Abstract
Marriage enrichment is a wellness-based approach to strengthening key areas of marital success. This article develops the metaphor of marital muscle groups and integrates Adlerian theories of development and personality with Gottman’s behavioral approach to provide a model of enrichment that can be applied in a clinical setting. A case example illustrates the application of the approach.
Everyday, healthy people rise at the crack of dawn, don a pair of sneakers, and go to a gym where they engage in physical exercise, sometimes with a trainer who is familiar with muscle groups and exercises. This is done not to cure them of a malady but to enhance their strength and appearance and/or to ward off potential physical problems. Gyms are filled with those who realize that they have a lifetime to spend with their bodies and commit to proactively enhancing their health and wellness. Similarly, marital partners have a lifetime to spend with their partners and they can proactively enhance their marital health and marital wellness. Like a trainer at the gym, professionals familiar with the muscle groups of marital strength and how to build them can help couples enhance their marriage.
Sadly, it appears that when it comes to marriage, our focus continues to be on disease rather than health. The literature of couples counseling suggests that couples counseling is “remedial” in nature (Gurman & Fraenkel, 2002, p. 203) and that it often fails because one partner has no intention of staying in the marriage (Owen, Duncan, Anker, & Sparks, 2012). Couples wait approximately 6 years after their marital difficulties and problems surface to actually seek couples counseling (Doss, Simpson, & Christiansen, 2004; Gottman, 2015). One of the top reasons couples seek counseling is to clarify whether the relationship should continue (Doss et al., 2004).
Other than studies supporting the benefits of behavioral couple therapy (Fals-Stewart & Clinton-Sherrod, 2009) and emotion-focused couple therapy (Dalgleish et al., 2015; Gottman, 2015), little research suggests that any one intervention or theoretical orientation works better than others (Halford, Pepping, & Petch, 2016). In fact, treatment success appears to depend on the couple. For example, couples who come in distressed at the onset of therapy are less likely to rate counseling as successful as more collaborative partners (Biesen & Doss, 2013; Bray & Jouriles, 1995). While conclusive research is still emerging, it is possible that the couples who come in initially distressed and uncompromising may impact the statistics that lean toward suggesting the lack of success of couples counseling. That is, Biesen and Doss (2013) noted that in efficacy trials, 8–20% of couples who received couples counseling actually show deterioration after treatment, with 3–38% ending in divorce. Other studies indicate that 25–30% couples who attend couples counseling experience an increase in satisfaction but continue to feel distressed after counseling, and 20% of couples do not benefit from couples counseling (Pepping, Halford, & Doss, 2015; Snyder & Halford, 2012).
Factors related to the success of couples counseling, as indicated by an increase in relationship satisfaction and/or reduction in the presenting problem (Hampson, Prince, & Beavers, 1999), have been identified in the literature. These factors include (a) similar perceptions of the relationship at the onset of counseling (Biesen & Doss, 2013), (b) cooperativeness and collaboration between the partners and with the therapist (Gurman & Fraenkel, 2002), and (c) the counselor’s mastery of both technical and relationship skills, as well as personal life experiences (Sperry, Carlson, & Peluso, 2006).
Clearly, marital distress is common and not easily remediated. Wellness in marriage, like wellness in the body, is better maintained than restored. The authors of this article believe that counselors have opportunities to help couples do just that. For example, what if counselors approached their work with couples more preventatively? That is, what if counselors took the opportunity during a family counseling session to encourage the parent subsystem to work on enriching their relationship? Counselors might also say to their individual clients whom are facing transitions in their intimate relationships, “How about if you brought your spouse in and we did a bit of work to strengthen your relationship?” Myers and Sweeney (2008) incited professional counselors to encourage wellness or “a positive state of well-being, through developmental, preventative, and wellness-enhancing interventions” (p. 482) among their clients. Counselors can also encourage the same among couples who they counsel.
The purpose of this article is to offer a marital enrichment approach that counselors can use to help couples enrich their marital relationship. Since marital enrichment programs seem to offer the most researched and practiced models for developmental, preventative, and wellness-enhancing interventions with couples, this article will include a summary of the areas of foci, goals, and approaches used within these popular marital enrichment programs. The authors’ familiarity with these programs helped them develop a working definition of marital wellness as well as a marital enrichment approach that will be introduced in the remainder of the article. A case example of the approach will be provided.
