Filetype PDF | Posted on 30 Sep 2022 | 3 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
200x Filetype PDF File size 0.18 MB Source: iacp.ie
IJCP Volume 21 Issue 1 Spring 2021
Practitioner Perspective
Individual and Couples Counselling:
Comparisons and Contrasts
By Martin Doughan
of writers/practitioners whose
main focus is on couples therapy
and, lastly, it will offer a couple
of personal observations that
the author feels are worth
mentioning.
The counselling environment
Pivotal to both couples therapy
and individual therapy is the
creation of a warm, supportive
and caring counselling
environment. This has more
to do with the therapist than
the actual counselling room
itself – it is the bedrock on
which “the collaborative working
relationship” (Corey, 1999,
p. 323) will take root and may
well determine whether a couple
or individual engage fully in the
lthough individual and couples counselling process or even return after the
Aare widely regarded as separate constructs, an opening session.
Though specifically referring
examination of both through the lens of different to couples counselling, Bobes
therapeutic approaches reveals there is considerable and Rothman (2002) sum this
up precisely: “A safe holding
overlap environment must be created, in
which judgments, prejudices and
biases are suspended,” (p. 20).
Introduction environment and associated This statement is equally relevant
his article will examine the ‘tasks’ of the opening session. to individual counselling. The first
Tsimilarities and differences Subsequently, it will delineate session is vitally important in both
between individual and how key concepts of the person- domains of counselling as it is
couples counselling. It is not a centred approach as espoused here that contracts are signed,
comprehensive exploration of by Carl Rogers are paramount boundaries agreed, goals and
the extant literature germane to to both couples and individual tasks negotiated, presenting issues
the topic, but rather a thumbnail therapy, and examine the clarified and, crucially, the ‘opening
delineation, circumscribed by approaches of William Glasser’s act’ of the individual or couple’s
the writer’s own experience in choice theory/reality therapy (CT/ story is articulated.
both domains of counselling. RT) and Murray Bowen’s family
The article will highlight the systems therapy. Penultimately, Micro skills
importance of the counselling it will comment on a number At this stage and throughout the
Irish Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy
18
Volume 21 Issue 1 Spring 2021 IJCP
course of counselling in both irect interventions reality therapy (CT/RT) that the
domains, the foundation skills of Dare imperative similarities of individual and
attending, which include posture, and the therapist must couples counselling far exceed
eye contact, facial expression, the differences. Glasserian
seating, and listening for both provide a structure where counselling espouses several
verbal and non-verbal messages, both parties can ventilate key concepts: external control
will be to the fore. Additionally, their point of view behaviour, the five basic needs,
the reflective skills, “the single the quality world and total
most useful group of skills in the behaviour (Glasser, 1998).
repertoire” (Culley & Bond, 2004, foundation stone on which all Underlying these concepts is
p. 33) of restating, paraphrasing other interventions rest upon. Glasser’s hypothesis that all
and summarising are Other ‘components’ of the difficulties that bring individuals
prerequisites of the counsellor’s Rogerian approach are less (and self-evidently couples) to
armoury in both couples and suited for couples counselling. In counselling are fractured, broken
individual therapy. Although person-centred individual therapy or non-existent relationships. In
probing and questioning belong the therapist is the guide who individual counselling, Glasser’s
to this constellation of skills, “accompanies the client on the approach places a high premium
they may well be used more journey towards actualization,” on choice and responsibility and
frequently in couples counselling (Corey, 2002, p. 173). This the calibre of the therapeutic
as this domain may require a self-actualization is the goal relationship assumes great
more interrogative bias in order of therapy and is achieved by importance. In couples or
that the kernel of the conflict and the therapist creating a fertile marriage therapy, the emphasis
difficulties of the participants are environment that promotes is placed on counselling the
grasped by the therapist. personal development, self- ‘relationship’. As Glasser opines,
exploration, responsibility, the focus is on “what’s good for
Person-centred counselling autonomy and freedom. the marriage, not on what may
Carl Roger’s person-centred In couples therapy the be good for one or the other,”
approach to counselling therapeutic relationship is of (Glasser, 2001, p. 36).
