Need Essay, Please

DISCERNMENT COUNSELING FOR “MIXED-AGENDA”

COUPLES

William J. Doherty, Steven M. Harris, and Jason L. Wilde University of Minnesota

This article describes discernment counseling, an approach to working with couples where

one partner is leaning toward divorce and the other wants to preserve the relationship and

work on it in couples therapy. These “mixed-agenda” couples are common in clinical prac-

tice but have been neglected in the literature. The goal of discernment counseling is clarity

and con dence regarding the next steps for the relationship, based on a deeper understanding

of each partner’s contributions. Sessions emphasize individual conversations with each part-

ner. An analysis of 100 consecutive cases found that about half of the couples chose to start

couples therapy in order to reconcile, with most of the rest choosing the divorce path. Longer

term follow-up information is also presented.

An everyday experience for couples therapists is the couple where one partner is interested in

staying married and presents as eager to do the therapy, while the other partner is leaning toward

divorce and is ambivalent about trying couples therapy. Whether formally married or in a commit-

ted long-term relationship, these couples are a neglected group in the ﬁeld of couples therapy. Most

models assume that both partners present for treatment with at least a basic motivation to preserve

and improve the relationship. This article describes a model for “discernment counseling” for cou-

ples who are divided on the future of their relationship. Discernment counseling aims to help cou-

ples develop clarity and conﬁdence in deciding on the next steps in their relationship, including

whether to embark on couples therapy or move toward divorce. We present a description of 100

consecutive couple cases seen in the Minnesota Couples on the Brink Project.

BACKGROUND

Although therapists regularly deal with mixed-agenda couples (one “leaning out” of the rela-

tionship and reluctant to work on the relationship in therapy, and the other “leaning in,” wanting

to preserve the relationship and begin therapy), there has been strikingly little clinical literature on

how to work with these couples. Crosby’s (1989) edited book, aptly titled When One Wants Out

and the Other Doesn’t , is the chief exception. L’Abate and Hewitt’s (1989) chapter described a

polarized bind that many of these couples face: either “extricate through the magic of divorce” or

“keep the status quo” (p. 152). Echoing the clinical advice of many of the other chapter authors,

Russell and Drees (1989) recommended slowing down the decision making process and negotiating

for a number of sessions. Jurich (1989) proposed six sessions of assessment rather than moving

directly into couples therapy. Despite the thoughtfulness of these chapter authors, the clinical

advice they provided was fairly general. None oﬀered a detailed protocol for working with mixed-

agenda couples.

William J. Doherty , PhD, Professor, Family Social Science, University of Minnesota. Steven M. Harris , PhD,

Professor, Family Social Science, University of Minnesota. Jason L. Wilde , PhD, Program Evaluator, Family Social

Science, University of Minnesota.

Address correspondence to William J. Doherty, Family Social Science, University of Minnesota, 290 McNeal

Hall, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108; E-mail: [email protected]

[The copyright line for this article was changed on December 18, 2015 after original online publication.]

246 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2016

Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 42(2): 246–255 doi: 10.1111/jmft.12132© 2015 The Authors. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permitsuse, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Other clinically oriented studies describe the phenomenon of “mixed-agenda” couples without

using the term speciﬁcally. For example, Kanewischer and Harris (2015) interviewed 15 women

who had contemplated divorce but received marital therapy and eventually decided to remain

married. The study goal was to determine the impact of couples therapy on their decision making

process. In each case, only one partner was interested in pursuing divorce to solve marital prob-

lems. Similarly, Gurman and Burton (2014), in addressing the potential pitfalls and problems with

providing individual therapy for couple problems, maintained that many who present individually

for relationship-oriented therapy are there alone because of “partner-generated” refusals to engage

in conjoint therapy. Some of this partner-generated refusal may be related to mixed agendas within

the couple relationship.

As with the clinically oriented literature, there is limited empirical research on this topic. We

identiﬁed only ﬁve peer-reviewed clinical studies. In a groundbreaking study, Doss, Simpson, and

Christensen (2004) found that divorce concerns were the third largest reasons for entering therapy,

and, strikingly, that there was little overlap within couples on this and other reasons to seek cou-

ples therapy. In Doss et al.’s sample of 147 married couples, more than a third ﬁt our criteria for

being a mixed-agenda couple. The authors called for much more attention to diﬀerent goals

spouses have for couples therapy.