Common Marriage Enrichment (ME) Programs
ME programs can be traced back to Father Gabriel Calva, a Catholic priest in the 1960s (Deacon & Sprenkle, 2001). While Father Calva was serving a parish in Barcelona, Spain, he was struck by both the needs and strengths of the couples in his congregation. He noticed that many of the couples, while committed and positive, struggled with interpersonal and intrapersonal issues which caused tension in their marriage (Elin, 1999). In response to his observations, he developed the first ME program, called Marriage Encounter, with the purpose of helping couples strengthen their marriages through structured activities over the course of a weekend. These structured activities encourage couples to examine their relationships together in order to grow together in their spirituality and intimacy (Mace, 1977). Around this time, marriage counselors David and Vera Mace founded the first American-based couples enrichment organization, the Association of Couples for Marriage Enrichment. Their program was similar to Marriage Encounter, albeit without the spiritual dimension, and focused on problem resolution and preventative measures (Deacon & Sprenkle, 2001).
ME programs have increased in number since the 1960s (Jakubowski, Milne, Brunner, & Miller, 2004). Combs, Bufford, Campbell, and Halter (2000) identified at least 50 ME programs. While each program attends to specific areas of focus, there appear to be common goals among most including (a) helping couples adjust to external struggles including the impact of industrialization and technological advances (Diskin, 1986), (b) teaching couples interpersonal skills aimed at improving and enhancing various aspects of their marriage (Cole & Cole, 1999; Jakubowski et al., 2004; Morris, Cooper, & Gross, 1999), and (c) helping couples maintain healthy relationship skills already in use (Jakubowski et al., 2004, p. 529). Mace (1977) described the essential aim of programs is to draw out of “what is already present” in the marriage (p. 521). MEs are proactive rather than reactive (Deacon & Sprenkle, 2001). MEs are preventative and positive, focused on supporting and enhancing the marriage before it is in trouble (Hunt, Hof, & DeMaria, 1998; Wadsworth & Howard, 2012).
ME programs vary in their theoretical foundations and assumptions about marriage from the religiously based Marriage Encounter (Elin, 1999) to the skill-based Relationship Enhancement (RE) program (Guerney, 1977). They vary in delivery models from psychoeducational groups of 10–25 couples to smaller, more therapeutic group settings to working with couples (Elin, 1999). They also differ in the level of training necessary for facilitation from lay volunteer to mental health professional. They vary in focus with most tending to include some combination of the following: (a) managing conflict and problem-solving, (b) clarifying and evaluating expectations, (c) enhancing commitment, (d) increasing positive bonding and intimacy, (e) coping with stress, (f) increasing awareness of self and others, (g) increasing time spent together, and (h) tapping into the unconscious (Jakubowski et al., 2004). Table 1 outlines the areas of focus included in several of the most published ME programs.
Marital Enrichment Programs.
Despite the long history of ME programs, research related to the efficacy of individual programs is limited at best (Wadsworth & Howard, 2012). In 2004, Jakubowski et al. found that of the 13 programs that were studied between 1970 and November 2003, only 4 programs met the criteria to be considered efficacious. These programs include The Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program, RE, The Couple Communication Program, and Strategic Hope-Focused Enrichment. Hunt, Hof, and DeMaria (1998) suggested “essential elements” or factors within ME programs that appear to contribute positive changes among participants. Those include (a) a focus on couple commitment; (b) a format that is structured (i.e., focused agenda with specific skills taught), as well as caring; (c) homework assignments that are tangible and provide opportunity to practice and apply skills at home; and (d) leaders who are encouraging, energetic, and able to model the skills being taught. In a study of enrichment programs for newlyweds, Hawley and Olsen (1995) called the topics rated of highest value to participants “the five C’s” referring to community, commitment, conflict resolution, children, and church.
We propose that the essential elements found in most marital enhancement programs focus on four “marital muscle groups” (MMG). For the purpose of this article, the authors will use the MMG as a definition for marital wellness. Although Table 1 provides only an illustrative sample, it demonstrates that ME programs tend to focus on one or more of the MMG’s. Marital enrichment serves to identify and enhance marital commitment, cooperation, communication, and creed. Commitment refers to each partner’s understanding of the central and lasting nature of the relationship and willingness to work to help it to flourish. Cooperation refers to the couples shared problem-solving skills, ability to engage with mutuality in daily living, and to construct a mutually beneficial future. Communication refers to the verbal and nonverbal patterns of sharing feelings and thoughts, problem-solving, and conflict management of the couple. The fourth muscle group, creed, refers to the beliefs held by the partners individually and together about themselves and each other and that which gives their lives meaning in this world and beyond (see Table 1).
