ABSTRACT: A model interview is described in which steps of a successful encounter are performed aloud. Soliloquy about internal awareness develops a warm-up to intentional communication. Interpersonal repertoire is reviewed and selected in service of this intention. An experimental communication is delivered face-to-face. The other member of the couple then goes through the same sequence. The interviewer acts throughout as a coaching double.
INTRODUCTION Positive interpersonal influence may be inferred from noting a move that one person makes which is followed by some behavior that is desired from another person, some strengthening of the relationship between the two people (enhanced affinity) and, at a later time, an expanded range or repertoire displayed by both people (enhanced spontaneity). Two classes or forms of behavior appear to exert such positive interpersonal influence. We might call these two classes or forms "celebration," and "invitation."
CELEBRATION "Celebration" may be said to occur when one person notices and comments upon something someone else is doing that s/he'd like to see more of; for example, I could say, "I appreciated it when Julia asked a question because she helped me to clarify what I was trying to talk about. I hope that her asking the first question will encourage others in the group to express curiosity." Celebration will usually, not always, result in encouraging others to do more of what is celebrated, and it will also encourage them to try out other moves, since a spontaneous offering was well-received, acknowledged, appreciated. Some relationship is established or expanded between people by this process, as one experiences the other's influence as positive and becomes open to further encouragement. The general form of celebration is: "When you do 'X' I feel 'Y.'" For example, "When you volunteer, I feel joined." Or, "When you hugged me this morning when we met, I felt affirmed." Any statement about an action by another person and a positive feeling experienced by the speaker might be called a "celebration."
INVITATION A second form of positive interpersonal influence may be called "invitation." In this form, there's an activity that one person is getting ready to do which will be enhanced by the participation of another person. For example, "I'd like to go outside and buy some ice cream. And it will be more fun for me if you do it with me." So, I've named an activity I want to do and a role I'd like you to play that I hope will be valuable to you and will be valuable to me. Invitation always begins with an activity that I want to do and then a role I'd like you to play. It's different from mind-reading - thinking first what you'd probably like to do. I might imagine you would like to go for a walk, so I might pretend that I want to go for a walk. Each of us probably, at one time or another in adolescence or this morning, has tried to do an invitation of that kind. They usually fail because the other person thinks that the inviter wants to do the activity and then both discover that neither in fact does. So invitation begins with "I'm wanting to do something and it would be better for me, enhanced in some fashion, more rewarding, if you would play a certain, valued role in that." An abbreviated form, "Let's go to the movies," is fine if the speaker really wants to go to the movies and imagines that s/he will enjoy it more if the other comes along. Invitations frequently exert substantial positive influence even when they are declined. It feels good to be invited to do something even if you are unable or unready to do it when invited. "Will you come to my party?" enhances relationship even if another committment precludes acceptance.
SOCIOMETRY An activity that one person wants to do and a valued role in that activity for another person is the basis of sociometry (Moreno, 1951). The activity is called the "criterion," and the invitation indicates the preference of each person in the form "With whom would I like to...(criterion)?" It is desirable to organize group activities in this way, with attention devoted to expanding the variety of tasks such that each person is chosen by others to participate in valued roles. This function of leadership has been described (Moreno, 1953) as increasing group productivity and enhancing the self-esteem of all group members. The strength of a group may be seen in its ability to include its "isolates," those members who have hitherto been rejected or marginalized. This "inclusion of the least" may be what extends this philosophy beyond office practice to "A truly therapeutic procedure [which] cannot have less an objective than the whole of mankind." (Moreno, 1953, p.3) There may be some other strategies for interpersonal influence that are positive. Or others may be variations on these two. These two are positive, in the sense that they will encourage more of what is sought, that they enhance a sense of connectedness and relationship, and that they encourage showing more repertoire appropriate to the situation (spontaneity).
COMPETENT COUPLES Observing couples who are moderately competent in low-stress situations, and seeing highly competent couples in high-stress situations, a series of steps may be noted in their developing celebrations and invitations. Many of these steps are ordinarily done silently, but in a therapeutic situation we may encourage people to do them aloud in the form of a soliloquy.
