Abstract
The authors introduce a couple’s planned renegotiation matrix as an example of a relationship problem-solving activity. It is based on a planned renegotiation model originally proposed by Sherwood and Glidewell. The couple is then invited to complete their own matrices based on the model. Following a couple case study example, 15 additional relationship problem-solving activities conclude the article.
Keywords
Benjamin Franklin said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” (Independence Hall Association, n.d.). Unfortunately, too many couples realize there is a serious relationship challenge only after a crisis has developed requiring some type of resolution. The longer and more chronic the remedial intervention is required, the lower the prognosis for improvement will be. The purpose of the present article is to summarize a problem-solving development model the authors have found useful in a systems approach to both prevention and early remediation of relationship challenges.
The activity is organized as follows: An overview to a planned renegotiation model is included. The model is visually summarized by a Planned Renegotiation: A Preventative Quiver in the Liver Model chart created by coauthors Russo and Straub. Using the Couple’s Planned Renegotiation Matrix (CPRM) you as a couple are then invited to complete your own examples relating to the problem-solving developmental model. An example of a completed matrix is presented. A brief review of planned renegotiation is included. The article concludes with next-step implications and applications for you as a couple. Additional problem-solving activities developed by Eckstein and colleagues are identified.
The Planned Renegotiation Model
Sherwood and Glidewell (1973) have devised the following developmental process for viewing relationships.
First dates are notorious for both the awkwardness and the potential curiosity coupled with hopes and excitements as the relationship develops. Mutual likes/dislikes, interests, and needs are explored during phase one. “What kind of music/movies/books do you like? Who has most influenced you? What are your primary needs/wishes/hopes? What are your core philosophical/spiritual beliefs?” are typical initial developmental issues.
Commitment
Assuming there are no major nonnegotiable issues, the relationship progresses to phase two. This is characterized by some type of commitment based on shared expectations relative to each other’s roles and behaviors. Such an agreement should result in a feeling of trust and security. These are the conditions highly correlated to a productive interrelationship.
When commitment to a set of shared expectations takes place, each member’s role is defined. Each member knows for the most part, what is expected and what to expect from the other person. The strength of the commitment is a measure of the level of the importance of the relationship in the individual’s life. “We are now going steady” is one form of commitment; “We don’t date other people” or “We are only sexually intimate with each other” are examples of different types of commitment.
Stability and Productivity
When there is a commitment to a set of shared expectations, a feeling of stability develops within the relationship. Productivity is not just a work-related outcome. Rather, it signifies the joy and happiness due to the synergy. This comes from the combining of individuals' separate personal selves. Stability does not guarantee productivity. However, it is necessary for productive work to occur.
Disruption
Eventually, some type of disruption is characteristic of most long-term relationships. A disruption occurs because a partner never shares information completely during the formative periods of a relationship. It also happens because, as open systems, people change as a result of interactions and changes within their environments. Disruptions can be external in origin, such as the birth of a child in the marriage. Partners also change as a result of new experiences, training, and education. There is an internal origin component of change. For example, the women’s movement has created a desire for new job descriptions for many females. The current male bonding—back to nature—drumming ceremony is a parallel example. But when the changed person returns to the unchanged fixed role, expectations may be violated which can lead to a disruption of the relationship.
Change can also happen when expectations are no longer fixed. New information is thus possible. Another cycle of sharing expectations, commitment, stability, and productivity is possible.
The paradox of the model is that at the very moment when the system is most open to change, there are also equally strong inhibiting forces working to return to the way it used to be. Often dealing with the anxiety created by the uncertainty of the rules and expectations leads to what Leon Festinger (1964) refers to as cognitive dissonance, a desire for equilibrium or homeostasis once more.
As John Kennedy observed in a speech on April 12, 1959, the two Chinese symbols for crisis are both danger and opportunity (in Thomsett, l990). The danger in the disruption phase relates to the anxiety and the uncertainty, which comes when the roles and behaviors are unclear to each partner the opportunity. Change is most possible during such a situation.
An outside the marriage relationship is one of the most concrete examples of a disruption. Previously an implicit or explicit commitment to monogamy existed—openness, trust, and honesty were by-products of such a commitment. When a disruption occurs, surest way to reduce that anxiety is for the relationship to return once again to the way things used to be. This is often a ritualized commitment to prior expectations, such as a perfunctory apology, handshake, or embrace, without admitting the new information that is now available into the system. The cost of such a decision is that the relationship generally remains closed to change. For example, by saying, “I’m sorry; I was wrong; everything is now okay;” nothing is actually changed.
