Journal of Marital and Family Therapy

doi: 10.1111/jmft.12068
April 2015, Vol. 41, No. 2, 205–220

COMPETENCIES FOR ADDRESSING GENDER AND

POWER IN COUPLE THERAPY: A SOCIO EMOTIONAL
APPROACH
Carmen Knudson-Martin, Douglas Huenergardt, Ketsia Lafontant, Les Bishop,
Johannes Schaepper, and Melissa Wells
Loma Linda University

Power imbalances between partners are intrinsic to relationship distress and intricately con-
nected to emotional experience, couple communication processes, and socio cultural contexts
such as gender. The ability to work with the power dynamics between partners is thus critical
to the practice of couple therapy. However, few practical guidelines for dealing with this
issue are available. The authors present seven clinical competencies regarding gender and
power issues that they identified by examining their own work: (a) identify enactments of
cultural discourse, (b) attune to underlying socio cultural emotion, (c) name underlying
power processes, (d) facilitate relational safety, (e) foster mutual attunement, (f) create a
model of equality, and (g) facilitate shared relationship responsibility. Each competency is
illustrated through a case example. The competencies represent an over-arching guide to
practice that may be integrated with other clinical approaches and is particularly useful for
training and supervision.

Family therapists know that gender matters (Leslie & Southard, 2009; Lyness & Lyness,
2007). Yet, most systemic models for practice still tend to overlook inequitable gender struc-
tures (e.g., Carlson et al., 2005; Williams, Galick, Knudson-Martin, & Huenergardt, 2013).
Power dynamics between heterosexual partners continue to generate typified responses that
partners frequently do not intend, are hard to notice, and have detrimental effects on couple
relationships and the health and well-being of both women and men (Knudson-Martin, 2013;
Knudson-Martin & Mahoney, 2005; Loscocco & Walzer, 2013). Clinical competencies for cou-
ple therapists must thus include interventions that help couples transform limiting gender ste-
reotypes and gendered power dynamics (McGeorge, Carlson, & Guttormson, 2009; Ward &
Knudson-Martin, 2012).
For over 5 years, we have been part of a group of marital and family therapy doctoral
students and faculty focused on how to address gender and power issues in couple therapy.
In this article, we offer a set of seven competencies that represent our current understanding
of what is required to do this work and illustrate them with a case example. Though they
grow out of our work, these competencies may be integrated with many different models of
therapy (e.g., Gurman, 2013) and serve as a foundation to attaining other clinical goals. Our
example focuses on gender-based power differences; however, power imbalances affect all cou-
ples, and we have applied the competencies to same sex relationships as well (e.g., Williams,
2011). A summary of each therapist competency across developmental levels is included in the
Appendix A.

Carmen Knudson-Martin, PhD, Douglas Huenergardt, PhD, Ketsia Lafontant, MS, Les Bishop, MA, MDIV,
Johannes Schaepper, MDIV, and Melissa Wells, MS, Department of Counseling and Family Sciences, Loma Linda
University at Loma Linda.
The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Adrian Avila, Carizma Chapman, Jessica Chen, Elisa-
beth Esmiol, Julie Estrella, Aimee Galick, Horatius Gittens, Young Joo Kang, Christian Kim, Grace Kim, Lana
Kim, Veronica Kuhn, A’veria Martin, Jessica Moreno, Carolyn Nyiaro; Mia Pandit, Jason Richards, Sarah Sam-
man, and Kirstee Williams to the development of this article.
Address correspondence to Carmen Knudson-Martin, Department of Counseling and Family Sciences, Loma
Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350; E-mail: [email protected]

April 2015 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 205

 STUDYING OUR OWN PROCESS

We first share our assumptions regarding gender and power. The consensual process used to
develop the competencies and observations regarding our stages of therapist development follow.

Assumptions Regarding Gender and Power

The following principles guide our work with couples.
Context structures personal identities and relational processes. We begin with the assumption
that people are socio cultural; that their very senses of self are (a) connected to cultural messages
about who they are and how they should think, feel, and behave and (b) informed by inherent
power differentials in a person’s social contexts such as gender, race, socioeconomic status, and
sexual orientation. Cultural differences are thus part of a wider set of societal power relations
(McDowell & Fang, 2007).
As therapy begins, we take note of the socio cultural discourses embedded in clients’ stories
(e.g., Dickerson, 2013; Lyness & Lyness, 2007). This helps us recognize the socio cultural basis of
client concerns and appreciate their emotional significance. The notion of discourse helps us distin-
guish societal meanings from the personal. Gender discourses are particularly salient. We expect
that relational ideals are important to both men and women, but that societal expectations for men
may sometimes contradict the relational aspect of their identities. Moreover, binary societal scripts
do not convey the full range of gender diversity and typically presume heteronormativity, linking
definitions of masculinity and femininity to heterosexual behavior even though many persons do
not identify with these gender stereotypes (Knudson-Martin, 2011; Malpas, 2011).
Emotion is contextual. Recent studies suggest that emotional engagement is a key aspect of
clinical change (e.g., Fishbane, 2007; Fosha, 2009; Johnson & Greenman, 2013). We are interested
in the unique social contexts within which emotions arise. Because emotions connect individual
experience with the larger world, they are an important avenue through which the socio-political is
expressed at physiological and relational levels (Trevarthen, 2009). Thus, as we attune with each
partner at the emotional level, we seek to understand how their experiences reflect societal and
power positions and to recognize these in couple communication processes.
Power is relational. Partners engage with each other from different sources of power (Fish-
bane, 2011; Ward & Knudson-Martin, 2012). This complex dynamic is revealed in the degree to
which partners are able to influence the other. People in more powerful positions tend to be less
aware of the needs and interests of others (Parker, 2009). The balance of power is reflected in:
“Who notices? Who feels entitled to express their needs or have them fulfilled? Who accommodates
or organizes around the other? Who responds to provide care? The less powerful tend to automati-
cally respond and accommodate the other” (Knudson-Martin, 2013, p. 6). As a result, persons in
powerful positions are often unaware of their influence and may not feel powerful (Kimmel, 2011).
When power is imbalanced, relational change is initiated when the person in a dominant position
takes a more relational orientation (Fishbane, 2011; Huenergardt & Knudson-Martin, 2009; Wil-
liams & Knudson-Martin, 2013).
Relationships should mutually support each partner. The ability of partners to notice and
respond to each other, attune to emotion, and accept influence are important to relationship suc-
cess (e.g., Gottman, 2011; Greenberg & Goldman, 2008; Johnson & Greenman, 2013; Mirgain &
Cordova, 2007). These relational processes foster both individual and relational health and are
thus typically key goals of couple therapy (Lebow, Chambers, Christensen, & Johnson, 2012).
Unequal power dynamics undermine these foundational relationship capacities (Jonathan &
Knudson-Martin, 2012; Knudson-Martin, 2013).
Therapists must actively intervene in social processes. Gendered disparities in power and privi-
lege are the effects of patriarchy (Dickerson, 2013) and are embedded across ethnic, racial, socio-
economic contexts (Perry-Jenkins, Newkirk, & Ghunney, 2013). To attain mutual support and
intimacy, therapy must interrupt societal-based power differences (Knudson-Martin & Huener-
gardt, 2010). Our approach is intentional about this. In heterosexual relationships, “this usually
means therapists must resist cultural messages that place relationship responsibility and vulnerabil-
ity on women and, instead, encourage powerful male partners to initiate relational connection”

