Applying Reality Therapy’s WDEP Tenets to Assist Couples in Creating New Communication Strategies

Article Applying Reality Therapy’s WDEP Tenets to Assist Couples in Creating New Communication Strategies Barbara A. Mahaffey 1 and Robert Wubbolding 2 Abstract Couples typically do not seek counseling resources until a crisis occurs. Many times during an intake interview with a counselor, couples report communication issues as a presenting problem. However to date, no best practices or treatment manuals in correspondence with a therapeutic system to improve interpersonal communication skills exist for helping couples recognize the barriers. This article reviews an approach to helping couples understand and make choices about their communication barriers and challenges. An informed philosophical direction, skills, and tools are needed for counselors to navigate the wants, direction, evaluation, and planning (WDEP) along with promoting positive outcomes in couples counseling. This article further outlines an integration of a communication model with the reality therapy WDEP tenets for use in establishing alliances, processing insights, and maintaining a therapeutic environment with couples. Further, counselors may utilize the WDEP method as a brief inter- vention framework to aid couples who have communication issues with insight acquisition, catharsis, self-disclosure, and goal setting to promote positive outcomes in counseling. Keywords communication, couples counseling, choice theory, reality therapy, WDEP Counselors seek to assist couples with alleviating communica- tion issues for multiple reasons. First, many couples state pre- senting problems related to interpersonal communication differences. Researchers have identified communication as a main reason for people seeking marriage counseling, with communication style (see Keteyian, 2011) as the highest ranked problem noted by wives (Doss, Simpson, & Christen- sen, 2004). Although communication has been reported as one of the most prevalent presenting problems in couples counsel- ing (Gladding & Newsome, 2010), experts have disagreed about how to help couples ameliorate their issues. In addition, there is a disagreement about the necessity of focusing on improving communication skills instead of other variables in couple relationships (Gottman & Silver, 1999; Kim, Capaldi, & Crosby, 2007). There are struggles for counselors who attempt to help cou- ples improve communication issues. Gottman and Silver (1999) wrote most marriage therapy fails because therapists believe in the myth that improving communication in relation- ships by teaching communication skills is a way to save the marriage. Conversely, another set of researchers examined therapy modalities and outcomes with limited successes in improving communication and saving marriages (Baucom, Sevier, Eldridge, Doss, & Christenson, 2011). They also iden- tified that improvements in communication tasks resulted in better posttherapy outcomes at 2-and 5-year follow-ups in the couples who participated in the Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy group versus the couples who received traditional Behavioral Therapy (Baucom et al., 2011). Most counselors agree when clients upon intake state a need for better communication in their relationship, the clients feel heard and supported. Establishing a therapeutic alliance with couples whose relationship is in crisis has been mostly unex- plored in the literature (Mahaffey & Granello, 2007). This ther- apeutic alliance process begins when the counselors provide information and education about choices and assist clients to establish individual goals and overarching plans of improve- ment during the first session (Long & Young, 2007). Couples who establish goals benefit when the focus of counseling and an agreement about the issues are client initiated and mutually understood (Long & Young, 2007). Goals in couples counsel- ing should also be mutual and should improve and establish ground rules for purposeful, nonthreatening, respectful, and intentional conflict resolution. 1 Chillicothe and Private Practice, Ohio University, Chillicothe, OH, USA 2 Center for Reality Therapy, Cincinnati, OH, USA Corresponding Author: Barbara A. Mahaffey, Chillicothe and Private Practice, Ohio University, Chilli- cothe, OH 45601, USA. Email: mahaffey@ohio.edu The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 2016, Vol. 24(1) 38-43 ª The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1066480715616579 tfj.sagepub.com

Couple counselors grapple with helping couples develop communication techniques that are effective and result in pos- itive outcomes. Most of the literature on communication skills for couples has included ‘‘how to’’ directions yet has missed an important point for couples: The insight they need to acknowl- edge their miscommunication or to modify their communica- tion skills. This lack of awareness or knowledge about the many differences and barriers that exist in a communication event may be a barrier to needed relationship changes. It is recognized that change in behavior results from insights into the contributing factors to miscommunication(s). One-way couple counselors assist couples gain insight is an interactive illustration of an interactive miscommunication exercise. First, to ameliorate couple miscommunications with their resulting misalliances, it is critical to understand that a couple’s communication issues are many sided yet individually unique. According to Mahaffey (2010) in her article detailing a Mis- communication Model for couples, individuals may have ongoing