During the time of disruption, you as a couple should remain open so that change can enter. Allowing new information into a system in a problem-solving manner can allow renegotiated expectations that are more aligned to the current reality of the situation. Renegotiation thus becomes a viable part of your relationship in an ongoing manner.
Disruption without renegotiation leads to a greater frequency and intensity of disruptions. The more inflexible the situation, the more likely termination becomes an option. The opportunity of a disruption is to renegotiate in a problem-solving manner. The danger is that it often creates mistrust and anxiety. One way to deal with the discomfort is to prematurely return to the way things were. Another way is the renegotiation of the relationship. Termination of the relationship is a third alternative.
Termination is most commonly represented as a divorce within the marriage context. Termination is more likely to be a constructive, problem-solving solution when it is a consequence of renegotiation. Termination is more likely to result in the destructive loss of resources when one or more of the following are present (a) the disruption is unplanned and explosive, (b) the system is rigid and inflexible, or (c) the parties have little or no prior experience in renegotiating adjustments to changing conditions.
Planned Renegotiation
Using a developmental approach to relationships makes it possible to anticipate disruptions and to renegotiate expectations in a preventative mode rather than a remedial mode. This strategy is known as planned renegotiation. A normal sequential approach to couples, when combined with skills in sharing personal reactions, feelings, and perceptions about the relationship, allows counselors to introduce change into the relationship in a more controlled and systematic way when couples share personal reactions, feelings, and perceptions about the relationship.
By being more aware in a Gestalt sense of what is called in the model a pinch, or what the coauthors call a quiver in the liver, the possibility of preventative renegotiation is increased. A pinch is defined as a signal of the possibility of a feared impending disruption; it indicates anxiety relative to the possible loss of freedom within one’s current role of commitment, including the stability, which comes with it. Thus, a pinch is an anticipatory feeling; specific marriage examples might be (a) “I’m going to have dinner with the secretary tonight, and we will then work late to finish our project.” (b) “I’d like to go the convention alone this year.”
A pinch is only felt by one as a couple, whereas both of you experience a disruption. Thus, the partner feeling the pinch needs to be encouraged for taking the responsibility for sharing the feeling rather than waiting for the other person to initiate or take responsibility.
Harrison (1976) introduced a specific technique he calls role negotiation. It is a structured way for exchanging expectations and requests for the behavior of the partner in terms of what each wants the other (a) to do more of or better, (b) to do less, or (c) to remain unchanged. Periodically, in relationships, such expectations should be written so they will be clearly understood by both parties. The creation of a set time or place, that is, a negotiating arena where the couple agrees not to leave the area until a satisfactory set of mutual expectations, is established. This method can be combined with third-party conflict resolution with a counselor. These methods are part of an overall commitment to a preventative approach to the inevitable disruptions due to change by one or both members of the relationship.
Here is a visual representation of the planned renegotiation model:
Activity for You as a Couple
What follows is an opportunity for you to apply the model to the following three time periods in your life. The first horizontal column of the matrix will focus on early formulized significant relationships when each of you were individually growing up. That could include your own parents or parental equivalents. It could also be in relation to an important role model couple to you such as an aunt, uncle, or grandparent. The second horizontal column of the matrix focuses on a previous significant adult committed relationship or relationships in each of your respective lives. The focus on in final horizontal column is the two of you as a couple.
The vertical columns feature the respective stages of the planned renegotiation model.
Here are some starter or prompter statements that might assist each of you in completing the matrix.
Prompting Questions/Statements
A. Do you recall a time when you experienced a pinch in a relationship with a significant parent or role model? What was the pinch? Did you address the pinch or ignore the pinch? What was the outcome? What was the pinch? Did you address the pinch or ignore the pinch? What was the outcome?
B. Do you recall a time when you experienced a pinch in a relationship(s)?
C. Using the information from questions 1 and 2 complete the first two columns of the matrix.
D. Do you recall a time when you experienced a pinch in your relationship? What was the pinch? Did you address the pinch or ignore the pinch? Did you renegotiate expectations? What was the agreed plan to resolve the pinch? What was the experience like for you using the Planned Renegotiation model? Using the information from question 4 complete column 3 of the matrix.