Theoretical Foundations
Marital enrichment addresses behaviors, cognitions, and feelings of both members of the marital pair individually and their mutual and interactive behaviors. What each member of the couple brings to the marriage both impacts the marriage and is impacted by it. Like a good trainer, the counselor addressing the muscle groups of marriage will consider the interaction of a particular muscle with others; address the whole person, body, mind, and spirit; and provide information and exercises that can be used for strengthening. The MMG approach to ME integrates the Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler with the behavioral approach of John Gottman to create a holistic approach to marital wellness.
Adlerian theory
The five basic principles of Adlerian psychology provide a foundation from which to work with couples (Duba Sauerheber & Bitter, 2014). First, individuals are believed to have unique personalities or lifestyles. One’s lifestyle develops in childhood and is impacted by environmental factors (i.e., family-of-origin, social, intimate relationships), organic factors (i.e., illness, physical limitations, or physical advantages), developmental sequences (i.e., how developmental events are experienced), cultural factors, and family influences (Shulman & Mosak, 1988). The lifestyles are characterized by a set of beliefs, personal convictions, and subjective perceptions (McCurdy, 2007; Powers & Griffith, 1987). Any given life event is filtered, interpreted, and experienced based upon this set of rules, beliefs, and convictions about others, the world, and one self. In couples counseling, clinicians are interested in how each partner’s lifestyle aids the couple in getting along, as well as how or why their lifestyles contribute to the presenting problem. Second, individual lifestyles are continuously being impacted by the environment (Duba Sauerheber & Bitter, 2014). The couple may be asked to share examples within their relationship that tend to reinforce their lifestyles or help shift previously engrained thoughts, rules, or perceptions. Third, people are seen as resourceful, self-determining, and creative (Sperry et al., 2006). Adlerian counselors believe that people are resilient and changeable. In the case of couples, the counselor might challenge and encourage partners to consider creative ways in which they can both shift their behavior toward something different that is mutually gratifying. Fourth, behavior is purposeful and aims itself toward a goal. That is, people choose to act because it serves some kind of purpose for them (Sweeney, 2009). The logic of anyone’s behavior can be understood by uncovering the individual’s lifestyle, as the lifestyle is the filter through which one develops attitudes toward stimuli and facts (Dreikurs, 1946). A lifestyle assessment for each partner helps create insight related to the link between lifestyle and the purpose behind any given opinion, thought, behavior, or feeling. Finally, Adlerian counselors view personality as holistic. Understanding the marriage is to recognize how the behavior of each individual is impacted by patterns of and connections among thoughts, behaviors, and emotions enacted socially and intrapersonally (Duba Sauerheber & Bitter, 2014). Therefore, the counselor might attempt to identify and understand the strength-based orientation within and throughout each individual’s lifestyle.
By applying Adlerian psychology to marital enrichment and the muscle groups of marital wellness, the counselor assists the couple to focus on the fourth C, creed. Using the lifestyle assessment (Peluso, Stoltz, Belangee, Frey, & Pelus, 2010), the couple explores their unique beliefs, experiences, and understanding of their relational interactions in light of who they see themselves to be and the meanings which guide their interactions (Duba Sauerheber & Bitter, 2014). The MMG approach to marital enrichment follows the Adlerian four-stage fluid model including (1) building rapport, (2) assessing the couple, (3) encouraging and sharing insight about the couple based upon the assessment/s, and (4) reorientation. After the lifestyle assessment, interventions and exercises are suggested to build the muscle groups and to integrate the learnings from the assessment by exploring how one’s lifestyle impacts and is impacted by marital communication, cooperation, and commitment.
The Sound Relationship House (SRH)
The SRH was developed by John Gottman in response to their research on what contributes to the success and failure of marriages (Gottman & Silver, 2015). They found that two keys to marital success include an ability to reduce negative affect during conflict resolution and an overall level of positive affect (Gottman, 1999). Regulating negative affect during conflict and maintaining a positive affect are conceptually linked to the communication and commitment muscle groups, respectively. According to Gottman (1999), the goals of marriage therapy consist of enhancing overall positive affect and educating couples on how to decrease negative affect during conflict resolution. The “house” of this theory illustrates how the relationship deepens and communication improves as the couple comes to know each other and bonds with each other (Gottman & Silver, 2015). Table 2 should be read from the bottom-up and depicts the elements of the SRH as proposed and their relationship to the MMGs. Each level, or principle, builds upon each other (see Table 2).