SOLILOQUY First, people look inside themselves, they begin with a meditation, noticing: "What am I aware of? What do I feel? What's going on inside of me?" This activity calls on each member of the couple to experience a slightly altered state of consciousness ( Rossi, 1986). Nearly every successful encounter is preceded by some, ordinarily silent, meditative inward look - "What's going on inside of me? What do I notice? What am I aware of?" Frequently there is also an association to earlier experiences. "I' m feeling warm and safe, just like when I've been with friends in a comfortable situation." Next comes the "warm up," that strange - for some people tingling, for some people anxious, somewhat uncomfortable - sense of a growing edge; noticing I'm almost ready to do something. I'm almost ready to speak. I'm almost ready to act. Next, after they notice what they're almost ready to do, they think about the effect they want to have. Each is hoping to have some positive effect on the other person and/or on the relationship. Then they do some kind of internal wondering about how each knows s/he's having that effect? "Will I be looking for a smile? Or, will I be looking for a nod? Or will I be looking for a certain kind of playback of what I'm saying from the other person? I will infer that I'm having the effect that I seek by noticing certain signs. What are those signs?" Then each wonders "What's the repertoire that I have available? What do I know how to do that might be constructive? Will I make eye contact? Will I hold the other person's hand? Will I talk quietly? I notice that I know how to do some things that might be used in service of the effect I hope to have." Soon, one or both notice that they're ready to try it, ready to go into action; to celebrate and/or invite. All of this so far is ordinarily undertaken silently. We may have different observations about the steps that particularly competent couples undertake in stressful situations and/or that most couples undertake in everyday situations, situations that aren't particularly stressful. We may also observe that when the stress level rises beyond the competence level of a couple, individuals tend to skip particular steps. Different individuals skip different steps. Some people notice the warm up and they notice how they can express it, but they skip what effect it's going to have on the other person. They might say to themselves, "The way to relieve this horrible tension inside of me is to throw something at you." And so they throw something at you. There are people who are skillful at thinking about the effects they want to have, but who seldom notice their own warm up. Only if encouraged to slow down and notice, "What am I getting ready to do?" will they do that. There are some people who are almost allergic to a kind of meditative stance. It might be that they fear they will be flooded and disabled by their own inner voices if they tune in at all. Other people forget about the repertoire they have. They'll think, well, "This is how I'm feeling and this is the effect I want to have, but I don't remind myself that I know how to make eye contact, or to break it, or that I know how to make physical contact." So it is very helpful when working with couples in increasingly stressful situations to coach them to enact each step and for the interviewer to notice, while the couple does this, which steps each individual needs encouragement to explore more fully. Frequently, people know how to meditate sitting alone in a room quietly, but as soon as they're in the presence of another person, as soon as there's the possibility of being observed, or of eye contact, or feeling like there's something that's supposed to happen, it's as though they forget how to tune in to their own inner lives. A great deal of useful couples therapy can be done in a face to face encounter by slowing people down so that they will fully enact each of these steps. Following this soliloquy the encounter occurs. That is, the part usually done aloud where one person speaks directly to the other, usually offering celebration or invitation.
THE FIRST MEETING The introduction of these ideas in a couple's therapy is often appropriate after a few preliminary meetings have occurred. In a first meeting it is desirable to propose some ground rules and to conduct an interview, with or without role-playing, in which the strengths and resources of each individual and his/her wishes and fears are explored (Lee, 1986; Chasin & Roth, 1990).
GROUND RULES Generally, couples are pleased to have the interviewer talk in the first few minutes of the first meeting about how s/he likes to do things. In many instances, they don't know what is an appropriate set of expectations in this novel situation. So, after finding out what names people would like to be called in this setting, including new or fanciful ones, and introducing onself, it is useful to suggest some general bounds or ground rules.
"PASS" UNTIL FULLY READY The first is, "If we agree to it, any of us could ask any question or propose any activity, and each other person will decide for herself or himself, 'Am I fully ready to do what's been proposed, fully ready to answer what's been asked?' And if I'm not, I'll just pass: I'll say, 'I'm not ready to do that right now.' Or, 'Maybe later.' Or, it could be done with a nod of the head or a wave of the hand." It is useful to include a nod or a wave as a pass, particularly working with adolescents, but also with other people, because you can then understand silence as cooperation - as that person's willingness not to act before s/he's ready to act. The philosophy is essentially that people do most fruitfully what they're most ready to do; that it's better to delay action somewhat until a full warm up is achieved. In general, it is more productive to hold people back rather than to push them ahead. You can get most people to act ahead of their readiness, but they don't learn much from it. They'll do what you ask as in response to a dare, going through the motions. But if you hold somebody back until s/he's fully warmed up, then the action that's taken is an expression of a full sense of readiness. It is useful to explain that the rule works most effectively only after everybody's passed at least once. When the first person passes, it is wise to thank him/her. James M. Sacks, director of the Psychodrama Center of New York City, proposed this ground rule in his training program in the 1970's. He devoted a great deal of attention to siding with resistance, holding people back until a full sense of readiness was developed.