206 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2015

(Knudson-Martin, 2013, p. 11). We view this as a social intervention (Jordan, 2009; Knudson-
Martin & Huenergardt, 2010).

Our Method
We frame our study group as an action research project in which members of an organization
or team systematically study themselves to improve their work and at the same time make contri-
butions to the field (Coghlan & Brannick, 2005). We have been meeting weekly, conducting and
observing live couple therapy sessions and systematically reflecting on them. Over time, some stu-
dents have left the group and new ones joined (see acknowledgments), with membership typically
including a diverse group of 8–10 doctoral students working toward MFT licensure or newly
licensed and two senior faculty members. Our on-going goal is to identify and document the skills
involved in working with gender and power issues so that we are better able to apply and teach
them. Analysis of our action process is similar to the consensual qualitative approach (Hill,
Thompson, & Williams, 1997; Hill et al., 2005) in which consensus is used to examine individual
experiences, process multiple perspectives, and arrive at shared judgments about the meaning of
the data. To date, 25 persons have participated, including seven men and 18 women. Fourteen are
persons of color. Ten immigrated to the United States or are international students. The authors
of this article were part of the group from the inception. Five graduates of the group are now
faculty at other universities. Our project has evolved through three phases:
Phase I: identifying key competencies: We began by observing live cases then discussing what
we experienced, keeping nearly verbatim notes on our conversations. A subgroup (Ketsia, Car-
men, and Doug) met to review the notes and identify salient themes to bring back to the group.
Each week, group members responded to the themes until everyone’s experience was taken into
account. Through this iterative process, a draft of seven key competencies was identified and
the group named the approach Socio-Emotional Relationship Therapy. The current version of
these competencies is in the Appendix A.
Phase II: practicing & refining competencies: Group members used the draft competencies
to guide practice in new cases and observed, discussed, recorded, and analyzed what was
involved in implementing them following the consensual analytic process described above.
A summary of these conclusions is illustrated in Table 1. We used these findings and made
a demonstration video of the competencies to teach new group members how to implement
them. Their learning experiences were incorporated into on-going refinement of the
competencies.
Phase III: Application and research: As we continue to apply, study, and refine the competen-
cies, we are now researching (a) aspects that we find particularly challenging, such as how thera-
pists attain socio cultural attunement or how to relationally engage powerful men; and (b) how
to apply the competencies to particular couples issues such as prior experience of childhood
abuse, socio cultural influences on parenting, dealing with chronic illness, and infidelity (e.g.,
Williams et al., 2013).

Stages of Therapist Development

Over the course of our project, we observed four general stages as therapists develop the abil-
ity to apply a larger contextual lens to therapy: awareness, tracking process, providing leadership,
and empowerment. Though these stages reciprocally influence the other and growth in each is
on-going, they provide a useful organizing framework for evaluating the clinical competencies
outlined in this article and summarized in the Appendix A.
First, therapists approach clinical work with varying degrees of awareness regarding how the
larger social context (i.e., gender, culture, social power, etc.) affects relational processes and clients’
presenting issues. Because these processes are so embedded in taken for granted realties, recogniz-
ing them and their influences requires on-going critical reflection and development of an overarch-
ing socio-contextual lens (Carlson et al., 2005; Esmiol, Knudson-Martin, & Delgado, 2012;
Hernández-Wolfe, & McDowell, 2012 Seedahl, Holtrop, & Parra-Cardona, 2013; Seponski,
Bermudez, & Lewis, 2013).
Second, the desire to apply a larger-context lens moves therapists to track how societal
processes are playing out in their clients’ lives and in the moment by moment of couple

April 2015 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 207

 Table 1
Skills Needed to Implement Socio-Emotional Relationship Therapy
Competencies

Competency 1: Identify enactments of cultural discourse

• Listen for context
• Expand conversation regarding cultural discourse
• Explore personal meanings around cultural discourses
• Guide partners to see larger societal patterns
Competency 2: Attune to underlying socio cultural emotion
• Convey understanding of each partner’s socio emotional experience
• Explore the relational effects of contextual experience
• Connect socio cultural experience to clinical issues
• Expand relational context
Competency 3: Identify relational power dynamics
• Recognize potential power processes
• Use current process to make power structure visible
• Detail what happens
• Link power processes to relational goals
Competency 4: Facilitate relational safety\
• Encourage vulnerability of powerful partner
• Identify relational needs of powerful partner
• Name safety issue for less powerful person
• Provide leadership regarding accountability
Competency 5: Foster mutual attunement
• Recognize and interrupt enactment of gender stereotypes
• Encourage powerful partner to take initiative in attuning
• Reinforce exceptions to gender stereotypes
• Help partners see what works
Competency 6: Create relationship model based on equality
• Listen to client stories through lens of equality
• Invite partners to envision what equality would look like
• Explore consequences of options
• Encourage partners to join to resist socio cultural patterns
Competency 7: Facilitate shared relational responsibility
• Work with powerful person first
• Focus on relational meanings, desires, and outcomes
• Facilitate mutual engagement
• Validate and reinforce shared responsibility