An Adlerian and Gottman’s Approach to Marriage Enrichment.
The foundation of the SRH is referred to as love maps, or the couple’s understanding of their relationship, and of each other (Gottman & Silver, 2015, p. 53). From the perspective of MMG enrichment, this foundational level is the part of the creed muscle group that is focused on the identity of the couple as a couple and the cherishing of that friendship. According to Gottman (2015), solid friendship contributes to increases in the frequency of mutual admiration and expressed fondness for each other. Couples who are fond of and admire each other also tend to “turn toward” each other during conflict (i.e., listening rather than shutting down or becoming defensive) and nonconflict times (i.e., tuning into the partner’s emotional needs and providing words of encouragement). The MMG of communication is strengthened as the couple deepens their relationship through shared admiration and fondness and turning toward each other.
A pattern of turning toward one’s partner (Principle 3) contributes to one’s tendency to frame the other partner’s actions, words, or lack thereof as something positive. Gottman (2015, p. 22) refers to this as “positive sentiment override.” Such a perspective is essential for building the MMG of cooperation; the more positive the perspective, the greater the cooperation and vice versa. Positive sentiment override and the strengthening of the MMGs in the previous elements impact each partner’s willingness and ability to accept influence from the other (Principle 4). A pattern of accepting influence in the relationship directly impacts the couple’s ability to manage conflict (Principle 5). Thus, while conflict management is a discrete skill which draws upon the communication MMG, it is related to all the other MMGs. Marital enrichment can assist the couple in developing both the skills of conflict management in marriage and an understanding of the relationship of conflict to all the MMGs.
Finally, the highest floor of the SRH is “create shared meaning.” Gottman and Silver (2015) suggest that healthy couples share values and a “culture” within their relationship. While couples do not become symbiotic and each member may hold some values that are not held by the other, each member’s understanding of the deep meanings of life is honored by the other. The couple shares a vision of the meaning of their marriage. This level exercises the MMG of creed, not only asking “who am I?” but also asking “who are we?” As Table 2 illustrates, the SRH relates conceptually with the principles of Adlerian psychology and with the MMG approach to marital enrichment. Both the Adlerian approach and the SRH approach provide assessment instruments that may be useful to the counselor in the initial phase of marital enrichment counseling.
MMG Enrichment: A Clinical Application
The MMG approach to ME includes components of empirically based ME program and is based on Adlerian theory. Using a wellness model and the MMG metaphor, it follows the four phases of Adlerian counseling (Carlson, Watts, & Maniacci, 2006). Through the informed consent, the difference between enrichment and counseling is explained. The use of the gym metaphor provides a framework for the positive, wellness approach of the model. Just as physical exercise must continue between sessions with the trainer, so couples are expected to participate and engage in homework activities between sessions. Below is a description of this ME approach within the context of a case example using the pseudonyms Jep and Joni and modifying identifying details to protect the couple’s confidentiality.
Phase 1: Building Rapport
From the potential clients’ first contact with the counselor, rapport building and the emphasis on positive growth in a healthy relationship are emphasized. Jep and Joni, a couple who have been married for 15 years, responded to an employee assistance payroll insert that advertised a “Marriage Gym” where healthy couples “workout” to become stronger in the things that keep marriages healthy and happy. Joni made the call to set up the initial consultation. She spoke with Ann, a Licensed Mental Health Counselor (LMHC) who although she holds a professional doctorate, chooses to use her first name with ME clients to promote the wellness model. Ann asked Joni to be sure to read the information about ME and the informed consent on her webpage before the initial consultation and made an appoint for the couple to come in.
Rapport building continues throughout the initial consultation and indeed all of the sessions. Specifically in the first session of MMG enrichment, the LMHC seeks to explore the couple’s perceived strengths in each of the four MMGs (commitment, cooperation, communication, and creed). Using the gym metaphor, the LMHC asks the couple to talk about their goals for enrichment.