emerged in the 1940s. Its crucial importance. However, All of the concepts mentioned
conceptualization was firmly in this writer’s view, on its own above can be used as
embedded in the psychology of it is unlikely to bring about ‘interventions’ in both individual
humanism, which accentuates fundamental change. Direct and couples therapy. Additionally,
the innate goodness of the interventions are imperative Glasser’s ‘seven caring habits’,
individual. Though it enunciated and the therapist must provide which he maintains support and
many new ideas – locus of a structure where both parties nurture relationships, and his
evaluation, self-actualization and can ventilate their point of view. ‘seven deadly habits’, which
the fully functioning person – There is a parallel here with destroy relationships, are very
perhaps its most enduring legacy individual counselling that has effective ‘interventions’ in
has been the core conditions its provenance in the Rogerian individual therapy, but especially
of congruence or genuineness, approach; the client as expert so in couples therapy where
unconditional positive regard and of his own life circumstances. Glasser believes external control
empathy (Thorne, 2003). Bobes and Rothman state behaviour is often the default
The Rogerian approach, something similar… “The mode of each partner (Glasser,
especially the emphasis on couple or family members are 2007).
the therapeutic relationship, the experts on their situations; Using the Glasserian template
the therapist’s way of being the therapist is the expert on of counselling individuals and
and the core conditions have the process of guiding the couples, a very direct and
embedded themselves into conversation,” (2002, p. 24). didactic or psychoeducational
practically every contemporary model is often employed.
counselling orientation. They Choice theory/reality therapy He further advocates that it
are quintessential ‘components’ In this author’s opinion, it is perfectly appropriate for
of both individual and couples is in the realm of William therapists “to make suggestions”
therapy and they form the Glasser’s choice theory/ (Glasser, 2001, p. 107) and
Irish Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy
19
IJCP Volume 21 Issue 1 Spring 2021
advocates in many instances the n both individual and family to see the ‘larger picture’
teaching of his theories in order Icouples therapy it – that is, to view problems
that clients can employ choice permits the clinician to in their current and historical
theory in their own lives. context,” (McGoldrick, Gerson
In both realms of counselling, gather vital information & Petry, 2008, p. 5). In both
CT/RT eschews any exploration in a more non-direct and individual and couples therapy
of the past, and a core tenet less ‘questioning manner’ it permits the clinician to gather
of the Glasserian orientation vital information in a more non-
is that the basic needs of love direct and less ‘questioning
and belonging, power, freedom them,” (Gilbert, 1992, p.47). manner’. In this writer’s
and fun can be satisfied only in Responsibility is a recurrent experience, in both domains, but
the present and, consequently, theme or goal of the client in especially in couples therapy,
“reality therapy focuses almost individual therapy. In reference to the collaborative drawing of the
exclusively on the here and now” couples therapy, Gilbert asserts genogram facilitates a more
(Glasser, 2001, p. 23), with that “responsibility for one’s accurate understanding of family
the exception of emphasising happiness will not be placed on of origin issues and how present
past strengths and successes. the other; rather, responsibility beliefs and values may emanate
Both individual counselling and for feeling good or bad, as from within that family and
couples counselling using the well as for one’s thoughts and consequently play a restrictive
Glasserian model can be short behaviour, rests solely with the role. As Farrelly (2007) observes:
term as “reality therapy gets self,” (Gilbert, 1992, p. 49). “…individuals are shaped by
quickly to the actual problem – One of the key challenges in the families and environments
improving a present relationship couples therapy is improving the they grow up in,” (p. 9). It is
or finding a new more satisfying emotional functioning of each imperative that an exploration
one,” (Glasser, 2001, p. 24). individual partner – challenges of that shaping is explored both
that parallel the changes a client in individual counselling and
Family systems theory may have as a goal in individual couples therapy.
A key concept of Murray Bowen’s therapy. Bowen maintained that
family systems therapy is the “all things being equal, the life Bobes & Rothman model
differentiation of self. Gilbert course of people is determined In Bobes and Rothman’s model
(1992) defines high levels by the amount of unresolved of couples therapy (2002) the
of differentiation as: greater emotional attachment, the opening session, to a large
choice between emotions amount of anxiety that comes degree, mirrors what takes
and intellectual functioning; from it and the way they deal with place in individual therapy. It
better decision making; good this anxiety,” (Bowen, 1974, cited is about joining, setting the
relationships; less concern for in Gilbert, 1992, p. 95). This key boundaries and establishing
approval and love; and fewer tenet of Bowenian therapy cannot a safe holding environment
life problems as manifested be overemphasised. Emotional where each partner can tell their
physically, mentally, emotionally arousal, which often mutates story. According to Bobes and
and socially. Few would disagree into anger, obviates clear and Rothman (2002), ‘joining’ is the
that these characteristics of rational thinking and impedes process by which “the therapist
the well-differentiated person “the calm thoughtfulness we can enters the couple system
are legitimate topics or goals bring to bear on life’s problems through empathic understanding,
of individual therapy. In couples – both individual problems and acceptance, and recognition of
therapy, differentiation of self is relationship problems [emphasis each party’s perception of reality.