therapy (McGeorge et al., 2009). At this stage of development, therapists begin to see the
unique consequences of gender and power dynamics for their particular clients (Knudson-Mar-
tin & Huenergardt, 2010).
The next stage, therapist leadership, is where we have seen many therapists get stuck. They are
rightly concerned with issues of therapist power (e.g., Sutherland, Turner, & Dienhart, 2013) and
do not want to impose their values (Leslie & Southard, 2009); however, interrupting the unwanted
influence of societal power processes takes learning to be active in the face of constraining societal
pressures. In a task analysis, we found that successful resolution required persistent efforts
to engage the powerful partner and support the less powerful partner, as well as willingness to
challenge power positions (Williams et al., 2013).
Finally, rather than simply teach skills or tell partners what they should do, therapists need to
develop the ability to empower; that is, to facilitate the therapeutic conditions that enable partners
to transform societal gender discourses and relate to each other from more equitable positions

208 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2015

(Almeida, Dolan-Del Vecchio, & Parker, 2008; Dickerson, 2013; Mahoney & Knudson-Martin,
2009). Our definition of empowerment involves liberation from constructing narratives and social
structures (Hernandez, Almeida, & Dolan-del Vecchio, 2005) and “mutual creation of meaning in
which the therapist is key in stimulating the reconstruction of the clients’ life stories” (p. 114).
Thus, attainment of each of the seven competencies involves being able to engage the couple in
transformative relational processes(see Appendix A).

Illustration of Competencies
We selected the following composite case to illustrate the competencies for working with gen-
der and power because when you first meet this middle-class couple their gendered power dynamics
could easily be missed. Serena,1 aged 42, is an African American woman who appears very inde-
pendent and seems able to speak up for herself. Wes, aged 50, is a relatively soft-spoken European-
American man. They have been married 3 years. It is Wes’ third marriage and Serena’s second. Se-
rena initiated therapy because she is distressed by his bouts of rage that seem to come out of
nowhere. The examples are drawn from multiple sessions enacted with male and female co-thera-
pists. They are selected to emphasize gender; however, we continually view the couple’s gendered
experience as intricately connected with the multiple ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic contexts in
which it is embedded. Our discussion of each competency describes therapist actions at the empow-
erment level of development. It is important to note, however, that the ability to facilitate empow-
erment includes awareness, tracking, and leadership.

Competency 1: Identify Enactments of Cultural Discourse

In this competency, therapists guide partners to see their relationship as part of social patterns
larger than themselves.
Listen for context. We focus especially on discourses that guide how people orient themselves
to others (e.g., Silverstein, Bass, Tuttle, Knudson-Martin, & Huenergardt, 2006), listening for and
reflecting back messages about independence and connection, position and hierarchy, sources of
personal worth and value, expectations about roles and decision-making, and the meaning of
accommodating and attending to others. As Wes describes his attraction to Serena, the therapists
listen for these markers of the social context.
Wes: She has a lot on the ball. I found it attractive that she was independent—didn’t have
to call me up at work for every piddly little thing.
Expand conversation regarding cultural discourse. Notice how the therapist highlights the idea
of woman as independent, focusing on his attraction in relation to stereotypical gender discourse
in White culture.
Therapist: When you talk about Serena being an independent woman, it strikes me that
that’s a pretty different model of being a woman than the traditional mainstream ideal…
say some more about what you think a woman should be like.
Wes: I don’t know that I had any ideal in mind…I knew what I didn’t want. I used to
think I’d want a woman who’d cater to my needs, and kinda be around me all the time…
initially I thought that would be pretty nice; but I experienced two marriages with women
who were very dependent. And it drained me.
Explore personal meanings around discourse. Aware that Serena’s experience of gendered
dependency might be quite different, the therapist provides leadership by extending the conversa-
tion about women needing men and exploring what this idea means to her:
Therapist: I always find it kind of interesting to think about what you might have learned
about being a woman before you met Wes…this idea of not really needing a man. How
does that fit into your life experience?
Senera: My idea of a man was someone who would take care of me… I obviously didn’t
get it right, because I ended up in a very abusive marriage… when I finally got up the
courage to leave, after I walked away, I started to rethink.

April 2015 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 209

 As the therapists continue to track how cultural gender ideals play out in this relationship,
they and the couple begin to see societal ideas expressed and experienced in very personal ways.
Guide partners to see larger social patterns. As a first step toward empowerment, the thera-
pists frame the couple’s patterns as part of social patterns larger than themselves.
Therapist: Both of you are here today because you really value this relationship, and both
of you have been trying pretty hard. And yet you seem to have fallen into some patterns
that we see pretty often with other couples. (to Serena) You speak like many other
women. I want to listen; to be heard…and I feel like I really need to pay attention to the
relationship.
Serena: Absolutely
Therapist (to Wes): And I hear you saying that you also care about relationship, but tak-
ing on such a sense of expecting that as a man you’re supposed to have the answers.
Wes: Um-hum. Uh-hum!

Competency 2: Attune to Underlying Socio cultural Emotion

We have learned that understanding clients’ social context is not sufficient to engage partners
in transformative clinical work (Knudson-Martin, 2013). Therapists also need to communicate
that they “get” each partner’s socio emotional experience. In this competency, therapists reflect
socio cultural attunement to each partner that affectively engages them in the therapy and creates
a new basis for addressing relationship processes.
Convey understanding of each partner’s socio emotional experience. As Wes speaks of how
hard he is working at trying to be a good husband, the therapists seek to resonate with his under-
standing of himself as a man:
Wes: I know what it takes to be a man. I’ve been through that. (pause) Sometimes I’m
thinking that it’s a struggle to be enough for her; that if I don’t keep doing it, giving it all
I’ve got. (sits up straighter). See I can give it everything I got. It’s always worked for me
before. I don’t know why she’s…
Therapist: You’re worried that you can give it everything you’ve got…you can give it all
you’ve got…give it all you’ve got…and it still won’t be enough for her?
Wes: Ya! Why wouldn’t that be enough for her?
Explore the relational effects of contextual experience. The therapists recognize that Wes’ uni-
lateral approach to relationships is consistent with gendered approaches to relationship mainte-
nance (Loscocco & Walzer, 2013) and emphasize this discourse as they explore its effects on
Serena:
Therapist (to Serena): And what is that like for you? To feel that he’s charging ahead in
one direction?
Serena: It makes me feel like I’m not part of the equation; that he’s just doing this thing
that has nothing to do with me.
Therapist: So when Wes puts all this energy in, he’s trying really hard, but it makes you
feel left out.
Serena: Exactly!
Connect socio cultural experience to clinical issues. The therapists sympathetically link Wes’
emotional experience to his anger, while remaining sensitive to power dynamics and emotions
related to power positions.
Therapist: It makes sense to me then why you might get angry or have a tone to your
voice, because beneath it you’re saying what more do you want?!