In the first session, Jep who is 52 and Joni who is 41 reported that they had been married for 15 years. They indicated that this is the second marriage for both of them and that Jep has a 20-year-old son, Tom, from his first marriage. They reported that they have regular contact with Tom and indicated that they both enjoy a positive relationship with him. Jep owns a construction business, with 100 employees, and Joni is a clinical social worker managing a mental health clinic with 25 staff reporting to her.
Jep and Joni were first asked to discuss in detail what they valued about their relationship, what its strengths were, and how it had grown since they first met each other. Clinicians might find the use of Gottman’s Oral History Review, a set of questions aimed at helping couples share the story of how their relationship began, developed, and endured as a helpful means of collecting salient details of their relationship (see Gottman, 1999, appendix C). Time was devoted to collecting this information and developing a rich narrative that would serve as the foundation from which the marital enrichment process would originate. Framing the discussion within the MMG metaphor, the couple was asked what they wanted to strengthen or firm up in the ME sessions, Joni eagerly responded, “I want to feel closer to Jep. I want us to become better and closer friends. And I guess I just want to feel a bit more appreciated by him.” With a grin on her face, she added, “And I wish Jep wouldn’t get so mad when I spend money on other people!” Jep wanted “to argue less” and wanted them to “come to an agreement on financial goals.” Asking Jep and Joni what they wanted out of the ME thus began the assessment phase of the process.
After this discussion, the clinician summarized their goals and asked them if they agreed that their creed (i.e., the individual and mutual beliefs about self and the relationship that contribute to the meaning of the marriage), and commitment MMGs were in pretty good shape and that they might want to enrich their communication and cooperation marital muscles. They both agreed that they were each equally interested and motivated to strengthen their relationship. They also shared the belief that marriage should last until “death do us part.” This belief helped them both invest the time into self-growth that could help make the marriage more satisfying.
Phase 2: Assessment
Much like a good trainer wants to know as much about the trainee before beginning a workout regimen and will assess diet, heath, range of motion, and so on; so it is with MMG enrichment. The LMHC utilizes formal and informal assessment strategies to obtain information that the couple can use to enrich their marriage.
Prior to their second meeting, Jep and Joni were asked to purchase Gottman and Silver’s (2015) book, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, and bring it with them to the second session. They were also asked to complete assessments that attended to both the relationship and their individual personality characteristics. The Gottman’s 17-area Brief Sound Relationship House Questionnaire (BSRHQ; see Gottman, 1999, pp. 363–369) was used to assess the couple’s relationship across the following scales: love maps (friendship); fondness and admiration; turning toward or away; accepting influence, repair attempts, compromise, and shared meaning.
This assessment can be purchased in PDF form from the Gottman Institute at https://www.gottman.com/ and distributed to clients. Clinicians can also sign up for the Gottman Relationship Checkup (available at https://checkup.gottman.com/). This service allows couples to take the assessments online with automatic scoring. The clinician receives the results, clinical feedback, and a suggested treatment plan. Both of these resources are available to all licensed clinicians and are not exclusively available only to trained Gottman Couples Therapists. Since 1980, John Gottman has statistically evaluated each of his questionnaires for reliability and validity. Only questions deemed so have been kept. The assessment is also culturally sensitive. How the couple responds to the questions related to shared meaning can elicit information about their cultural values and beliefs as they relate to their family-of-origin, as well as the culture of their unique marital relationship.
The couple was also given the Basic Adlerian Scales for Interpersonal Sources - Adult Form (BASIS-A) Inventory, an Adlerian-based tool developed by Wheeler, Kern, and Curlette (1993), which is recognized as both a valid and reliable measurement of attributes of lifestyle (Chen et al., 2016; Peluso et al., 2010; Wheeler, 1996). The assessment also illustrates a couple’s level of adjustment, as well as how their differences could get in the way of relating to each other (Wheeler, 1996). The BASIS-A includes five scales that assess one’s recall of early childhood including belonging-social interest (BSI), going along (GA), taking charge (TC), wanting recognition (WR), and being cautious (BC). Responses to questions provide insight regarding the individual’s strengths, as well as how he or she faces difficulties in life (Wheeler, Kern, & Curlette, 1993). The assessment also includes five HELPS Scales that are meant to help expand and develop the interpretation of the BASIS-A profile (Wheeler, 1996). These scales measure (a) harshness (H) or degree to which one describes or emphasizes difficulties in his or her childhood, (b) entitlement (E) or degree to which one enjoys receiving special attention from others, (c) liked by all (L) or importance one places on seeking approval from others, (d) striving for perfection (P) or degree of confidence and belief in being able to cope with stress and other life’s problems, and (e) softness (S) or the degree to which one evaluates childhood in a positive light.