E. Use the Planned Renegotiation model to assist with addressing the pinch and resolving the disruption.
Blank Matrix to be completed by a couple.
An example of a CPRM completed by an individual.
An example of a CPRM completed by an individual.
An example of a CPRM completed by a couple (Partner A).
An example of a CPRM completed by a couple (Partner B).
Review
Information on Couples Negotiation Problem-Solving Skills
Individuals entering into a relationship or marriage have a set of expectations, values and beliefs concerning the relationship. Individuals who are involved in an intimate relationship go through several phases as the relationship is established and stabilized: sharing information and negotiating expectations; role clarity and commitment; stability; pinch; disruption; and renegotiation.
There is also a dream or vision for the duration of the relationship. Marriage is the result of two people gathering information, getting to know one another, learning about likes and dislikes, becoming familiar with attitudes, and developing opinions and behaviors (Sherwood & Scherer, 1975). A marriage is the result of dynamic interplay of unique and changing needs, expectations and skills of the two partners (Sherwood & Scherer, 1975).
Couples who report fewer problems and who are more satisfied with their marriage usually write off negative behaviors displayed by their spouse whereas couples with higher marital discord and dissatisfaction directly blame the spouse for their bad acts (Rettner, 2010). Forgiveness is more likely in relationships where the bad behavior is exhibited very little. All relationships experience some type of conflict. Many couples have arguments about the same thing numerous times. When this occurs there is no progress or resolution being accomplished. Learning how to handle these problems is essential in making your marriage successful. One important concept in problem solving within your relationship is to understand how you got to your current situation and how to change your relationship so it is receptive to your ongoing changing needs (Sherwood & Scherer, 1975).
Implications for Couples
Planned renegotiation is based on the assumption that a predictable development sequence of events occurs within a relationship, including: (a) sharing information and negotiation expectations; (b) commitment—role definitions; (c) stability and productivity; and (d) disruption of shared expectations. A disruption of shared expectations is viewed as inevitable because: (a) information is never fully shared initially; and (b) internal or external changes occur by one or both of you as a couple. During such a disruption, the system is paradoxically most open to allowing new information into the relationship while simultaneously being more likely to prematurely return to the way things use to be as a means of coping with the cognitive dissonance, the uncertainty and the anxiety of not being clear on the current relationship expectations. Renegotiations leading to a new set of expectations or termination of the relationship are other possible ways of resolving the conflict. Planned renegotiation is based on one of you feeling a pinch, or a quiver in the liver an awareness of a potential disruptive activity before it has actually occurred. Sharing such a pinch by making I statements and utilizing other effective problem-solving skills such as active listening, listening checks, summary statements, and so on, helps create a higher probability to negotiating new expectations, which helps create new commitment and stability. By periodically taking the time in a renegotiating arena, and/or by using a third-party such as a counselor, you as a couple can systematically share their expectations by focusing specific behaviors on what you want: (a) more of; (b) less of: and (c) are getting the right amount.
Your Relationship Summary
Here are three reflective questions that can help you both focus on your learning’s and your next steps: What was it like filling out the matrix for each of you? What was some of the learning or relearning each of you experienced? How can you apply your learning to be more proactive in improved relationship problem solving in the future?
Additional Problem-Solving Activities
Here are an additional 15 activities that have been featured by Eckstein and colleagues in past issues of The Family Journal:
Eckstein, D. (1999). Styles of conflict management. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families,
6(3), 239–242. Jones, J., & Eckstein, D. (l999). Thirty-three suggestions for couple’s conflict resolution. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families,
6(4), 334–336. Eckstein, D. (l994). Force-field analysis as an aid in decision making for couples. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families,
2(4), 371–372.
Eckstein, D., Welch, D., & Gamber, V. (2001). The process of early recollection Reflection (PERR) for Couples and Families. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 9(2), 203–209.
Eckstein, D. (2002). Walls and windows: Closing and opening behaviors for couples and families. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 10(3), 343–344.
Willhite, R., & Eckstein, D. (2003). The angry, the angrier, and the angriest relationships. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 11(1), 202–209.
Hydock, R., & Eckstein, D. (2006). Help me help you: The 4-factor goal support system. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 14(2), 113–118.
Garrison, R., & Eckstein, D. (2009). Four couples' sleep satisfaction interviews: Recommendations for improving your nights together. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families. 17(1), 58–63.