210 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2015

 Wes: Ya!
Therapist: I am fulfilling my role as I understand it.
Wes: And well.
Therapist: And it’s not enough…so there is the source of some of the anger.
Expand relational context. Exploring each partner’s socio-embedded emotional experience
offers hope and engages them and empowers them to approach their relationship from a new,
larger perspective:
Therapist: You know as I listen to you, I get a fair bit of optimism about what’s
possible in your relationship. Because, Serena, I hear you, a woman who’s been hurt
before; who’s learned that it can be unsafe to be a woman in a relationship and to
not expect very much necessarily–you’ve taken a risk, and you haven’t given up
hope.
Serena: No I haven’t.
Therapist: And Wes, you have taken on such a strong sense of responsibility to do the
right thing; to make Serena happy.

Competency 3: Identify Relational Power Dynamics

It is important that therapists evaluate presenting issues and couple dynamics in relation to
gendered power processes (Carlson et al., 2005). In this competency, the therapists name the
underlying power imbalances in a manner that validates both partners and engages them to relate
in ways that challenge previous power patterns.
Recognize potential power processes. In this session, Wes came in upset because Serena had
not taken time to listen to something important to him. Note that the therapists do not automati-
cally follow his construction of the problem; instead, they explore how his emotional response is
connected to gender expectations regarding who attends to whom and whose time is valuable:
Therapist: So you were expecting that she would be available and listen to you. It was
pretty disappointing to you—upsetting– that she had something else to do and wasn’t
listening to you.
Wes: Yeah. Well Yeah!
Use current process to make power structure visible. It is easier for couples to see power
dynamics when they evolve from the issues they raise. Here, the therapists recognize a gendered
power issue and track how each partner experiences it.
Therapist: (to Wes) If I’m getting this straight, you were expecting that Serena was going
to be there for you. (to Serena) And you felt like he wasn’t paying attention to what you
had scheduled.
Wes: if she would have cared a whole lot, she’d have given me the time of day.
Power is an abstract concept. By opening conversation that explores the details of the power
dynamics involved in this incident, the therapist provides leadership in making previously masked
power imbalances visible.
Therapist (to Serena): It’s your experience over time that you pretty consistently try to
make yourself available, and this one time that you weren’t available—it surprised you.
(to Wes) And I can imagine that it surprised you too. You’re kind of used to Serena being
available.
Wes: I don’t ask that much, so when I do ask, it would seem like… “sure!”
Detail what happens. When details are explored in a validating way, partners are able to hear
and recognize the pattern. This discussion is particularly empowering for the less powerful partner

April 2015 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 211

who has probably not been able to previously address these issues. But it needs to also fit with the
more powerful partner’s experience.
Therapist: (to Wes) I’m trying to think how it works if the situation were reversed? If
you’re busy and you’re doing something? Are you in the habit of stopping what you’re
doing to listen to Serena?
Serena: That’s a good question!
Wes: I don’t know (long pause)… I don’t think she comes and wants to talk to me about
stuff when I’m engaged in a project.
Other Therapist: She doesn’t tend to interrupt you?
Wes: No. (pause) ununh.
Link power processes to relational goals. We assume both partners want to connect and
respect each other. The conversation below creates a foundation from which partners can begin to
challenge unbalanced power dynamics.
Therapist: Overtime an imbalance has been created so that you expect Serena to listen to
you. (to Serena) And you have stopped expecting Wes [to listen]… So what you were hop-
ing for…to be able to connect with him, that difference between the two of you in who
can say what’s on their mind and expect to be heard is really getting in the way.

Competency 4: Facilitate Relational Safety

How vulnerability is experienced and expressed is influenced by gendered power positions
(Scheinkman & Fishbane, 2004). Relational safety requires that powerful persons be accountable
regarding the effect of their actions on others (Almeida et al., 2008). In this competency, the thera-
pist actively supports both partners in building a relational bond based on mutual accountability,
emotional vulnerability, and safety.
Encourage vulnerability of powerful partner. Men tend to be socialized to avoid being vulnera-
ble and instead take a power over position (Fishbane, 2011) or withdraw (Gottman, 2011). This
can place the burden of vulnerability on women. Therefore, before the male partners become
aware of their own vulnerability and chose to move toward and explore it, the therapists take a
protective stance around women’s vulnerability (Knudson-Martin & Huenergardt, 2010). In this
example, the therapists ask Wes if he is willing to take the vulnerable position of hearing how he
sometimes makes Serena feel unsafe:
Wes: In my 50 years of living, I have never hit a woman, never once. I have never used
profanity at a woman. I have always done my best to treat them appropriately. All
women. My wives included. To think that I am hurting somebody when all I’m trying to
do is trying to help…
Therapist: Ya. You’re trying to help.. You’re trying to make a good living for the family.
But more than that, you’re really trying to be the kind of man that she wants you to be.
And it’s not been working perfectly…
Wes: umhum…umhum
Therapist: So would you be willing to give it a shot to try to hear? It kind of makes you
vulnerable in that way.
Taking a vulnerable stance is risky for those in power positions. Wes needed considerable
support:
Therapist (softly): So what does that mean to you, Wes, that the words that you just
spoke make your wife feel unsafe; that you’re not safe to be with?
Wes: I don’t understand it.