The BASIS-A Inventory is a hard copy assessment that can be purchased through https://www.basis-a.com/. The manual includes guidelines about interpretation and scoring. The BASIS-A has been found to be validated with diverse populations (including but not limited to Lithuania, Gaubė, Kern, & Stoltz, 2015; Taiwan, Chen et al., 2016). If clients are sent home with the inventory, they might be asked to mail back their results prior to the next session.
Results from the assessments
Jep and Joni indicated a mutually positive view of the relationship. The BSRHQ suggested that both thought that arguments came up from nowhere and that they did not share the same values about money. Jep’s responses to the BSRHQ suggested that he did not feel appreciated for what he did and that he and Joni did not share a lot of interests or financial goals. Joni indicated that there was a waning of romance in the relationship, Jep was not good at soothing her when she is upset and that the couple does not agree on the importance of family and kin.
The results of their individual BASIS-A Inventories also supported the couple’s relationship adjustment. First, both of their scores in the area of BSI suggested a sensitivity to others. In the area of GA, Jep and Joni’s scores suggested that they are both flexible and do not tend to be rule bound. However, Joni’s score in this area was higher, indicating that she likes to know what is expected of her so that she can behave properly. Both scored within the medium range of TC, suggesting that they are comfortable with either leading or following others. Jep scored in the very low range of WR, suggesting that he is not concerned with the approval or validation of others. Joni scored in the upper-middle range within this area, suggesting that she feels comfortable when others given her recognition for successes. Both Jep and Joni scored in the upper-middle range of BC, suggesting that they tend to be overly sensitive to cues from the environment or are good at noticing nonverbal cues. Under stressful situations, they may tend to mistrust others or not care what others think. On the HELPS Scales, both Joni and Jep scored within the medium range except for in the area of liked by all, in which Joni’s score was exceptionally high. High scores in this area are indicative of placing great importance on being approved by others. Jep’s score was low in this area, indicating that he holds little value from approval by others.
The authors are aware that often clients will not return with the prescribed homework completed. Because the results of the above noted assessments and inventories are critical in helping both the therapist and the couple establish and maintain a trajectory for the enrichment process, the informed consent and description of the enrichment process can include a statement such as the following, Sometimes you and your partner will be asked to complete various assessments or inventories in between sessions. The results of these assessments will help us better understand your individual personality and values, as well as the strengths of your relationship, as well as areas of growth. The hope is that you will complete these assessments prior to the following session so that we can have time during the session to address the relevant results of the assessments and inventories.
Creating interpretative hypotheses
Given the purpose of marital enrichment, namely, to enhance the relationship (Bowling, Hill, & Jencius, 2005), the interpretation and its presentation of the assessment to the couple is made, emphasizing the areas of strength and viewing liabilities as current challenges rather than pathology or deficits. The purpose of creating and sharing an interpretive hypotheses is to add to the couple’s understanding and insight related to the strengths of their relationship, the relationship dynamics, as well as how current challenges may be best approached.
The results of the assessments reaffirmed that Jep and Joni’s relationship was strong in many ways. They had mutually positive perceptions about each other and about the relationship, a strength in the creed MMG. Another strength in the creed MMG was that they felt known by and admired by each other. Results from both assessments suggested that feeling connected to each other was valued by both, showing a strength in the commitment MMG. They believed that most of their time together (including the mundane) was enjoyable, a strength in the cooperation MMG. The assessments further revealed strength in the cooperation MMG through indications of mutual cooperation, compromising, and willingness to lead or follow each other’s lead and influence. This would certainly be helpful as the couple moved toward their goals. As to be expected from a couple who is seeking enrichment rather than remediation, there was no evidence of the relationship eroding four horsemen: criticism, defensiveness, contempt, or stonewalling (Gottman, 2015, pp. 20–21). If any of the four horsemen were present, the couple might be gently informed that the beginning focus of the counseling process would focus on learning and practicing how to replace any of the four horsemen with other, relationship-building behaviors. In such case, the therapist’s approach to couple counseling could be applied and/or the Gottman couples’ therapy method could be used (see Gottman & Gottman, 2015).