the sole responsibility of each added]” (Gilbert, 1992, p. 118). It is an ongoing therapeutic
individual partner. As in individual The genogram – an ‘historical task that facilitates change in
therapy, if each partner would map’ of two or more generations the system,” (p. 187). Once the
“stop focusing on the other of a family – has its origin in ‘foundations’ of joining have
and begin focusing on self and the work of Murray Bowen and been laid, the therapist and the
the contribution of self to the was first used regularly in the couple collaborate in setting
problem, the first step to solving 1980s. As a therapeutic tool it therapy goals – goals that
the problem would be behind “helps both the clinician and the should promote and underpin an
Irish Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy
20
Volume 21 Issue 1 Spring 2021 IJCP
improved relationship. uch of the through a completely different
Notwithstanding the Minteraction between lens. As in more ‘general’
similarities mentioned above, therapist and couple couple’s therapy and individual
Bobes and Rothman’s model therapy, Perel explores family of
of couples counselling focuses and the interventions origin to determine what shaped
systematically not only on the used are unique to our sexuality. She remarks:
tasks of their conceptual stages couples counselling. “No history has a more lasting
of therapy, but also on the tasks Notwithstanding this, effect on our adult loves than
of each individual session. It is many of the questions the one we write with our primary
a highly structured approach that addressed to each partner caregivers,” (2007, p. 107).
Bobes and Rothman (2002) refer John Gottman’s couples
to as “Step-by Step Treatment would not be out of place therapy model (Gottman & Silver,
Format” (p. 21). Though this in individual counselling 1998) is based on The Seven
format envisages a 10-session Principles for Making Marriage
treatment programme, it can be Work. Similar to other couples
adapted for use in a shorter or is replete with language that counselling models, the overall
longer timeframe. characterizes individual therapy goal is improved ‘marital/
Couples therapy, due in part - ‘emotional connection’, ‘clients romantic relationships’, which by
to time constraints, cannot own solution’, ‘storytelling’, the very nature of the ‘goal’ limits
facilitate a deep and extensive ‘healing process’, ‘attachment the amount of time available
exploration of each partner’s injuries’, ‘forgiveness’, ‘trauma’, and the necessity for deep
internal world as can take place ‘isolation’, ‘trust’, ‘fear’, individual exploration. Much of
in individual therapy. Though ‘intimacy’, ‘hurt’, ‘depression’, the interaction between therapist
the couple’s counsellor uses a and ‘security’. Though Johnson and couple and the interventions
variety of skills and techniques opines “we are all stumbling used are unique to couples
that are analogous to individual around, treading on each other’s counselling. Notwithstanding
therapy, the focus is very much toes as we are learning to love” this, many of the questions
on the relationship. In the Bobes (2002, p. 181), it is a statement addressed to each partner would
and Rothman (2002) model, that has universal resonance not be out of place in individual
exploration of family of origin and not limited to the domains counselling. The following are
‘issues’ is concentrated on of either couples or individual some examples: What is the
eliciting information that will therapy. purpose of your life? What are
help the therapist demonstrate Esther Perel’s therapy you trying to accomplish? What
or psycho-educate a partner or exclusively focuses on couples significant goals have you yet to
both partners on how attitudes, with sexual ‘problems’, though realise? What demons have you
beliefs, values and behaviours for the couples she introduces yet to fight? And most crucially:
can act as restrictive agents in us to, she reconceptualises what would you like to change
the couple relationship. their difficulties and creates about yourself? (Gottman &
collaboratively an erotic Silver, 2002). These questions,
Sue Johnson/Esther Perel/John landscape where she consciously conceptualized by Gottman for
Gottman separates love and desire. use in the domain of couples
Sue Johnson (1997) writes “Love” she suggests “is about therapy, are equally relevant in
powerfully about the breakdown having; desire is about wanting… the domain of individual therapy.
of romantic relationships and too often, as couples settle into As outlined above, the theory
describes in her emotionally the comforts of love, they cease and practice of individual and
focused therapy (EFT) how to fan the flame of desire,” couples counselling have many
partners are attached and (Perel, 2007, p. 37). Perel does similarities and differences. In
dependent on each other “in not limit herself to “the talking the contemporary counselling
much the same way that a child is cure” (2007, p. 51) and the landscape, according to Cooper
on a parent for nurturing, soothing “physicalization” of a couple’s and Mcleod (2011), and citing
and protection,” (Johnson, 2002, problems (2007, p. 51) is a research by Norcross (2005) “an
p. 5). Though her paradigm is potent intervention that enables integrative or eclectic stance
unique to couples therapy, it them to view their conflict is currently the most common
Irish Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy
21
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