212 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2015

 Identify relational needs of powerful person. Being vulnerable is facilitated as the therapists
provide leadership that connects Wes with his relational needs and acknowledges his pain.
Therapist: I know… how does it make you feel in this moment? All the effort that you’ve
been putting in to try to make this relationship work, and at this moment you are getting
direct feedback from your wife that it doesn’t feel safe.
Wes: Like it’s been a total waste. That everything I do is wrong. That it’s not going to
work.
Therapist: Everything you do is wrong. And your fear is then….what?
Wes: Ah man (long pause)…That she’ll walk.
Therapist: (softly) she’ll walk.
Wes: (softly) that I won’t be good enough.
Name safety issue for less powerful person. It would be easy at this point to place more rela-
tional responsibility on Serena and invite her to make it safe for Wes to be vulnerable, but the ther-
apists need to respond in ways that avoid replicating gendered power processes that keep women
vulnerable and prioritize men’s needs.
Therapist: Serena, Wes just expressed that he really worries about whether the relation-
ship is going to end. But it doesn’t take away from your experience that it doesn’t feel safe.
So when it doesn’t feel safe what happens for you?
Serena: (softly) When it doesn’t feel safe, I want to walk away. I don’t want to stay where
it doesn’t feel safe. Because I lived with that for too many years.
Therapist: And when you hear Wes just now talk about his fear that you might walk
away, what was it like for you to hear that?
Serena: (very softly) I didn’t know that.
Provide leadership regarding accountability. The softening that occurred in this segment is
similar to emotionally focused approaches (e.g., Greenberg & Goldman, 2008; Johnson & Green-
man, 2013). However, in this competency, therapists must remain attentive to accountability
regarding shifting power dynamics (Almeida et al., 2008).
Therapist: It seems like in order for you to work on the marriage, it’s important for you
to understand that even though you don’t use profanity, you don’t hit her, you have hurt
her…just by the patterns that have evolved. Serena, would you feel safe at this moment to
share with him a little bit about that?
Because Wes had taken the first step toward vulnerability and expressed relational interests
new to her, Serena now felt safe to share more of her experience.

Competency 5: Foster Mutual Attunement

Gendered differences in emotional attunement and attending are among the primary reasons
so many more women than men are dissatisfied with their relationships (Loscocco & Walzer, 2013).
These gendered differences create a power imbalance in the ability of women to engage the other in
issues of concern to them (Gottman, 2011; Knudson-Martin, 2013). In this competency, therapists
challenge gender stereotypes and empower each partner to empathically imagine the other’s experi-
ence such that they “feel felt” and are mutually changed by that resonance (e.g., Siegel, 2007).
Recognize and interrupt enactment of gender stereotypes. As is not unusual, when Wes
expressed his vulnerable emotions, Serena responded by trying to help relieve him of his fear.
Serena: I never saw how scared he was of losing me and losing this relationship until
now….And, (speaks quickly to Wes) I want you to know that I really appreciate every-
thing that you do for me. You are a wonderful husband. And I want to be a better wife to
you, I really do.

April 2015 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 213

 The therapists recognized this as a gender stereotypical response and interrupted it by begin-
ning to track the effects of gender dynamics present in the session:
Therapist: So Serena… I’m trying to understand why you’re so willing to let go of all the
fear and doubt that you’ve had [about the relationship] and now you’re saying “just tell
me what to do.”
Serena: I didn’t realize how scared Wes was. His fear just really shook me.
Therapist: So when you get in touch with his fear, then your response is to try to fix all
that for him?
Serena: Ya. Ya!
Encourage powerful partner to take initiative in attuning. The therapists challenge gender
stereotypes by inviting Wes to initiate attunement:
Therapist: Women get taught that they are supposed to take care of men’s feelings. And
part of Wes’s anger is that “maybe I’ve had a time when my feelings aren’t being taken
care of”…and now we’re encouraging Wes to be able to initiate things to connect with
you.
Reinforce exceptions to the gender stereotype. Helping partners notice ways of being in
relationship that promote mutuality is especially helpful (Dickerson, 2013). We find this is
especially so for men who may feel or have declared themselves incompetent in relational
arenas:
Wes: What I’m also saying is that I don’t know how to make it different. I’ve never done
it differently…
Therapist: You’re doing it a little differently right now.
Help partners see what works. Wes listened intently as Serena described her hopes for the rela-
tionship and how hard it is when she feels disrespected by him. His attunement to her was a new
experience for the couple. To reinforce Wes’ newly demonstrated competence, the therapists
helped them detail his success:
Therapist: Did you feel heard by Wes?
Serena: (very softly) Yes I did.
Therapist: What did he do that helped you feel heard?
Serena: The way he was looking at me.
Therapist: He was looking at you
Serena: And the fact that he acknowledged that he’s going to need time.
Therapist: Because he didn’t say a lot.
Serena: No he didn’t.

Competency 6: Create a Relationship Model Based on Equality

There are few models for equal relationships (Gerson, 2010). In this competency, the therapist
helps the couple create a relationship model based on equality and works with their micro-pro-
cesses to expand and develop their personal picture of equality.
Listen to client stories through lens of equality. Like couples, therapists need an intentional
new lens to recognize inequitable power. In this session, Serena is upset because Wes invited
himself to an event she had planned with her friends. The therapists track the power
dynamics:
Therapist: Did you ask Serena–or did you tell her—that you wanted to go along?

214 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2015

 Wes: (pause). Ummm. I didn’t think it was going to be an issue because it didn’t seem dif-
ferent than the kinds of things we had done before.
Therapist: … You had a vision that this is similar to something we’ve done before and
you kind of decided (with emphasis) on your own.
Invite partners to envision what equality would look like. As the couple processes this incident,
the therapists engage them in detailing and operationalizing their ideas of equality:
Therapist: I’m trying to get a picture of what it would really mean for the two of you to
live together in a way where each of you is equally contributing to the relationship—and
equally benefitting. So when you envision what that would look like, what do you picture
in terms of asking? For example; how would you know when to ask?
Explore consequences of options. Instead of teaching a specific model of equality, the thera-
pists empower the couple detail the effects of the taken-for-granted gender norms in their picture:
Serena: I keep a planner, an actual physical planner that I write things in, and I visualize
that when we have social events I would write those down and I would plan them ahead
of time… and then Wes and I could sit down and I would let him know which ones he can
participate in.
Therapist: So it’s been your responsibility to sort of organize things for the family? (to
Wes). And a lot of times that’s worked for you pretty well. You just let her make all those
plans.
Wes: I’ll admit that. I’ve never told her let me help you make the plans.
Encourage partners to join to resist socio cultural patterns. Describe social roles and patterns
in ways that are not fixed, and invite partners to consider how to make them equitable:
Therapist: (to Serena) So that’s been your responsibility. (to Wes) and you’ve not been in
the habit of even thinking about what the social events would be… I’m wondering what it
would be like if you shared some of that responsibility; if that’s something you’d be inter-
ested in? I’d like to hear the two of you talk with each other about what that might look
like for you.