In a subsequent study, Tremblay, Wright, Mamodhouseen, McDuﬀ, and Sabourin (2008)

identiﬁed three directions couples therapy can take: interventions to improve the relationship,

ambivalence interventions to address commitment issues in at least one spouse, and separation

interventions. Although these researchers did not assess for ambivalence at intake (they oﬀered

improvement interventions to all couples), they did ﬁnd that 20% of cases turned into ambivalence

interventions. The particulars of the ambivalence intervention were not described.

The third study on this topic addressed whether similar or diﬀerent partner agendas aﬀect out-

comes. Owen, Duncan, Anker, and Sparks (2012) found striking diﬀerences in outcomes between

couples where both wanted to improve the relationship (two thirds of the sample) and those cou-

ples (23%) where one wanted to improve the relationship and the other wanted to “clarify whether

the relationship should continue.” (In another 9% of couples, both partners wanted to clarify the

relationship.) At 6 months posttherapy, 45% of the mixed-agenda couples had separated, com-

pared to just 8% of the couples where both wanted to improve the relationship.

Two more recent studies explored the nature and role of “commitment uncertainty” in couple

therapy. According to Owen, Rhoades, et al. (2014), commitment uncertainty “reﬂects a rupture

or strain in the sense of couple identity [where] partners are likely to experience a shift in the ways

they view we-ness or a shared sense of identity with their partner” (p. 209). This concept seems

related to the idea of mixed-agenda couples. In a research study, Owen, Keller, et al. (2014) pro-

vided therapy to 30 couples who had varying levels of commitment uncertainty to see the therapeu-

tic eﬀect of therapy on these couples. The study showed diﬀerent outcomes for couples who started

couples therapy with more commitment uncertainty. The authors recommend that “changes in

commitment uncertainty should be considered as a...target of intervention for many couples” (p.

237).

The other clinical study we found was also on the topic of commitment uncertainty. Luebcke

et al. (2014) studied three couples in a multiple case design to track couples’ responses to clinical

interventions. Two of the couples experienced higher levels of commitment uncertainty than the

third. Results suggest that a couple’s openness to certain interventions is dependent on the couple’s

level of commitment uncertainty. This exploratory study provides further evidence of the impor-

tance of addressing the speciﬁc needs of mixed-agenda couples in order for therapy to be success-

ful.

In sum, the limited literature available on mixed-agenda couples suggests that everyday clini-

cal experience is correct: that these couples represent a meaningful subset of couples presenting for

therapy (30% might be a reasonable estimate), that there is a dearth of protocols available to work

with these couples, that mixed-agenda couples respond diﬀerently to therapeutic interventions

than couples with the same agenda, and that they are at high risk for divorce.

April 2016JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY247 ORIGINS OF THE DISCERNMENT COUNSELING PROTOCOL

The protocol described here was inspired by the work of family therapist Betty Carter who

developed (but never published) an original way to work with mixed-agenda couples. Using indi-

vidual conversation, she helped each partner work on divergent goals: for the leaning out partner,

the goal of making a good decision about staying married or divorcing; and for the leaning in

partner, the goal of maximizing the likelihood that the marriage will be preserved and strength-

ened. The ﬁrst author heard Better Carter give a clinical presentation on this approach in the 1980s

and later adapted and expanded it in his couples therapy practice.

In 2008, the ﬁrst author began a research and intervention project with a family court judge

and a group of collaborative divorce attorneys who recognized that their profession also lacked

systematic ways to assess and work with ambivalence about divorce and interest in reconciliation

among their clients. The prevailing assumption was that by the time people engaged the services of

a lawyer, both spouses believed, or would soon accept, that the marriage was irretrievably broken

down. On the contrary, the research study coming out of this court project showed high prevalence

of divorce ambivalence and mixed agendas among couples who had already ﬁled for divorce (Doh-

erty, Willoughby & Peterson 2011).