RECORDING Another bound or ground rule that is useful has to do with video or audio recording (Hollander & Moore, 1972; Berger, 1978; Lee, 1981). It is desirable to suggest that the most conservative wish should prevail. That is, if there is anyone in the room who would not like a recording to be made, it will not be made. As soon as anybody wants it turned off, it will be turned off. As soon as anybody wants it erased, it will be erased. After the tape is made the same rules should apply: if anybody doesn't want it used it will be erased; if all agree that it can be shown to an absent family member, or to a consultant or whatever, unanimity will prevail. It is unwise, before everyone knows what's on the tape, to seek permission for it to be shown to unseen audiences or to other people. This is likely to result either in witholding of permission, or in excessive caution and inhibition in the session.
CONFIDENTIALITY Confidentiality is a very serious matter in families, and should always be addressed at the beginning. A group can make any decision it wants about confidentiality, but it is the director's responsibility to address the question rather than to assume that everybody makes the same assumptions. In general, people may be encouraged to share their own experiences with anybody they like - with a partner, with a friend, with a stranger on a bus. But people may be asked to agree that they not talk about what anybody else said or did or what anybody else experienced. Even withholding names is not enough in some settings because if people know anything about each other they will be able to deduce from a description what's been going on.
OTHER BOUNDS There is a variety of other possible bounds. It is frequently useful to obtain agreement that no physical violence will be shown against persons. It is safer to encourage the exploration of violent feelings in a setting where the group agrees to help di rect those feelings toward inanimate targets. An agreement that later ground rules might be proposed by any group member and negotiated with the group is often a good idea to obtain at the beginning.
"DOUBLE" Another piece that is necessary to establish in some way is the convention of the "double" (Moreno, 1975). The double begins by assuming the posture, the position, the point of view of another person - sitting beside or slightly behind that person. Trying to see the world through her/his eyes. When the double speaks, it will be in the first person, imagining what the protagonist, the person in front, may be thinking. That's an hypothesis offered for two purposes: one, to correct or expand the double's understanding; two, to encourage the protagonist to be more expressive, more exploratory (Palazzoli, Boscolo, Cecchin, & Prata, 1980; Tomm, 1984). After the double speaks, the protagonist will restate the theme in his/her own words, correcting and/or expanding as appropriate. The protagonist always has the definitive last word in response to a double's hypotheses. A double is successful when the protagonist says more than the double says. When the double says twenty words and the protagonist says three, or one, like "yup," or two like "right on," or whatever, then the double knows s/he is doing all right empathically. However, the double is not helping the protagonist produce more that will then correct or enhance the double's understanding. The double also is not meeting the other objective, which is to encourage the protagonist to be more expressive, more exploratory. Here, a metaphor from sailing may be helpful: if you say twenty words and the protagonist says one, you are "in irons." That is, you're headed into the wind and you have no power. A solution to that is to tilt the rudder so that the wind is he aded at you but you're at a little angle to it, which is where you then have the most power. So, the double will understate something or overstate something, or say something absurd or whatever and get a correction from the protagonist, and then begin to get some forward momentum. It is important also to establish that the double can be dismissed as a double. You might say to members of the couple, "If I'm not being helpful or am being annoying or distracting, I'd like you to either tell me to stop and be normal or you could say, 'I'm having double trouble,' or you could in some fashion indicate to me that this isn't working."
SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS Following the initial meeting, ideally of 90 to 120 minutes duration, it is worthwhile to propose that the couple go home and discuss the meeting and agree about whether or not the setting is promising enough to schedule three more meetings. The first two will be with each individual alone for an hour, in order to map the areas where it might be somewhat more difficult for each to talk in the presence of the other. There might be secrets, or more usually, subjects where people feel they'd have to choose their words very carefully lest they provoke an unwanted reaction. This proceedure gives the interviewer/director a map of ways each member of the couple is inhibited in the presence of the other, and what it is like to meet each person in the absence of these constraints. It also offers more authority in making the recommendations presented in the subsequent 90 to 120-minute couple meeting. When it seems that it might be useful to experiment with the soliloquy/coaching double format, the idea is introduced in the second joint meeting, usually the fourth meeting of the series.
THE MODEL ENCOUNTER The opening instruction for the exercise is for the couple initially to sit quietly, face to face and to be quiet until each person has noticed something that's going on inside that s/he might be aware of, a feeling or imagining. The director, therapist, conductor of the session might say: "As soon as one of you speaks, I'll sit beside you, and I will try to imagine aloud from time to time what you might be feeling or thinking. I'd like you to say it again in your own words if it 's right, or change it if it's wrong."
THE COACHING DOUBLE This is an introduction to "doubling," an improvisational theater form adapted for psychological use by J.L.Moreno (1975). What is different here from traditional doubling is that the director is leading and restraining rather than following. When someone is skipping steps in the soliloquy, the director might say, as double, "Before I speak to my partner, I might want to talk to myself." After establishing these ground rules and conventions, you might begin by saying something like: "I'd like to begin by asking each of you to sit quietly and comfortably for a few minutes, and to notice something interesting, of which you are becoming increasingly aware. When one of you is ready to wonder aloud about this perception, just begin to speak and I'll move to you as double." Then guide the folks through the steps of the soliloquy described above. This invitation from the therapist is essentially an Ericksonian instruction (Haley, 1967). It is permissive, and it makes certain assumptions presented as presuppositions. It is an open instruction to sit quietly and notice what's going on inside. And to notice that that process isn't static. That people's awareness is a constantly growing process, both in intensity and in range. As soon as the soliloquist has reached the end of the sequence and is ready to speak to the other, s/he will address the other directly, and the director will get up and sit beside the person on the receiving end of the transaction. Thus the director, moving to double the other, experiences the transaction coming at him/her in the role of the other person in the encounter. Then the director as double takes the second person through the same steps. The director as double might say something like, "Before I respond, I might talk to myself about what I'm aware of... what I notice... what I'm reminded of... what I'm warming up to do... what it feels like to warm up...etc." The director is continuously reversing roles, flipping back and forth between sitting next to one, and sitting next to the other. As soon as the one the director is sitting beside talks directly to the other, and the director thinks that s/he has addressed each step in the soliloquy, the director just moves over and sits next to the person who is listening.
INDICATION This format is most appropriate when the interviewer has noticed some subjects that the members of a couple seem to be having difficulty talking to each other about. The initial "coaching double" session or two will be successful if they're not too exciting; if they focus on matters that are not too difficult and challenging, so the group has a chance to test the form and see whether it feels comfortable. Then it's likely that the group will move to subjects that are more explosive or more difficult, or more challenging, after people have settled into the form. It may be useful to think of this form as like scaffolding to hold up construction that is incomplete, or like a cast on a broken leg. You don't expect people to wear a cast all their lives, but they've come to therapy because some aspect of their relationship has a broken leg or its equivalent. The therapist is initially constraining something so that it heals into a shape that will be more functional. This is an example of the general proposition that people are most free when they are best held. A young child throwing a tantrum needs to be hugged and assured that s/he will not be allowed to hurt him/herself and will not be allowed to hurt the adult holding him/her. Within a few seconds, the child will relax and the tantrum will subside. Some couples behave in a fashion analogous to a child's tantrums. They need similar assurances. The coaching double offers a form of hugging. This constraint is slowly and progressively loosened as the couple functions better.
CONTRAINDICATION Responses to this way of working from most couples have been very positive. A small number of people, however, have a kind of allergy to doubling, or, perhaps to a particular double. There are some members of a very few couples who find it too explosive, even in a highly structured situation, to be encouraged to look inside and they won't do it. Some additional face to face meetings with each member alone, or some other conjoint format may be necessary in such instances (see, for example, Umbarger, 1983; Paul & Paul, 1975; Papp, 1976; or Duhl, Duhl & Kantor, 1973). After leading a couple through the steps described above, the therapist must always provide an adequate opportunity for sharing (10-15 minutes is usually adequate). This can be done while rewinding the videotape. The interviewer might say, "I wonder if each of you might be willing to say a few words about what you're experiencing right now as today's meeting approaches its end?"