Competency 7: Facilitate Shared Relational Responsibility

Traditional gender norms place responsibility for relationship maintenance on women. In this
competency, therapists facilitate a process that enables both partners to genuinely engage with diffi-
cult issues while maintaining concern for the other’s well-being and for the relationship.
Work with powerful person first. Part of relational responsibility is being willing to directly
address issues of concern. Working with Wes first counteracts gender norms and helps to empower
both partners to risk dealing with troubling issues:
Wes: I don’t like pushy women. I find that kind of disgusting, you know. And when I feel
like I’m being pushed around…
Serena: Do you feel like I’m a pushy woman?!
Wes: I didn’t say that. I didn’t say that. I just sort of (looks down)
Wes’ tendency would be to withdraw at this point. The therapists encourage him to stay
engaged:
Therapist: See I think this is very important, for you to be able to get some clarity on this
issue, because you feel very strongly that something doesn’t feel right. That she’s being
pushy…
Wes: Well, maybe I’m being a little strong on that.
Other Therapist: Stay with the feeling, though, that you want her to understand.

April 2015 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 215

 Focus on relational meanings, desires, and outcomes. This helps facilitate an alternative to gen-
der-stereotypical patterns such as dominance or withdrawal.
Wes: (animated) I’m flowing with it and every now and then it’s like she puts in a dam.
She comes up with things that just sort of stop my flow.
Therapist: What it is that you really want her to understand?
Therapist: That I want this relationship and I really am putting in an effort… I do things
I think are going to please her and she says “oh! that doesn’t please me.”
Facilitate mutual engagement. In this example, Wes has stepped away from using putdowns
and instead expressed his relational concern. When the more powerful partner has taken a rela-
tional stance—and if safety has been established–the other partner must also risk engagement:
Therapist: (to Serena). So if you were to let yourself take in those feelings that Wes is
sharing with you—his fear that he’s not going to satisfy you. What would it be like for
you to hear that?
Serena: That I would feel it too. (softly)… that everything would fall apart.
Validate and reinforce shared responsibility. In the absence of societal models for shared rela-
tionship responsibility, couples are empowered when the therapist gives voice to what they couple
has accomplished and reinforces a vision of mutuality.
Therapist… You hung in there with each other—even when you didn’t like what each
other had to say. And if there’s really two people in this relationship then you’re going to
be saying things that’s in your hearts and minds. And somehow it has to be safe for that.

DISCUSSION

Our group came together with different levels of experience and used various systems/rela-
tional models to guide our therapy. As we made addressing gendered power a primary focus, we
have evolved a set of clinical competencies that form the foundation for an approach to couple
therapy we call Socio-Emotional Relationship Therapy (Knudson-Martin & Huenergardt, 2010).
If you watch us practice, some of us look more narrative, others structural, solution-focused, expe-
riential, or emotion-focused. But we all position ourselves to help make the consequences of larger
social discourse visible in intimate relationships and empower couples to create just, mutually
supportive relationships.
Like useful previous guides (e.g., Haddock, Zimmerman, & MacPhee, 2000; McGeorge et al.,
2009), the suggested therapist competencies raise gender and power issues that otherwise tend to be
overlooked and encourage therapists to actively counteract socio cultural power disparities. How-
ever, we extend previous work by outlining how to accomplish these kinds of interventions and by
focusing more attention on the connections between socio cultural context, emotion, and power.
At the right side of the developmental continuum (see Appendix A), each competency offers a
process goal that empowers couples to create relationships less limited by gender stereotypes and
power inequities. The left side spells out where many therapists currently are; they are aware that
gender and culture matter, but do not organize their therapeutic responses in ways that attend to
power imbalances. Instead, they proceed as though partners are equal and inadvertently reinforce
existing gender patterns (Leslie & Southard, 2009; Williams & Knudson-Martin, 2013). As compe-
tencies develop, therapists are more able to recognize and track the societal influences on couples
and take leadership in empowering couples to identify alternatives consistent with goals of mutual
support –which virtually all couples say they want.

IMPLICATIONS FOR TRAINING, SUPERVISION, AND PRACTICE

Based on our experience learning to implement the competencies for working with gender and
power in couple therapy, we offer the following suggestions for training, supervision, and practice.

216 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2015

Create Intentional Consciousness Raising Opportunities
Like others who study the process of learning to work with larger context issues such as race,
class, gender, and sexual orientation (Esmiol et al., 2012; McDowell et al., 2005; Nixon et al.,
2010; Platt & Laszloffy, 2013), our experience is that even with prior coursework, multicultural
theory is not likely to be transformed into practice without intentional activities that raise con-
sciousness. Course assignments and supervision need to help new therapists explicitly track the
effects of socio cultural discourse and power processes on individual identities and relationship
patterns. This must begin with awareness of the self-of-the-therapist and systematically be incorpo-
rated into case assessment protocols. Seasoned clinicians and supervisors also need to engage in
consultation that holds them accountable to their contributions to social justice or inequities
(Hernandez et al., 2005).

Begin with Socio cultural Attunement

A unique component of these competencies is the expectation that therapists intentionally
socio culturally attune to each partner. When therapists take in and “get” the unique socio cultural
experience of their clients, it is easier to see the connections between presenting issues and larger
context issues (Esmiol et al., 2012). We find that when clients express emotion around a particular
topic, this is likely to be a particularly fruitful area to engage with clients’ socio cultural experience.
Doing so may also help counteract the tendency of therapists to distance themselves and use fewer
of their usual clinical skills in an effort to be “respectful” of cultural differences (Vargas & Wilson,
2011).