The results from the assessment provided some additional information about how and why the couple’s presenting challenges occur and how their goals developed. The couple agreed upon two mutual goals including (a) enhancing their friendship and (b) improving problem-solving (as it relates to finances). While both Jep and Joni’s scores were high within the BASIS-A Scale of BSI, Joni’s was exceptionally high. In other words, it is very important for Joni to experience a closeness to Jep even during neutral times. Joni also scored very high in the BASIS-A area of WR (as compared to Jep’s very low score) and need to be “liked by all.” It is possible that Joni feels closer to Jep when he recognizes her for being a good partner, mother, and person. However, since this is not something that Jep values for himself, he likely does not offer much recognition and approval to others. In fact, he may have difficulty understanding why Joni needs, what seems like to him, constant reassurance that she is loved. It is also probable that during a verbal disagreement, Joni takes it personally, feeling unapproved and unaccepted. Interestingly, Joni referred to Jep’s getting frustrated with her for buying others’ gifts. Her gift giving may come from this value on personal recognition. In a sense, she is in a quandary. On one hand, she desires to express admiration and acknowledgment of others through gift giving, and on the other hand, this very action leads her to feel unaccepted and unappreciated by Jep. Further, on the BRSHQ, Jep indicated that he did not feel that Joni appreciated the things he did in the relationship. It is possible that while Joni may recognize him (likely through gift giving), she may not be recognizing him for what he values such as saving money.
Jep noted both verbally and on the Brief Sounds Marital House Questionnaire that there were disagreements about financial goals and in particular on the importance and meaning of it within their lives. He verbalized that he wanted to argue less, and he answered in the positive to the statement, “arguments seem to come out of nowhere.” The results of the BASIS-A reveal possible explanations for what is happening. First, one way that Joni can recognize other people is by buying them gifts and tokens of her appreciation, admiration, and love for them. Given Jep’s very low score in this area, he may not see value in gift giving and spending money on others. Jep’s high score in the area of BC might indicate that he manages a tight and efficient budget. As previously mentioned, both individuals scored in the middle range of TC, thus indicating that they could lead or follow a leader. However, when each of their personal values (i.e., recognizing others and maintaining an efficient budget) is being threatened, they are probably less inclined to follow each other’s lead or influence.
Jep and Joni seem to have been addressing the gift giving versus saving dilemma as a question of cooperation. The assessment suggests that improvement in this area might result from strengthening the creed MMG rather than the cooperation MMG. As each member of the couple enriches their appreciation of the meaning of giving and saving, respectively, they may find less conflict and more congruence.
Addressing areas of conflict from MMGs that are not accurately reflective of the problem or solution can have negative results for the couple. Both Jep and Joni indicated that “arguments often seem to come out of nowhere.” This may reflect their belief that previous communication or cooperation attempts have addressed the conflict. When in reality, the MMG of creed has continued to be strained by the conflict, precipitating what appears to be an overreaction. That is, the argument is rooted in dissimilar values (beliefs). Similarly, it is the MMG creed that is strained when Joni is not feeling accepted. She perceives this as Jep not supporting her values on the given issue. Jep may react from the MMG communication leaving Joni feeling that Jep is not “good at soothing me when I get upset.”
Phase 3: Encouraging Insight Through Sharing the Interpretive Hypotheses
The second session began with the counselor introducing the purpose of the assessment. During this beginning of the “workout,” Jep and Joni were asked to discuss their reactions to completing the assessment instruments and then Ann shared the results indicated above. Jep and Joni were also asked to talk about the MMGs that were highlighted as strong and healthy. They were then asked to talk about the areas from the assessment that needed strengthening in terms of MMGs. They identified their commitment and creed MMGs as strong and their cooperation and communication as needing attention, especially in the conflict about gift giving and saving.
Discussing their area of disagreement, Jep stated he understood that Joni gets enjoyment of out doing things for others, however, he commented, “Here is where I don’t feel appreciated. I have worked really hard my whole life. I want to retire. I don’t want to worry about money. She spends it.” Joni added, “I know that I buy you things and you don’t seem to appreciate it. You appreciate it more when I help you around outside.” Jep agreed, “Exactly.”