Based on this research, the group of lawyers and the ﬁrst author developed a “divorce ambiv-

alence” protocol in which the lawyers assessed for ambivalence and mixed agendas. They began to

have conversations with clients about taking a “time out” from the divorce process to consider the

options for the marriage. However, many of these couples had undergone couples therapy and at

least one of the partners was not motivated to try again. At this point, the ﬁrst author told his

attorney colleagues about his protocol for working with mixed-agenda couples—a “precouples

therapy approach” that assumed the presence of a leaning in partner and a leaning out partner.

The attorneys said that this was the kind of service they wanted for their clients and believed their

clients would be interested in it. A name for this approach was needed, and the group came up

with “discernment counseling” as the goal was for couples to work through the complexities of

their situation and come to a decision on the future direction for their marriage. The ﬁrst author

oﬀered to create a full protocol that could be taught to other couples therapists. This article

describes the discernment counseling protocol and presents information on a sample of 100 con-

secutive couples treated by three discernment counselors who have together reﬁned the model in

The Minnesota Couples on the Brink Project.

DESCRIPTION OF DISCERNMENT COUNSELING

As described earlier, the need for discernment counseling stems from the challenge of imple-

menting standard relationship-improvement strategies of couples therapy with couples where at

least one partner is ambivalent about staying in the relationship and about trying to address the

relationship in therapy, and the other partner generally wants to preserve the relationship and try

couples therapy. This scenario creates special challenges for the therapeutic alliance and makes for

halting progress at best in couples therapy, with early dropouts and therapist frustration common

in clinical practice (Doherty, 2011). Discernment counseling is appropriate for couples who are

married or in a long-term committed relationship where breakup is a real possibility but where the

leaning out partner has not made a ﬁnal decision. The protocol is not appropriate for “closure

counseling” where one party only wants to help the other partner constructively accept a divorce

decision.

The goal of discernment counseling is to help couples have greater clarity and conﬁdence

about a direction for their relationship, based on a deeper understanding of their relationship and

each person’s contributions to the problems. (We intentionally use the term “counseling” rather

than “therapy” in order to connote that immediate relationship improvement is not the focus, and

to make it less threatening to leaning out partners who are reluctant to embark on couples ther-

apy.) The immediate decision to be “discerned” is framed as three alternative paths rather than as

a dichotomous decision between staying together or divorcing. Path one is to stay the course—stay

married as things have been and not do couples therapy. This is the “status quo” path. Path two is

248JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPYApril 2016 separation or divorce. Path three is a commitment to six months of couples therapy (and some-

times other services) with divorce oﬀ the table, in order to see whether they can create a healthier,

more mutually satisfying relationship. After six months, they can evaluate whether to make a per-

manent commitment to the relationship or end it, either way based on having made a full eﬀort to

reconcile. If the couple chooses path three, discernment counseling transitions to couples therapy

with an explicit demarcation that discernment counseling has ended and couples therapy has

begun.

Discernment counseling is short term, involving 1–5 sessions with a special structure that dif-

fers markedly from traditional approaches to couples therapy. Although the partners come

together for sessions, the intensive work occurs in separate individual conversations, with carefully

orchestrated interactions when both people are together in the room. No couple interventions

(e.g., attempts to facilitate connection and intimacy) are attempted with both partners present in

the room, and couples are encouraged not to expect changes in their relationship problems during

discernment counseling. The reasons for this approach are that, ﬁrst, there is no contract for rela-

tionship-improvement interventions, and second, that the partners have divergent goals at the out-

set.

One emphasis during the individual conversations is on self-diﬀerentiation and self-responsi-

bility, and how growing in these areas can contribute to a better process of determining the future

of the relationship. This focus encourages both partners to take responsibility for their part in the

decline of the health of the relationship, which beneﬁts them whether they enter couples therapy or

choose divorce. If they decide to enter couples therapy, they beneﬁt by having moved past expect-

ing change to come only from the other spouse. If they decide to divorce, they beneﬁt because

learning about the self in relationship can prepare each for a healthier next intimate relationship.

(One of the sayings in discernment counseling is, “You can’t divorce yourself.”) The other empha-

sis during individual conversations is on helping the spouses see their joint interactional patterns

or “dances.” Simply hearing about their interaction pattern is a new experience for most couples.