issues in the relationship that complicate interpersonal communication. Some of the differences described in the Mahaffey model that have created miscommunication issues were personal traits and/or characteristics, family constella- tions, and family rules (Satir, 1972). Other communication pre- senting problems discussed by couples are part of their past histories, daily life experiences, and cognitive processing. Cou- ples have also mentioned disagreements due to speech discre- pancies, word interpretations of definitions and language barriers, culture and language dissimilarities, learning styles, decision-making skill differences, and life events. Other researchers have detailed various approaches to conflict resolu- tion/problem solving (Lawrence et al., 2008) as well as motiva- tion, competence, dysfunctions, and other variables that couples experience when attempting to communicate (see Light & McNaughton, 2014). The goal of this article is to posit the wants, direction, evaluation, and planning (WDEP) treatment philosophy (Wubbolding, 2015) integrated into an educational Miscom- munication Model (Mahaffey, 2010) that couples can learn about throughout the counseling process. This can be accom- plished with a single counselor or two counselors working separately with each member of the couple. The Miscommuni- cation Model is to be taught to clients during the initial intake session (Mahaffey, 2010) and repeated throughout contacts with couples to help them process changes and improve their relationships. Integrating Wubbolding’s (2012, 2015) WDEP philosophies not only augment the model but serve as the basis for a counselor’s ability to assist the client in resolving these issues. Miscommunication Model Characteristics The Miscommunication Model is a technique and exercise (refer to Figure 1) counselors begin by drawing two persons interacting (Mahaffey, 2010). This model drawing can be adapted to include the many types of couples who seek coun- seling. While constructing the model along with input from the couple, counselors are to note the first person is sending a message and the second person is receiving the message, thus illustrating a basic interpersonal communication. This com- munication happens within an environment or situation and is demonstrated by drawing dotted or broken lines in a cloud-type formation around the couple. With the clients’ input, counselors can then process the message and discuss the many ways the receiver can provide feedback or answer the message. In a discussion with the couple, a counselor addresses differ- ent ways that messages and feedback can be misinterpreted. Talking about the possibilities of miscommunication can help to establish a therapeutic relationship when counselors point out that ‘‘everyone is fallible’’ when communication is involved (A. Ellis, personal communication, July 2, 1992). This initial part of the model is a basic diagram contained in many texts, journals, and other sources that have defined interperso- nal communication. For additional information on possible special needs of persons with communication issues, see Light (2003), and Light and McNaughton (2014). After the basic interpersonal diagram is presented to the couple, the counselor(s) may discuss the different variables or aspects that influence couple communication (see Figure 1). An alternative to dysfunctional communication is presented gradually to promote insight, catharsis, and nonthreatening self-disclosure by the couple. First, couples learn to avoid the A, B, C’s: These are behaviors that are toxic to relationships and include arguing, antagonizing, blaming, belittling, criticiz- ing, and complaining (Wubbolding, 2015). Different Traits and Characteristics One topic area of the Miscommunication Model involves the many faceted aspects of human traits and characteristics. Cou- ples can be asked to make a list of the differences and identify how the differences can interfere with accurate communica- tion. Counselors can also reference how they themselves have different traits than the couple if such self-disclosure is well timed and appropriate. This task can also be accomplished throughout the counseling process as the ways people differ can be unlimited. Differences are often based on sex, gender, age, culture, country of origin, religion, education, family status, and socioeconomic status. Clients can be encouraged to add to this list with items such as motivation level, morals and val- ues, and general attitudes. Other possible traits couples have added to their model are associated behaviors or characteristics such as emotional responses, personalities, likes/dislikes, body language, learning styles, and decision-making processes. A purpose in asking clients to write and describe how they differ is to promote catharsis and insight (Mahaffey, 2010). Counse- lors can enrich the conversation and also assist clients in describing the effects of diversities, prejudices, and biases. Different traits become obvious while others are unknown or unspoken. Some clients benefit from listing similarities, strengths, and positive past events shared as well. During this process, clients can learn the WDE of the WDEP system Mahaffey and Wubbolding 39