Expect Complexity
Though gender disparities tend to transcend cultures, personal meanings and expression vary
across cultures and from context to context (Keeling & Piercy, 2007; Perry-Jenkins et al., 2013).
Supervisors should help trainees and interns look beyond cultural stereotypes to identify multiple
socio cultural discourses at work in people’s lives. For example, most cultures and religions include
values of mutual respect and fairness. These may co-exist with patriarchal practices, but be less
developed in their relationship stories. Help supervisees distinguish between imposing their own
egalitarian values and helping clients raise consciousness that empowers new options (Hern andez
et al., 2005).

Focus on Relational Needs of More Powerful Person

Patriarchal power patterns are persistent. Our experience is that therapists must persist in
identifying the relational needs of partners in powerful positions and help them engage from a rela-
tional rather than power orientation (e.g., Fishbane, 2011; Silverstein et al., 2006). This change
often does not come easily. Training and supervision should intentionally support therapists in this
challenging activity. Both male and female therapists will likely need to be aware of their own emo-
tional responses to confronting power processes and will benefit from help in maintaining account-
ability for their roles in maintaining or transforming inequities.

On-going Study
Studying our work has transformed our practice. The seven competencies outlined in this arti-
cle constitute an important over-arching guide that enables us to contextually situate other inter-
ventions and recognize, and be accountable to, our influence on gender and power processes.
Learning how to implement each of the competencies raises many new questions and is a fertile
ground for on-going study.

REFERENCES

Almeida, R. V., Dolan-Del Vecchio, K., & Parker, L. (2008). Transformative family therapy: Just families in a just
society. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Carlson, T. S., McGeorge, C. R., DeJean, S. L., Grams, W. A., Linde, S., & Michael, R. V. (2005). A feminist concep-
tual analysis of the predominant introductory textbook in couple and family therapy. Journal of Feminist Family
Therapy, 17, 17–39. doi:10.1300/J086v17n02_02

April 2015 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 217

Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2005). Doing action research in your own organization, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Dickerson, V. (2013). Patriarchy, power, and privilege: A narrative/poststructural view of work with couples. Family
Process, 52, 102–114. doi:10.1111/famp.12018
Esmiol, E., Knudson-Martin, C., & Delgado, S. (2012). How MFT students develop a critical contextual conscious-
ness: A participatory action research project. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38, 573–588. doi:10.1111/j.
1752-0606.2011.00232.x
Fishbane, M. D. (2007). Wired to connect: Neuroscience, relationships, and therapy. Family Process, 46, 395–412.
doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2007.00219.x
Fishbane, M. D. (2011). Facilitating relational empowerment in couple therapy. Family Process, 50, 337–352. doi:10.
1111/j.1545-5300.2011.01364.x
Fosha, D. (2009). Emotion and recognition at work: Energy, vitality, pleasure, truth, desire, and the emergent phe-
nomenology of transformational experience. In D. Fosha, D. J. Siegel & M. F. Solomon (Eds.), The healing
power of emotion: Affective neuroscience, development & clinical practice (pp. 172–203). New York, NY: Norton.
Gerson, K. (2010). The unfinished revolution: How a new generation is reshaping family, work, and gender in America.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gottman, J. M. (2011). The science of trust: Emotional attunement for couples. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.
Greenberg, L. S., & Goldman, R. N. (2008). Emotion-focused couples therapy: The dynamics of emotion, love, and
power. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gurman, A. S. (2013). Functions and factions: A reflection on possibilities for couple therapy integration. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 39, 424–426. doi:10.1111/jmft.12037
Haddock, S., Zimmerman, T. S., & MacPhee, D. (2000). The power equity guide: Attending to gender in family ther-
apy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 153–170. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2000.tb00286.x
Hern andez, P., Almeida, R., & Dolan-del Vecchio, K. (2005). Critical consciousness, accountability, and empower-
ment: Key processes for helping families heal. Family Process, 44, 105–119. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2005.
00045.x
Hern andez-Wolfe, P., & McDowell, T. (2012). Speaking of privilege: Family therapy educators’ journeys toward
awareness and compassionate action. Family Process, 51, 163–178. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01394.x
Hill, C. E., Know, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N., Hess, S. H., & Ladney, N. (2005). Consensual qualitative
research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 196–205. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.196
Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual Qualitative research. The
Counseling Psychologist, 25, 517–572. doi:10.1177/0011000097254001
Huenergardt, D., & Knudson-Martin, C. (2009). Gender and power as a fulcrum for clinical change. In C. Knudson-
Martin & A. Mahoney (Eds.), Couples, gender, and power: Creating change in intimate relationships (pp. 337–
361). New York: Springer.
Johnson, S., & Greenman, P. (2013). Commentary: Of course it is all about attachment. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 39, 421–423. doi:10.1111/jmft.12035
Jonathan, N., & Knudson-Martin, C. (2012). Building connection: Attunement and gender equality in heterosexual
relationships. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 11, 95–111. doi:10.1080/15332691.2012.666497
Jordan, J. (2009). Relational-cultural therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Keeling, M. H., & Piercy, F. P. (2007). A careful balance: Multinational perspectives on culture, gender, and power
in marriage and family therapy practice. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33, 443–463. doi:10.1111/j.
1752-0606.2007.00044.x
Kimmel, M. (2011). The gendered society, 4th edn. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Knudson-Martin, C. (2011). Changing gender norms in families and society: Toward equality amidst complexities
and contradictions. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (4th edn, pp. 324–346). New York, NY: Guil-
ford.
Knudson-Martin, C. (2013). Why power matters: Creating a foundation of mutual support in couple relationships.
Family Process, 52, 5–18. doi:10.1111/famp.12011
Knudson-Martin, C., & Huenergardt, D. (2010). A socio-emotional approach to couple therapy: Linking social con-
text and couple interaction. Family Process, 49, 369–386. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01328.x
Knudson-Martin, C., & Mahoney, A. (2005). Moving beyond gender: Processes that create relationship equality.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 235–246. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2005.tb01557.x
Lebow, J., Chambers, A. L., Christensen, A., & Johnson, S. M. (2012). Research on the treatment of couple distress.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38, 145–168. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00249.x
Leslie, L. A., & Southard, A. L. (2009). Thirty years of feminist family therapy: Moving into the mainstream. In S. A.
Lloyd, A. L. Few & K. R. Allen (Eds.), Handbook of feminist family studies (pp. 328–339). Los Angeles, CA:
Sage Publications.
Loscocco, K., & Walzer, S. (2013). Gender and the culture of heterosexual marriage in the United States. Journal of
Family Theory & Review, 5, 1–14. doi:10.1111/jftr.12003

