement changes much more precisely. When we allow people to rise to the challenge when they are clear, we empower couples to handle their part of the relationship without overdoing it and likely reinforcing the negative patterns that have kept them stuck. When we do this, we’re not just helping the couple get unstuck, but we are also modeling how to use problem-solving in the future to prioritize and manage goals, behavior, and communication. We know that most people are busy and postpone therapy or abandon it because of time commitments, financial commitments, and also because of the pressure and stigma surrounding it. Often, couples don’t come in because one partner refuses. When we empower one partner to implement change, we are no longer giving them fish, but teaching them to fish for themselves.