WDEP system to evaluate the possible changes in their beha- vior and whether their perceptions are helping or hurting their relationship. Thinking and Speech Differences Because people think faster than they can talk, it is important to include a section on the couple Miscommunication Model that addresses possible intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts. When drawing this cognitive miscommunication process, the couple draws two brains: one with a long arrow inside each brain denoting the rate at which people think and one shorter arrow indicating the rate at which a person speaks (Mahaffey, 2010). Sometimes the arrows can intersect and at other times disconnected spirals can represent the many different ways people process cognitions, their rate of speech, and other asso- ciated neurological issues. When disagreements happen and are evident in a session, the brains can be drawn facing one another or pointed in opposite directions. Couples can then make action ‘‘plans’’ (P) that are satisfying to both parties. Couples have noted this area as being the most prevalent one in terms of mis- communication, often noting, ‘‘You said what?’’ Difficulties in processing and speaking about concepts can be introduced as one way that miscommunication happens. Usually people can relate to speaking out of turn, being dis- tracted with thoughts, or words not being connected correctly in speech making. Sometimes a person notices a ‘‘disconnect’’ between a thought and what was spoken. Also, counselors ask if either of the clients relates to the notion that people state that they have said something and the other person states that noth- ing of the sort was spoken aloud. This is an opportunity to dis- cuss the ‘‘wants’’ (W) of each person. Couples can discuss how they want the other person to talk or solve problem verbally; meanwhile, the counselor encourages them to avoid the toxic A, B, C’s. A common occurrence with couples who have had long- term relationships is the belief one person can anticipate the needs or wants of the other person. Another example is a person who may have a habit of finishing the other person’s sentences. Still another illustration a person may draw could symbolize difficulty or delay in speech, silence without feedback, or lack of a want or a behavior that represents the doing (D) aspect of WDEP. The couple can then be taught to ask for what they want (W) in a specific manner, to evaluate (E) the effect of their own actions, and to formulate mutually satisfying plans (P). Cultural, Family, or Personal Rules Differences Cultural and family differences are sometimes difficult to dis- cuss upon meeting with couples for the first time. Those differ- ences are important topics as the multiple aspects of personal or family rules (Haley, 1987; Satir, 1972) can create miscommu- nication. Blevins (1993) defined family rules as a behavior pat- tern that describes family behavior or relationships. The differences in culture, family, or personal rules are usually added to the diagram model as a bubble that is attached to or occurs in between both people, while the counselor notes that differences are unique to each individual. Clients could be asked to point out the beliefs or behaviors in a bubble that is usually drawn between the two people in the Miscommunica- tion Model. Because of their cultural backgrounds and cus- toms, some people do not ask or have difficulty articulating what they want. A culturally aware counselor demonstrating positive regard and empathy can help them gradually disclose their wants or the rationale for not disclosing. Daily Life Interference Events in daily life can also present communication challenges for couples. These aspects include life stressors, children, work commitments, news events, and financial issues. Couples may also list ways they have coped with day-to-day events for strength building and to augment their plan (P) for improve- ment. They describe exactly what they were doing when they were able to set aside their communication barriers. In the model, the couple fills in a conversation bubble noting their daily life interferences. The counselor helps the clients develop insights about how people experience daily life events in a need-satisfying manner. The couple also fills in the bubble with exactly what they would say to each other that would bring them closer together. Word Definition Confusion A large part of communication errors occur because of differ- ent ways for defining or experiencing words. There are many aspects such as body language, kinesics, and how words are spoken (see Mehrabian, 1972) that can create confusion and miscommunication. Counselors may note that definitions of words involving emotions are the most difficult to agree upon. For example, the word love had 64 words in its many defini- tions and anyone may disagree with the dictionary definitions of it. This aspect of the Miscommunication Model, while typi- cally drawn at the bottom of the diagram, can be moved to any location to indicate its importance in the couple’s relationship issues. Conclusions This article discussed the application of Mahaffey’s (2010) Miscommunication Model integrated with choice theory and the reality therapy WDEP system (Robey, Wubbolding, & Carlson, 2012; Wubbolding, 1988, 1990, 2000, 2011, 2015; Wubbolding & Bickell, 1998, 2015), when working in sessions with couples who are experiencing interpersonal communica- tion challenges. There are advantages to using the WDEP sys- tem integrated with a visual aid such as the Miscommunication Model in couples counseling. First, helping people to under- stand the many intricacies of human nature, its traits, and how a single human interaction can complicate relationships can promote insight, catharsis, and set the stage for alliance repair. Using this combined technique can also assist the couple to Mahaffey and Wubbolding 41