Once the pattern is described, the members of the couple are often more open to seeing their own

role in the relationship challenges and are sometimes more inclined to try path three, couples ther-

apy.

The discernment counselor works with each partner diﬀerently during the individual conver-

sations. With the leaning out spouse, the focus is on the decision making process concerning the

three paths (including why past attempts to solve relationship issues may have failed) and on learn-

ing about one’s own contributions to the problems. With the leaning in spouse, the special focus is

on hearing what the partner is saying about the relationship, constructive eﬀorts to salvage the

relationship during a time of stress, and using this crisis as a wake-up call to learn about self and

develop goals for personal change. We have found the work of Weiner-Davis (2002) particularly

useful in working with leaning in partners to avoid alienating their partners by avoiding showing

more distress through such things as pursuing, pleading, or scolding. In both cases, each spouse

comes to understand his or her own role in the problems and potential solutions, rather than focus-

ing on changing the other. As stated, we emphasize using this crisis as way to make positive

changes in self, whatever the outcome for the marriage.

If the ultimate decision is to try to reconcile (path three), the therapy phase begins with a writ-

ten agenda of changes each partner wants to make in self in order to be able to have a healthier

relationship. Generally speaking, the therapist doing the discernment counseling becomes the cou-

ples therapist, although there can be situations when a referral to a more specialized couples thera-

pist can be appropriate, for example, when someone with more advanced sex therapy skills might

be appropriate. There may be other services in the reconciliation plan, such as an alcohol assess-

ment, couples retreat weekends, or personal therapy. If the ultimate decision is to divorce (path 2),

the discernment counselor helps the couple articulate guiding principles for how they both want to

act during the divorce process (such as being respectful to one another or putting the needs of the

children ﬁrst) and connect with divorce professionals and other resource providers who will sup-

port them in having a constructive, cooperative divorce. If the decision is to not decide on either

divorce or reconciliation but to stay together (path one), the discernment counselor oﬀers to be a

resource in the future.

April 2016JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY249 In the discernment counseling protocol, the ﬁrst session is 2 hr and the subsequent sessions

are an hour and a half each. (The ﬁrst session is longer because of time needed to get background

information.) Both parties decide at each session whether to have a subsequent discernment coun-

seling session or to be done with the process. This approach is designed to invite buy-in from the

leaning out spouse who has a say in whether or not to continue in the discernment counseling pro-

cess. The ﬂow of the sessions is as follows: couple time at the beginning (very brief after the intake

session), followed by an individual conversation, a brief summary to the partner of what that indi-

vidual has learned in the individual time, then a conversation with the other spouse, followed by

that person’s summary, and concluding remarks by the discernment counselor. As stated before,

the intensive work is with each partner individually, along with carefully structured sharing of

what each has learned in the individual conversations.

A key issue with combining individual and couple conversations is how to handle conﬁdential-

ity. The discernment counselor does not share what clients say during individual conversations,

but does selectively share impressions and reactions drawn from the individual conversations. For

example, the discernment counselor would not say, “Your husband said he still loves you,” but

might say, “I am sensing love going both ways in your relationship, even if it’s hard to see right

now.” Secrets such as aﬀairs are held in conﬁdence during discernment counseling, but they would

generally have to be shared as part of a plan to embark on path three couples therapy.

INFORMATION ON ONE HUNDRED CASES

We examined records of 100 consecutive cases to generate preliminary data on the

kinds of cases seen and the outcomes of discernment counseling. The three leaders of The

Minnesota Couples on the Brink, who together have reﬁned the protocol and conducted

trainings, conducted the discernment counseling with the 100 consecutive cases covered in

this evaluation. They used a written protocol and had regular case consultations but did

not use formal adherence-to-protocol measures; a treatment manual is still under develop-

ment. The evaluation covered the following questions: (a) What were the characteristics of

couples referred to the project? (b) How were they referred to the project? (c) What was

the average number of sessions? (d) What were the initial outcomes in terms of the “paths”

chosen? (e) What factors predicted the path taken, and (f) What were the longer term out-

comes of couples who chose the diﬀerent paths? Data came from intake forms completed

by the couples, detailed case write-ups by the discernment counselors using a standard for-

mat, state divorce records, and follow-up contacts with couples and referral therapists.

