Couple therapy is not a set of techniques and tools that are delivered to the couple. Instructive interaction does not lead to change (Maturana & Varela, 1980). A new behaviour only becomes a structurally viable option because it has been experienced.

There are a number of discrete interventions that have evolved over the years and form a core part of the process. These are not delivered in a manualised manner, but are directly tied to the process of restructuring interaction. The focus is not on teaching new skills or strategies, but on curating corrective relational experiences and interactions that allow a new way of being together to emerge over time.

The first interventive process is the introduction of the ground rules and the therapeutic frame. This is not administrative. It defines the roles, the expectations, and clearly establishes the role of the therapist. It structures the space from the outset.

A critical part of this is the clear boundary around how the relationship is spoken about outside of the session, including suspending relational conversations at home. This is deliberate. It contains the interaction and prevents the repetition of the same patterns outside of a structured context. Typically, the ability to have these relational conversations is what is compromised, directly part of maintaining the interactional pattern and playing a role in escalation.

The next process introduces regulation and a reframe. The window of tolerance is introduced as a way of understanding activation without blame or making one person responsible for the experience and behaviour of the other (Siegel, 2012). It normalises aspects of what happens in the couple and clarifies the specific points where the repetition of the same pattern becomes inevitable, and the point beyond which it is no longer possible to remain engaged in a constructive and cooperative way.

The following process is deceptively simple: affirmations as specific actions initiated by each individual on a daily basis between sessions. At an immediate level, this softens what each person is receiving from the other.

Underlying this is a more complex logic of shifting attention to noticing what the other person does that has a positive impact. It acts as a fundamental reorientation in how the other is seen. Each person needing to find things to give affirmations is the actual therapeutic process, although the impact of giving these is experientially what makes a difference.

At this stage, it becomes clear whether there is a frequent occurrence of corrosive actions in the relationship. These are either reported by one of the partners or become evident during sessions. They are actively identified and interrupted as they occur.

Between-session work is consistently reviewed as part of the session structure.

I provide guidance and written material to the couple along the process. The focus is not psychoeducation, but extending what is discussed during the session. The material supports an alternative way of looking at what is happening between them, and provides guidance to help them follow the structure of what is practised during sessions, whether that is affirmations, relational check-ins, or the repair sequence.

Ground rules and affirmations are repeatedly reviewed until it is clear that they have been established.

This is not about compliance or completing “homework,” but about what emerges. The therapist is listening to how the experience between sessions is being described, how each partner is being described, the way the couple is in the room, and the way they relate.

Affirmations are followed by identifying and introducing corrective actions. These are small, deliberate actions initiated and carried out by each partner in response to understanding the injury and needs of their partner. This establishes the cumulative layering of restructuring conversation and interaction, including what happens between the couple at home. It forms part of the softening process and further reduces the intensity of the relationship, often supporting the sense of initial progress and change.

There is a softening. All the problems are still there, but something very distinct emerges in the couple, and this softening is the focus of this early stage of the work. It is the reduction of the immediate intensity of the relationship and of what happens between them day to day.

When this emerges, the therapist moves forward, while keeping an eye on whether these tasks are being maintained.

This is where the work on the legacy of injury fits. The writing of the acknowledgement letters, the review of these letters, and the reading over one or more sessions. This is carefully guided to prevent compounding the injuries.

When this is done within the structure, there is again a clear and distinct shift. A further softening. Being heard, being acknowledged, each individual fully taking ownership of their contribution to what has happened in the relationship. Experientially, this is usually a powerful event for both partners.

Once this work has landed, the process can progress to the introduction of relational check-ins, which marks a significant shift in the process, since it is the first time there is an exception to the ground rules.

It provides a way of checking in once a week on the relationship in a deliberate manner. This serves the function of introducing relational conversations in a structured and contained way, but also establishes that these conversations are limited to the last week and extend into the next. The relationship needs to stop accumulating injuries and has to learn to regulate itself. It is also diagnostic in terms of anything not working.

Everything done between sessions is introduced and practised during sessions. It is then practised, usually at a higher frequency, at home, and it is reviewed to understand whether the process is being followed.

The therapist is looking for the emergent experiential shifts in how the couple are together. One layer of this is them noticing differences, the other is noticing how they are together and engage.

In-session and between-session work are inseparable, and there is a consistent and systematic progression towards restructuring conversations and interactions that is then extended and consolidated through repetition. The outcome is observable shifts in experience.

The next significant intervention is the introduction of the repair sequence, a highly structured way for repairing arguments, events, or injuries as they occur.

This prepares the couple to deal with new events. People feel hurt, offended by what the other does, or they have disagreements and arguments.

The repair sequence is the most complex intervention, consisting of a number of steps with clear differentiation between the roles of the speaker and the listener. It is introduced and practised in session, with each partner taking both roles, using lower intensity material. This is then followed by practising between sessions, reviewed, and, if needed, practised further with additional guidance, until the couple can use the process in response to what happens between them.

A couple who is able to follow the repair sequence at home in response to an actual conflict signals that the end of therapy is being approached.

This is not a comprehensive list of every discrete intervention, but it outlines the progression of the interventive processes and where they fit as a systematic and intentional progression.

The early stage of therapy is focused on reducing escalation and injury, which includes directly addressing corrosive actions and putting in place interactions that soften the experience and begin to shift the interaction.

The middle stage increases intensity in a structured way, with the legacy process as well as a return to relational check-ins.

The relational check-ins mark a turning point in the process, as this is the first time between-session tasks deliberately involve engaging with each other about the relationship. It is a pivotal point in the work, and the ability of the couple to remain within the structure becomes informative in terms of their capacity to sustain the process.

From this point, the role of the therapist shifts. There is typically a reduction in direct interruption of the old pattern, although it does not disappear. In my experience, this marks a clear turning point.

The later stage deepens this with the capacity to resolve and repair new events and conflicts as they arise. There is a clear progression in developing new behavioural alternatives that are inseparable from the management of intensity and shifts in orientation towards personal ownership and accountability.