VIDEOTAPE PLAYBACK Regarding the use of the videotape, if nothing positive occurs it is wise to erase the tape. But if any of the interviewer thinks that something positive has occurred, it is generally a good idea to play it back in the session and/or to send the tape home with the couple. A videotape is a very intriguing amplifier of successful repertoire. Without videotape each person has only half the important data: each knows what s/he felt and intended and how the other looked and sounded, but not how s/he looked and sounded or what the other felt or intended. If the two discuss what's gone on between them, the data that each brings has no overlap at all. Some couples imagine that they should agree about what went on in a discussion that they've had at home. They might experience some level of convergence in their descriptions, they might have a similar inner experience, but the data they're trying to compare cannot be expected to agree. So if something good happens, if I say something and I get a good response from you, I know how I felt, I know what I intended, but I have no clear idea what I did. And similarly, you know what you felt when I did it, but you don't know what behavior I saw. Having an opportunity to play back the tape of a successful interaction gives people the other half of the data they didn't have. This anchors behavior that has been effective in their memories. "I've seen myself do something positive and influential in the relationship, and I know how I looked and sounded." I don't know of any more successful or powerful amplifier. It has a nasty dark side, however. If you show people an interaction that is bad, that is, in which the outcome is bad or they feel embarrassed, they'll likely hate videotape and won't let you use it again. Much more importantly you will see striking inhibition and dramatically less spontaneity and access to range or repertoire in the near future. You can make people robotic for at least a few minutes after showing them a videotape of themselves behaving in a way that has a bad outcome. But, it will not extinguish the undesired behavior. They'll generally just withdraw from each other in some way. Not because they hate the other, but because they don't trust themselves to be able to be constructive. And so, what you want to show are the very positive moments, particularly when something good has happened and people don't understand it. After a couple has practiced these steps in the office, you may recommend that they do some of it at home, perhaps with a tape recorder running. If they get stuck, they might bring in the tape and ask you to offer some consultation on the point at which they got stuck. You can then coach them to do it better, to shape an interaction that they'll like better. Some couples have found this format so productive that they have chosen to use it throughout most subsequent meetings. Sometimes, after a few minutes of greetings and "checking in," they will sit in the appropriate chairs, and show that they are ready. The director may then begin by saying something like, "You might want to be quiet for a moment, and take some time to notice what may be going on inside." The director never dictates what the subject's going to be - what it is they want to say to each other - this develops from the soliloquy/meditation and the warm-up. Modifications of this general form have evolved in work with each of the couples who have chosen to use it beyond its first presentation to them. I am hopeful that readers of this article will share such "customizing" refinements with the author. REFERENCES: The Couple's Therapist as Coaching Double in a Model Encounter Richard H. Lee [This article is drawn from a workshop given in New York City, May 29, 1992, for the American Society of Group Psychotherapy and Psychodrama, by Richard H. Lee, Ph.D., actionmethods.org Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rick Lee, 234 Eliot Street, Natick, MA 01760. e-mail: ricklee@pobox.com voice and voice mail: 508 653 8290]
New York: Bruner-Mazel.
therapy. In Chasin, R., Grunebaum, H., & Herzig, M. (Eds.) One couple, four realities: Multiple
perspectives on couple therapy. New York: The Guilford Press.
sculpture. In Bloch, D. (Ed.), Techniques of family psychotherapy, a primer. New York: Grune and
Stratton.
Erickson, M.D. NY: Grune and Stratton.
and videotape self-confrontation. Group Psychotherapy and Psychodrama, 25.
Fleshman, R. (Eds.), Videotherapy in mental health. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Psychodrama and Sociometry, 39.
to a new political orientation. Beacon, NY: Beacon House, Inc.
sociodrama. Beacon, NY: Beacon House, Inc.
practice. Beacon, NY: Beacon House.
New York: Gardner Press.
In Wolman, B., & Ullman, M. (Eds.) Handbook of altered states of consciousness.
NY: Van Nostrand.
Hypothesizing--circularity--neutrality: Three guidelines for the conductor of the session.
Family Process, 19, 3-12.
New York: W.W.Norton.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 10.