Couple Screening

Couples who contacted the project were screened in separate partner telephone interviews to

establish eligibility for discernment counseling. There had to be one partner leaning out of the mar-

riage but not yet ﬁnally decided on divorce, and the other had to be leaning in, wanting to preserve

the relationship. Before the phone interview, potential participants were asked to read a website

description of discernment counseling. Leaning out status was determined by how they answered

an open-ended question about how discernment counseling could be of use to them. Speciﬁcally,

spouses were assigned a leaning out role when they said that they wanted help in deciding whether

to stay in the relationship or divorce. Leaning in status was assigned to partners who said they

hoped to avoid divorce and improve the relationship. In every enrolled case, divorce was an imme-

diate possibility and the leaning out spouse was reluctant to embark on a course of couples ther-

apy. We screened out a handful of potential participants who indicated that they had already

made a ﬁnal decision to divorce and wanted to have a forum to help their partner accept that deci-

sion. We also screened for coercion and intimate partner violence risk. Following conversations

with both partners, an initial appointment was scheduled.

Intake Measures

Three assessment instruments administered at intake were used to examine potential predic-

tors of which path the couple would take at the end of discernment counseling. They were not

repeated at the end of discernment counseling or at long-term follow-up.

250JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPYApril 2016 Couple relationship adjustmentwas measured by the brief version of the Dyadic Adjustment

Scale (Sabourin, Valois, & Lussier, 2005). This four-item scale has demonstrated reliability and

validity as a brief way to assess dyadic adjustment and distinguish clinical and nonclinical popula-

tions and predict relationship dissolution. Scores can range from 0 to 21, with a marital distress

cutoﬀ score of 13 corresponding to the 100 point cutoﬀ for the full Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Sab-

ourin et al., 2005).

Referral sourceswere determined via self-report of participants responding to a question

about how they found out about the project.

Contact with a lawyerwas assessed by asking clients during the phone intake about where they

were in the divorce process, including whether they had contacted a lawyer. In addition, we gath-

ered demographic information on length of marriage and educational levels.

Outcome Measures

The main outcome was the path taken by each couple. Path three was a decision to try to rec-

oncile through six months of couples therapy, with divorce oﬀ the table. Path two was separation/

divorce. Path one was a decision to stay on hold, neither pursue reconciliation nor divorce. These

paths were a central focus of the discernment counseling, and the choice of path was recorded by

the discernment counselor in each couple’s ﬁle after the ﬁnal discernment counseling session. There

were no missing data.

We also gathered data on longer term outcomes via three sources: county divorce records,

individual follow-ups with couples, and contacts with therapists for couples who were still in ther-

apy. The follow-up period after discernment counseling averaged 28 months, with a minimum fol-

low-up period of 12 months. The outcomes of 99 of the 100 couples were determined, and one

couple was lost to follow-up. We coded outcomes into ﬁve categories: divorced, pursuing divorce

(ﬁled and in the divorce process), reconciled, pursuing reconciliation (mostly still in therapy), and

on hold (neither pursuing divorce nor in therapy to reconcile).

FINDINGS

Couple Characteristics

The couples in the sample included 97 heterosexual married couples and three same sex cou-

ples who considered themselves married. (Same sex marriage was not yet legal in the state at the

time.) Couples had been married an average of 15.5 years (ranging from 1 to 44 years). In terms of

relationship adjustment, this was a highly distressed group, as expected. The average marital

adjustment score was 6.98, compared to the marital distress cutoﬀ score of 13 for the brief version

of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. In fact, couples in the present study averaged a full standard devi-

ation below the mean (10) of clinical sample reported by Sabourin et al. (2005). About half of the

couples (51%) had seen a divorce lawyer prior to beginning discernment counseling. Demograp-

hically, this was a well-educated group, with nearly all having a college degree or graduate

education.

Referral Sources

Self-referrals were the largest source of referrals (48%). Self-referring couples found out about

the project from friends and contacts, from reading articles, searching the Internet, or other media.

The second largest source was from therapists and social service agencies (34%), followed by law-

yers and judges (11%), a direct mailing to divorcing individuals (4%), and a parent education

course (4%).