Eckstein, D., Lee, C., & Lin, Y. (2008). The use of Ed DeBono’s “six-thinking hats” problem-solving technique with couples. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 16(3), 254–257.
Milliren, A., Milliren, M., & Eckstein, D. (2007). Combining Socratic questions with the “ADAPT” problem-solving model: Implications for couple’s conflict resolution. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 15(4), 415–419.
Eckstein, D., Sperber, M., & McRae, S. (2009). Forgiveness: Another Relationship “F word”- A couple’s Dialogue. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families. 17(3), 256–262.
Ginsburg, P. & Eckstein, D. (2010). The Staying together in needy times (STINT) couples questionnaire. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 18(3), 310–320.
Nelson, J., Li, C., Eckstein, D., Ane, P., & Mullener, W. (2008). Antidotes for infidelity and prescriptions for long lasting relationships: Four couples' activities. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 16, 375–378.
Eckstein, D., Junkins, E., & McBrien, R. (2003). Ha, ha, ha: improving couple and family healthy humor quotient (HHQ). The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 11, 301–305. Baute, P., & Eckstein, D. (l993). Rules for a structured separation. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 2(4), 276.
Phyliss Tribute
This article is dedicated to the memory of my four-decade friend, colleague and coauthor Phyliss Cooke. She died on July 8, 2011.
Together we learned of this model in workshops with the cocreator. Phyliss provided key background resources, and timely examples for this article. True to her own generous spirit, she declined the invitation to be a coauthor. She wanted the next generation of recent master’s of counseling degree recipients Nicole Russo and Jen Straub to take that torch.
Dr. Cooke also created the seven content analysis themes that were the basis of our encouragement article for couples in this journal. She lived her own created themes of encouragement with me, her students, and her colleagues. Superficially they include: Being a positive role model; Seeing strengths and abilities in others; Support over the long haul (consistency); Seeing people as special; Inspiring others; Supporting what others are interested in, especially in dark times; Helping make a career choice
In my 18 years of writing the “for couples” column the first way of assessing couples has been both an understanding and of respecting of personality differences. In our workshops I was the flamboyant loud exuberant one; Phyliss was the subtle, quite Al Ellis cognitive-behavior trained brilliant one. I was the balloon; she was the string. We honored, respected, and valued our complementary styles. We were the essence of a “for couples” working team. Working friendships are indeed their own form of intimate partnership. Rather than being critical and offended that I spelled her name Phyllis even after all those years, she just smiled and gave me the auditory anchor of one L and two hissing snake sounds of a double ss to help me. Phyliss, you encouraged me in my darkest hours. You complemented rather than criticized my short comings. You just smiled when I feigned an entitlement confrontation of your early memory of a teacher giving you an A-. “Can she do that?” you indignantly complained to your mom. Ah, the future makings of a true Mensa member. If you can’t be one yourself, at least make a Mensa member a friend and co-author has been my philosophy. This year you gave me the gold Situational Leadership buttons you got and I did not when we both went through the training; you were asked to be a trainer and not me. You knew I felt rejected by this. I cherish those gold buttons from you Phyliss. I sadly remove your name as a reference from my resume. I smile in gratitude for your encouragement to me of taking my present position when I had at first turned it down. We worked together; we wrote together; we laughed together; we lived the planned renegotiation model presented here. Now I grieve alone. Thanks for the deep and abiding gift of intimate and enduring male-female friendship Phyliss. This one’s for you “my Pal” as you and no one else so affectionately called me. I weep remembering you saying that to me. Thanks for being my Pal for more than 40 years Phyliss. My hope for each of you reading this note is that you too will be blessed with such an enduring friendship. If you have one now, let them know how very valued they are in your heart. It is there they are indeed eternal. Daniel Eckstein Cooke, P., & Eckstein, D. (2009). Encouragement: Improving one’s outlook. In E. Biech (Ed.), The 2009 Pfeiffer annual handbook: Consulting (pp. 13–22). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Cooke, P., & Eckstein, D. (2009). Assertiveness training. Encyclopedia of counseling (p. 32). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Eckstein, D., Cooke, P., & Eckstein, D. (2007). Types and sources of encouragement for coaches. International Journal of Coaching in Organizations, 4, 62–71. Eckstein, D., & Cooke, P. (2005). The seven methods of encouragement for couples. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 13, 342–350.
Footnotes
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the editorial assistance of Rhonda Harris.
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.