When Ann offered the alternative hypotheses, suggesting that this area might reflect a need to exercise the MMG creed, both Jep and Joni were quiet and reflective. Ann asked Jep, “How is gift giving a part of who Joni is?” He responded, “Well, she always likes to make people feel good, she likes to acknowledge them and appreciate them…and she does that with gifts.” Ann asked Joni, “How is Jep’s concern with your gift giving consistent with who he is?” Joni responded, “Jep is always on time, always planful, and always knows how much something is going to cost. That’s why he is success in business.” Ann summarized that the management of the conflict will better be found in the MMG creed, knowing and cherishing your partner.
This interpretative session can be stressful to either or both partners. Partners may be lead to new insight that is linked to past abuse or trauma. Or one partner’s insight may lead to the other partner feeling defensive and vulnerable. Such memories and/or experiences during these discussions may bring up strong emotions and, if left unregulated, can lead to physiological flooding (increase in heartbeat, sweating, skin flushes, and fidgeting). Counselors have a window of opportunity in such cases to teach the couple how to self-sooth themselves and each other (Gottman, 2015). Couples are encouraged to do this at home and are reminded of that like physical exercise, consistent exercise of the MMGs strengthens the relationship. After discussing and elaborating upon the hypotheses, the clinician might offer couples some reflective questions based on the work done in the session that they can discuss at home.
Phase 4: Application
The remainder of the ME sessions include activities specifically related to the couple’s goals. This provides a significant benefit of the MMG enrichment approach. Rather than a generalized enrichment program, the exercises and interventions are particular to the needs of the couple. For physical enhancement, a personal trainer addresses the muscle groups that will provide the most positive outcome for the particular client as opposed to the exercise tape that takes a more general approach. For Jep and Joni, the following activities were chosen based upon the importance the couple (particularly Joni) placed on feeling connected with each other and their desire to build the MMG creed: (a) Gottman’s Relationship Enhancing Thoughts, (b) Gottman’s Thanksgiving Checklist, (c) Gottman’s Fondness and Admiration in Everyday Life, (d) Build Rituals of Emotional Connection. (These activities can be found through an online search or within Gottman and Silver’s [2015] The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work book.) Other activities were chosen to help the couple manage the conflict around finances which is understood as a conflict in shared dreams. (They can also be found online or in the Gottman & Silver, 2015.) These included Gottman’s Dream within conflict and Softened Startup. Jep and Joni had four 75-min sessions for their enrichment activities, while others may have more or less. The final, 60-min session focused on the couple’s movement and experiences of the enrichment process. What role did you take and will continue to take in contributing to the ongoing enrichment of the relationship?
Discussion
The MMG enrichment approach integrates Adlerian-based enrichment with Gottman’s behavioral approach to marital counseling. As illustrated in the case example, the unique use of assessment instruments from both perspectives provides the opportunity for each member of the couple to become more aware of the lifestyle patterns of self and other and the shared relationship behaviors in the marriage. As an enrichment program, the MMG approach is also unique in its customization for the particular couple. While it may be true that strengths and challenges in marital couples may focus on the areas we have called the four MMGs, it is also true that the unique persons and history of the couple benefit from particular attention to specific areas of need.
Bowling, Hill, and Jencius (2005) described the concern of participant screening inherent in all ME programs. They suggested that couples in marital distress and those who are enmeshed may find the suppositions and intensity of a marital enrichment program to be intimidating. MMG, because it is delivered to a particular couple rather than in a group, allows the screening to be accomplished through the initial assessment phase. The couple-based delivery method mitigates some of the concerns with diversity and nontraditional partnerships (Bowling et al., 2005) by providing an enrichment approach that is customized to the couple rather than imposing a group-based definition of wellness. In other words, this approach is versatile and can be used in ways that meet the values, beliefs, and preferences of each couple.
As indicated by our review of the literature, research regarding ME programs has decreased over the past 20 years. The use of assessment in the MMG approach provides the opportunity to look more specifically at the association between various lifestyle patterns and marital interaction patterns. Additionally, future research can explore the specific MMG interventions that are most effective for particular lifestyle and interaction patterns.
The relationship between a positive marriage to well-being and physical health has been well-documented (Cohen, Geron, & Farchi, 2009; Waite & Lehrer, 2003). Hawkins and Booth (2005) found evidence suggesting that couples in low-quality marriages are less happy and less healthy not only than those in high-quality marriages but also than those who are divorced. ME in general and the MMG approach is an intervention promoting not only marital success but also health and wellness.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
Rachel Archer, graduate assistant in the Department of Counseling and Student Affairs, Western Kentucky University, assisted authors in this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.