Number of Sessions

Discernment counseling is intended to be brief, and that is what we found. The mean number

of subsequent discernment counseling sessions received per couple was 3.61 (SD=1.75).

Main Outcome: Paths Taken

After the last session, the discernment counselor recorded the immediate outcome of the direc-

tion (path) the couple chose to take. Forty-seven percent of the sample decided to move to path

April 2016JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY251 three: working on reconciliation in couples therapy. Forty-one percent chose path two: move

toward separation/divorce. And 12% chose path one: stay together and neither divorce nor

embark on therapy. See Figure 1 for an outline of the ﬁndings.

Predictors of Path Taken

Only one intake variable measured at intake was found related to path taken by the couple.

Prior contact with a divorce lawyer was associated with a lower likelihood of choosing path

three (reconciliation eﬀort) and a higher likelihood of choosing path two (divorce)

2(2,N=100)=8.45,p=.015). Of those with lawyer contact, 55% chose path two and 31%

path three. Among those without lawyer contact, 27% chose path two and 52% chose path three.

Longer Term Follow-Up

As the discernment counseling aimed at helping couples choose an immediate direction for

their relationship, we present the relationship status outcomes in terms of what happened to those

who chose diﬀerent paths at the end of discernment counseling. For the relatively small number

(n=12) who chose path one (relationship status quo or stay the course) at the completion of dis-

cernment counseling, three couples were divorced, one was pursuing divorce, one was reconciled,

one was pursuing reconciliation, and ﬁve were on hold—neither pursuing divorce nor engaging in

further reconciliation eﬀorts.

For couples who chose path two (divorce), 90% were divorced at follow up. This ﬁgure com-

bines the 80% with ﬁnalized divorced and the 10% with divorces in process. One couple was recon-

ciled, and three couples were on hold.

For the couples who chose path three (reconciliation eﬀort in therapy), 36% had reconciled,

6% were pursuing reconciliation, 28% had divorced, 17% were in the divorce process, and 13%

were on hold. Folding the couples pursuing divorce and pursuing reconciliation into the broader

categories of divorced and reconciled, the ﬁndings for path three can be summarized this way: Sim-

ilar proportions of path three couples had reconciled (42%) or divorced (45%), and the remainder

were on hold. Interestingly, having seen a lawyer did not predict long-term outcome for those who

chose path three.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this article was to make the case for a special way to work with mixed-agenda

couples on the brink of divorce, to describe the protocol for discernment counseling, and to present

initial data from a project aimed at reﬁning discernment counseling as an intervention tool. It is

important to mention that because there was no control group, no conclusions can be drawn about

the eﬃcacy of discernment counseling for preventing unnecessary divorces, averting premature

divorce decisions, or fostering more constructive divorces. The objective at this point was a careful

description of a sample of consecutively treated couples.

In discussing the ﬁndings of this study, it is important to keep in mind that this was a highly

distressed sample even for a couples intervention study, with marital satisfaction scores well below

norms for clinical samples. The prospect of imminent divorce was on the table for all couples, and

Path 1 – Status Quo Path 2 – Separated/Divorced Path 3 – Couples Therapy

100

Couples

Path 2

41%

(n = 41) Path 1

12%

(n = 12) Path 3

47%

(n = 47)

Divorced

90%

(n = 37) Status Quo

7.5%

(n = 3) Reconciled

2.5%

(n = 1) Status Quo

13%

(n = 6) Divorced

45%

(n = 21) Reconciled

42%

(n = 20) Reconciled

17%

(n = 2) Divorced

35%

(n = 4) Status Quo

42%

(n = 5)

Figure 1. Immediate and long term outcomes of 100 discernment counseling cases.

252JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPYApril 2016 half had already contacted a divorce professional. Many had tried some type of couples therapy in

the past, and in all cases, the leaning out partner was reluctant at the outset to embark on a course

of couples therapy. We presented couples with the goals of achieving more clarity and conﬁdence

in their decision making about a direction for the relationship, based on a deeper understanding of

what had happened to the marriage and each partner’s contributions. The focus of the work was

on both individual contributions and couple dynamics, and on three paths: stay the course, move

to separation/divorce, or commit to a six-month course of couples therapy with an understanding

of the changes to be made by each partner.