establish honorable goals for change and the awareness needed to continue the change after counseling. While a desired out- come may be the amelioration of problems or conflict resolu- tion, there are times that couples have not realized what barriers and difficult challenges have existed to complicate relationships. Further, a counselor can help couples make mutually satisfying plans for the future when they gain insight into the many relationship variables when they are attached to the WDEP system. Attaining success with tasks, goals, and behavior change is sometimes dependent upon clients gaining insights about what has interfered with their processing of the WDEP system. Also, this integrated model can be used as a homework tool or the basis for journaling between sessions. Some cautions about the Miscommunication Model used with the underlying tenets of choice theory and reality therapy and its use with couples are warranted. At no time can counse- lors guarantee that the use of this model will promote a lasting relationship. Just as miscommunication happens between two people, adding a counselor to the communication dyad creates a triad and the possibilities for miscommunication increase at least threefold. Diagramming the miscommunications with crooked arrows could be helpful when counselors notice that two different topics are discussed in competing ways with each person trying to get a point to be heard. Many miscommunica- tions have happened due to contradictory beliefs about listen- ing. Integrating the WDEP structure to the discussion may require additional time spent with couples in the initial session. Another possible caution is that some discussions about differ- ences may broach intrapersonal sensitivities. Another set of skills and awareness critical to this process is the many aspects of social justice occurring in any interpersonal communication dialog. An important caveat is that couple counselors are also expected to focus on maintaining a therapeutic alliance with each person as well as with the couple as a unit when diagramming the model. The tasks, goals, and bond of forming a therapeutic alliance (Bordin, 1979) with multiple clients in a session are difficult to navigate and merits fur- ther understanding (Mahaffey & Granello, 2007; Pinsof, 1994). One possible way of gaining an alliance and prob- lem resolution is the use of the WDEP system (Wubbold- ing 1988, 1990, 2000, 2011, 2015) when working with couples who are learning the Miscommunication Model can result in improved alliances with the counselor and the couple. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- ship, and/or publication of this article. References Blevins, W. (1993). Your family your self . Oakland, CA: New Harbinger. Baucom, K. J. W., Sevier, M., Eldridge, K. A., Doss, B. D., & Chris- tensen, A. (2011). Observed communication in couples two years after integrative and traditional behavioral couples therapy: Out- come and link with five-year follow up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 79 , 565–576. Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic con- cept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice , 16 , 252–260. Doss, B. D., Simpson, L. E., & Christensen, A. (2004). Why do cou- ples seek marital therapy? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice , 35 , 608–614. Gladding, S. T., & Newsome, D. W. (2010). Clinical mental health counseling in community and agency settings (3rd ed.). Upper Sad- dle River, NY: Pearson Education Incorporated. Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory . New York, NY: HarperCollins. Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999). The seven principles for making marriage work . New York, NY: Crown. Haley, J. (1987). Problem solving therapy (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Keteyian, R. V. (2011). Understanding individual communication styles in counseling. The Family Journal , 19 , 90–95. Kim, H. K., Capaldi, D. M., & Crosby, L. (2007). Generalizability of Gottman and colleagues’ affective process models of couples’ relationship outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family , 69 , 55–72. Lawrence, E., Pederson, A., Bunde, M., Barry, R. A., Brock, R. L., Fazio, E., . . . Dzankovic, S. (2008). Objective ratings of rela- tionship skills across multiple domains as predictors of marital satisfaction trajectories. Journal of Social and Personal Rela- tionships , 25 , 445–466. Light, J. (2003). Shattering the silence: Development of communica- tive competence by individuals who use AAC. In J. C. Light, D. R. Beukelman, & J. Reichle (Eds.), Communicative competence for individuals who use AAC: From research to effective practice (pp. 3–38). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2014). Communicative competence for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communica- tion: A new definition for a new era of communication. Augmenta- tive and Alternative Communication , 30 , 1–18. doi:10.3109/ 07434618.2014.885080 Long, L. L., & Young, M. E. (2007). Counseling and therapy for cou- ples (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning. Mahaffey, B. A. (2010). Couples counseling directive technique: A (mis)communication model to promote insight, catharsis, disclosure, and problem resolution. The Family Journal , 18 , 45–49. Mahaffey, B. A., & Granello, P. F. (2007). Therapeutic alliance: A review of sampling strategies reported in marital and family ther- apy studies. The Family Journal , 15 , 207–216. Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication . Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton. 42 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 24(1)