Doubling is the premier way to accomplish the principal task of Collaborative Couple Therapy, which is to turn arguments into conversations and disengagement into engagement. When I double, I kneel next to one of the partners and speak as if I were that person talking to the other partner. I translate that person’s angry, defensive, or avoidant comment into a collaborative, confiding one.
One way to double is to recast a partner’s entire statement. But another way, which I want to describe here, is simply to add a few words to what the person has just said. I do this to:
Bring to the surface unexpressed feelings a person might have. If a client says to his or her partner, “I’m angry that you came home from work and didn’t bother to say hello,” I might add, “—and I also feel a little hurt.” If a client says, “I’m hurt that you came home without saying hello,” I might add, “—and I also feel a little angry.” My speculation about what the client is feeling is based on what he or she said previously in the therapy. Since it is a guess, I immediately ask whether it is accurate.
Turn a monologue into a dialogue. When a partner delivers a monologue—makes pronouncements, adopts a lecturing tone, and marshals evidence to prove his or her point—I turn it into a dialogue by appending, “What do you think about what I just said?” or “Is there any part of what I’m saying that you agree with?” or “You probably disagree with most of this. Am I right?”
Shift to the meta-level. When partners become mired in argument, I express what I think they would say if they were to report their reactions rather than just have them and were to describe their situation rather than just be in it. When a person talks harshly to his or her partner, I may add, “As you can see, I’m pretty angry.” When partners are struggling over a fundamental issue in the relationship, I may say, speaking for one of them, “So we’ve got a big problem here and I don’t know how we’re going to solve it.
Eliminate rebukes. When you ask clients “What do you feel?” and they answer instead with a thought, some therapists say, “That’s a thought, not a feeling; I asked what you are feeling.” I prefer, following Harville Hendrix, to leave out the “that’s a thought not a feeling”—and simply say, “—and that makes me feel….”
I was introduced to most of the interventions in the remainder of this paper by my colleague, Donna Scott, and by Harville Hendrix.
Ask for elaboration. When we want clients to elaborate on what they just said, we commonly ask “Can you say more?” or “How do you feel about that?” or “Can you give an example?” These are good questions and I’ve frequently asked them. There’s a fluidity, however, in speaking as the person—that is, engaging in a bit of doubling. If I want the client to:
- Give an example, I move over and add to what he or she has just said, “—for example…”
- Elaborate on what he or she just said or offer an explanation, I add, “—in that…” or “—because…”
- Draw a conclusion, I add, “—and that leads me to conclude…”
- Express what they think about what they just said, I add, “—and that makes me think…”
- Express how they feel about what they just said, I add, “—and that leaves me feeling …” or “—and that upsets (worries, scares, concerns, alarms, distresses, disturbs, disappoints, irritates) me because…”
Deepen the conversation. When a partner expresses a concern, I may increase the level of vulnerability and intimacy by adding:
- “—and what I find most frightening (alarming, distressing) about that is…” or “—and what really scares me is…” or “—and my greatest fear is….”
- “—and what I really wish (long for) is…” or “—and my greatest desire is….”
- “—and what most breaks my heart about all of this is…” or “—and what I find most haunting in all of this is….”
When a partner makes an emotionally impactful statement, I may say for the other partner, “What most moves (or distresses) me about what you just said is….”
In sum, adding a few words to the end of a partner’s statement can transform it, allowing us unobtrusively and economically to uncover feelings, turn a monologue into a dialogue, shift the conversation to the meta-level, avoid rebuking interventions, explore the partner’s thoughts and feelings, and deepen the conversation. By engaging in such bits of doubling, the therapist joins with the partner in discovering what’s there. The two become a unit working together in a world where it’s easy to feel alone and at a loss.
Dan, have you thought of using your newsletters as the basis of a book that could serve as a training manual for therapists? I think your newsletters are exceptionally educational because you spell out basic principles and categories of interventions very clearly, and provide numerous examples….I’m also wondering if you have the basis of a workbook of some kind, in which student therapists could come up with their own responses to various scenarios and compare their answers to yours–something like that.
Yes, I’m hoping at some point to create such a training manual. As for a workbook, that’s something to think about.
Great! Perhaps couples, or anyone, could benefit from a training manual and workbook as well. People need “practice, practice, practice.”
You keep adding nice moves that make couples therapy less adversarial and flow better. Overall, I think that better than almost anyone, you help your clients express the complexity of their thoughts and feelings, here by adding a bit, rather than saying, for instance, that they were “…also a bit angry,” rather than, as per EFT, that they were “not angry, but only hurt.” In your latest newletter, I also really liked your intervention”…and that made you feel?” as far better than the mildly critical “That’s not a feeling…” Again, way to go!
Another excellent newsletter; thank you. I, too, wonder whether a CCT workbook might be useful. I find CCT amazingly similar to Bruce Ecker’s Coherence Therapy (he’s also in Oakland), and he has a Practice Manual and Training guide that, for me, recalls much of CCT.
I like the idea of doubling by adding on just a few words or a phrase. The therapist does not take over—the therapist or the intervention does not become the focus of attention. They just add a nudging phrase or accentuation—and then gently step back and see where the couple takes it.
This brief/concise doubling strategy reminds me of cooking and finding just the right ingredient to add to a dish. The added ingredient does not overpower what is already cooking. And the ingredient does not draw attention to itself. Actually—this added ingredient accentuates the other flavors that are already in the dish but that cannot be easily tasted. The added ingredient brings out the flavor that is hidden in the dish. Such a brief, timely and well stated “double” can push the conversation to that new place.
“helps them describe their situation rather than just be in it.” Isn’t that much of the human condition. I find myself completely immersed in my own situation—locked into my own perspective, my own “truth”, my own story and how this drives how I think and what I do. If for just a second I can just (maybe with the therapist’s nudge) get outside of my rigid/committed understanding of my situation—maybe things could break loose. If I can just speak about what it’s like to be in the “jam” that I’m in—if I can just begin to describe what it’s like to be stuck like I’m stuck—to speak of what is going on with me—then maybe we could get somewhere.
Thanks for the great newsletter, Dan. You are sharing wonderful information; doing a great service for couple therapists. I second the motion that you could write a fine training manual for therapists. I like how you get specific and build on Hendrix’s approach to keep the conversation flowing constructively. It is a big relief for clients to be given permission to experience important feelings, including via doubling.
I’d like to add to what I’ve written elsewhere and appears inherent in your methodology, Dan: I think it is a faith that individuals have the capacity to generate compassion for each other (and for ourselves) through the process of experiencing “confiding” and “intimate” conversations. Whatever the outcome of any particular conversation, it seems to me that you trust this human capacity within all of us. (I think for the therapist to behave otherwise would certainly not model trust.) Collaborative Couple Therapy seems to refrain from working in opposition to the client’s perspective because of that trust. At her best, the therapist appears to remain perpetually curious about the client’s experience, persistently refining understanding of that perspective in the ebb and flow of the conversation. This strikes me as gentle and patient route finding, deftly navigating shoals and eddies, allowing the river to reveal itself on its own terms. In that revealing, compassionate understanding naturally blooms. Great stuff!