The primary outcome was the choice of which path the couple took. Findings showed that

about half of the couples (47%) chose the reconciliation path, 41% chose separation/divorce, and

the remainder opted for the status quo. When we embarked on developing discernment counseling

with this “on the brink” population, we had little idea about how the paths would play out. If

nearly all couples chose either immediate divorce or couples therapy, then we would have ques-

tioned whether discernment counseling was a superﬂuous intervention: Why not just proceed to

divorce or couples therapy? However, the actual breakdown of chosen paths suggests that there

was a true discernment process going on, as opposed to “closure counseling” to facilitate a divorce

or an assessment process prior to beginning couples therapy. These couples seriously deliberated

over the next step for their relationship.

Divorce is not considered a failure of discernment counseling. We were interested, however, in

the longer term outcomes of couples who tried the path of reconciliation with therapy. We found

that about 42% had succeeded in reconciliation or were still working on reconciliation. A similar

number (45%) had divorced or were in the divorce process, and a smaller subset (13%) was on

hold, neither in crisis nor particularly satisﬁed with their situation. Summarized diﬀerently, a little

less than half of the couples who tried to reconcile ended up divorced within an average of two

years, and most of rest had reconciled.

It is important to emphasize, however, that the data used for the longer term follow-up

ﬁndings were less precise than for the choice of paths. The length of follow-up varied consid-

erably, and while the outcome categories of divorce decrees and ﬁlings were public informa-

tion, we did not have objective measures for the three categories of reconciled, pursuing

reconciliation, and on hold. Outcomes measured objectively based on the number of divorces

and divorce ﬁlings can be summarized as follows: 49% of the total initial sample of couples

were divorced at follow-up, 13% were in the divorce process, and 38% were still married and

not in the divorce process.

One of our informal observations doing discernment counseling was volatility and ﬂuidity

among these highly distressed, on the brink couples. During the discernment counseling process,

some spouses shifted from leaning in to leaning out of the relationship and vice versa. A few lean-

ing out spouses appeared to be trying to use their leverage to get concessions from their leaning in

partner, a situation the discernment counselor challenged in the one-to-one conversations by

focusing on the leaning out partner’s contributions to the problems and potential solutions. Some

leaning in spouses oscillated between eagerness to look at self and blame for the partner for bring-

ing up divorce. This is diﬃcult, intense, but satisfying work.

Another informal observation concerns common mistakes therapists new to discernment

counseling make. After several years of training couples therapists in discernment counseling, here

are a number of common mistakes we have observed:

Mistake 1. Making couple therapy interventions and going for too much vulnerability when

the couple are in the room together. The intense work in discernment counseling

is with each spouse separately, with carefully orchestrated sharing in between

individual conversations.

Mistake 2. Spending too much time unpacking past hurts and conﬂict without focusing on

decisions about the future. Discernment counseling is oriented to what to do

now, especially whether to try therapy.

Mistake 3. Not moving quickly enough to challenge the leaning out spouse on his or her

contributions to the problem and thereby focusing only on the leaning in

April 2016JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY253 spouse’s contributions. Some therapists fear alienating the leaning out spouse

and collude in holding only the other partner responsible.

Mistake 4. Not preparing the post-individual-time summaries carefully enough. These are

crucial to the spouses experiencing each other as having made shifts during dis-

cernment counseling.

Mistake 5. Failing to leverage learning about each partner in conversation with the other,

out of fear of breaking conﬁdentiality. The sessions beneﬁt greatly from the dis-

cernment counselor’s willingness to share reﬂections about each partner with the

other.

Further protocol development for discernment counseling is continuing, and training of practi-

tioners is giving us a sense of how this intervention can ﬁt into everyday clinical practice. We have

observed three ways that couples enter discernment counseling. Some couples can be assessed as

mixed agenda prior to the ﬁrst session because of what they say when contacting the therapist. The

therapist then begins with discernment counseling instead of traditional couples therapy. In other cases,

the assessment of mixed-agenda status occurs during the ﬁrst or second session of couples therapy, and

then the therapist proposes shifting the focus from therapy clinical work to discernment counseling.

Thirdly, in communities (like ours) where discernment counseling becomes publically known as an

option for “on the brink” couples, clients sometimes directly request discernment counseling.

In terms of training, we have found that well-trained couples therapists can learn to use some

elements of discernment counseling after a day-long training. They can identify mixed-agenda cou-

ples, avoid making common mistakes with them, and use together-and-separate conversations as a

prelude to starting standard couples therapy. However, like other complex couples interventions,

doing discernment counseling with conﬁdence and expertise requires additional training. Informa-

tion on training opportunities is available at (www.discernmentcounseling.com).

Although we are still learning how to implement this protocol with a wide range of couples,

early experience and preliminary data presented here suggest that discernment counseling holds

promise as a tool for helping mixed-agenda couples who have presented such a challenge in every-

day clinical practice. Instead of oﬀering therapy to couples who diﬀer on their desire for therapy,

this protocol takes spouses where they are at—divided about their next steps—and attempts to

meet the needs of both.

REFERENCES

Crosby, J. F. (Ed.) (1989).When one wants out and the other doesn’t: Doing therapy with polarized couples. New York:

Brunner/Mazel.

Doherty, W.J. (2011). In or out: Treating the mixed-agenda couples.Psychotherapy Networker,45–50, 58, 60.

Doherty, W.J., Willoughby, B.J., & Peterson, B. (2011). Interest in reconciliation among divorcing parents.Family

Court Review,49, 313–321.

Doss, B. D., Simpson, L. E., & Christensen, A. (2004). Why do couples seek marital therapy?Professional Psychol-

ogy: Research and Practice,35, 608–614.

Gurman, A. S., & Burton, M. (2014). Individual therapy for couple problems: Perspectives and pitfalls.Journal of

Marital and Family Therapy,38, 470–483.

Jurich, A. P. (1989). The art of depolarization. In J. F. Crosby (Ed.),When one wants out and the other doesn’t: Doing

therapy with polarized couples(pp. 45–66). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Kanewischer, E. J., & Harris, S. M. (2014). Deciding not to Un-Do the“I Do:”Therapy experiences of women who

consider divorce but decide to remain married.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. doi: 10.1ﬁ11imft..12064

L’Abate, L., & Hewitt, D. W. (1989). Power and presence: When complementarity becomes polarity. In J. F. Crosby

(Ed.),When one wants out and the other doesn’t: Doing therapy with polarized couples(pp. 136–152). New York:

Brunner/Mazel.

Luebcke, B., Owen, J., Keller, B., Shuck, B., Knopp, K., & Rhoades, G. (2014). Therapy interventions for couples: A

commitment uncertainty comparison.Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice,3(4), 239–254.

Owen, J., Duncan, B., Anker, M., & Sparks, J. (2012). Initial relationship goal and couple therapy outcomes at post

and six-month follow-up.Journal of Family Psychology,26, 179–186.

Owen, J., Keller, B., Shuck, B., Luebcke, B., Knopp, K., & Rhoades, G. K. (2014). An initial examination of commit-

ment uncertainty in couple therapy.Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice,3(4), 232–238.

254JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPYApril 2016 Owen, J., Rhoades, G., Shuck, B., Fincham, F. D., Stanley, S., Markman, H., et al. (2014). Commitment uncertainty:

A theoretical overview.Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice,3(4), 207–219.

Russell, C. S., & Drees, C. M. (1989). What’s the rush? A negotiated slowdown. In J. F. Crosby (Ed.),When one wants

out and the other doesn’t: Doing therapy with polarized couples(pp. 93–117). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Sabourin, S., Valois, P., & Lussier, Y. (2005). Development and validation of a brief version of the Dyadic Adjust-

ment Scale with a nonparametric item analysis model.Psychological Assessment,17,15–27.

Tremblay, N., Wright, J., Mamodhouseen, S., McDuﬀ, P., & Sabourin, S. (2008). Reﬁning therapeutic mandates in

couple therapy outcome research: A feasibility study.American Journal of Family Therapy,36, 137–148.

Weiner-Davis, M. (2002).The divorce remedy. New York: Simon & Schuster.

April 2016JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY255 Copyright

ofJournal ofMarital &Family Therapy isthe property ofWiley- Blackwell andits

content

maynotbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without the

holder'sexpresswrittenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail

articles

forindividual use.