218 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2015

Lyness, A. M., & Lyness, K. P. (2007). Feminist issues in couple therapy. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy,
6, 181–195. doi:10.1300/J398v06n01_15
Mahoney, A. R., & Knudson-Martin, C. (2009). The social context of gendered power. In C. Knudson-Martin & A.
Mahoney (Eds.), Couples, gender, and power: Creating change in intimate relationships (pp. 17–29). New York,
NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Malpas, J. (2011). Between pink and blue: A multi-dimensional family approach to gender nonconforming children
and their families. Family Process, 50, 453–470. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2011.01371.x
McDowell, T. M., & Fang, S. S. (2007). Feminist-informed critical multiculturalism. Journal of Family Issues, 28,
549–566. doi:10.1177/0192513X06297331
McDowell, T. M., Ingoglia, L., Serizia, T., Holland, C., Dashiell, J. W., & Stevens, C. (2005). Raising multiracial
awareness in family therapy through critical conversations. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 399–
411. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2005.tb01579.x
McGeorge, C. R., Carlson, T. S., & Guttormson, H. (2009). The feminist couple therapy scale: A measure of thera-
pists’ ability to promote equality in couple relationships. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 21, 198–215.
doi:10.1080/08952830903079060
Mirgain, S. A., & Cordova, J. V. (2007). Emotion skills and marital health: The association between observed and
self-reported emotion skills, intimacy, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26,
983–1009. doi:10.1521/jscp.2007.26.9.983
Nixon, D. H., Marcelle-Coney, D., Torres-Greggory, M., Huntley, E., Jacques, C., Pasquet, M., et al. (2010). Creat-
ing community: Offering a liberation pedagogical model to facilitate diversity conversations in MFT graduate
classrooms. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36, 197–211. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2009.00180.x
Parker, L. (2009). Disrupting power and privilege in couples therapy. Clinical Social Work Journal, 37, 248–255.
doi:10.1007/s10615-009-0211-7
Perry-Jenkins, M., Newkirk, K., & Ghunney, A. K. (2013). Family work through time and space: An ecological per-
spective. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5, 105–123. doi:10.1111/jftr.12011
Platt, J. J., & Laszloffy, T. A. (2013). Critical patriotism: Incorporating nationality into MFT education and training.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 39, 441–456. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.
00325.x
Scheinkman, M., & Fishbane, M. D. (2004). The vulnerabilty cycle: Working with impsses in couple therapy. Family
Process, 43, 279–299. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2004.00023.x
Seedahl, R. B., Holtrop, K., & Parra-Cardona, R. (2013). Diversity, social justice, and intersectionality trends in
c/mft: A content analysis of three family therapy journals. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. doi:10.1111/
jmft.12015. [Early view]
Seponski, D. M., Bermudez, J. M., & Lewis, D. C. (2013). Creating culturally responsive family therapy models and
research: Introducing the use of responsive evaluation as a method. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 39,
28–42. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00282.x
Siegel, D. J. (2007). The mindful brain: Reflection and attunement in the cultivation of well-being. New York, NY:
W.W. Norton & Co.
Silverstein, R., Bass, L. B., Tuttle, A., Knudson-Martin, C., & Huenergardt, D. (2006). What does it mean to be rela-
tional? A framework for assessment and practice. Family Process, 45, 391–405. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2006.
00178.x
Sutherland, O., Turner, J., & Dienhart, A. (2013). Responsive postmodern practice, Part 1. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 39, 470–487. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00333.x
Trevarthen, C. (2009). The functions of emotion in infancy: The regulation and communication of rhythm, sympathy,
and meaning in human development. In D. Fosha, D. J. Siegel & M. F. Solomon (Eds.), The healing power of
emotion: Affective neuroscience, development & clinical practice (pp. 55–85). New York, NY: Norton.
Vargas, H. L., & Wilson, C. M. (2011). Managing worldview influences: Self-awareness and self-supervision in a
cross-cultural therapeutic relationship. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 22, 97–113. doi:10.1080/08975353.
2011.577684
Ward, A., & Knudson-Martin, C. (2012). The impact of therapist actions on the balance of power on the couple sys-
tem: A qualitative analysis of couple sessions. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 11, 1–17. doi:10.
1080/15332691.2012.692943
Williams, K. (2011). A socio-emotional relational framework for infidelity: The relational justice model. Family Pro-
cess, 50, 516–528. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2011.01374.x
Williams, K., Galick, A., Knudson-Martin, C., & Huenergardt, D. (2013). Toward mutual support: A task analysis
of the relational justice approach to infidelity. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 39, 285–298. doi:10.1111/
j.1752-0606.2012.00324.x
Williams, K., & Knudson-Martin, C. (2013). Do therapists address gender and power in infidelity? A feminist analysis
of the treatment literature. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 39, 271–284. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.
00303.x

April 2015 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 219

 NOTE
1
Names are pseudonyms.
Awareness Tracking Process Providing Leadership Empowerment

1. Identify Enactments of Cultural Discourse

1 2 3 4 5
Therapist is aware that clients Therapist expands awareness of Therapist identifies cultural Therapist extends conversations Therapist guides partners to see
belong to a particular cultural cultural context to include markers in the conversation, but regarding cultural discourse--and their relationship as part of social
context but is uncertain about intersections with gender, class, does not explore how they other contradictory discourses-- patterns larger than themselves.
how they are organized by culture race, religion, and other uniquely link to personal that influence personal
or their relationship to it. significant personal contexts such experience or consider other experience and couples’ patterns
as prison experience and work discourses that might be involved. of relating.
environment.

2. Attune to Underlying Sociocultural Emotion

1 2 3 4 5
Therapist processes client Therapist processes relational Therapist identifies the origin of Therapist explores underlying Therapist reflects sociocultural
emotion at an individual level, but context of client emotions, but the emotion in the larger socio- sociocultural emotions and attunement to clients that
does not probe underlying does not explore how they are cultural discourse in an abstract begins to link them to relationship affectively engages them in the
relational or socioemotional part of larger sociocultural way that is hard for clients to patterns. therapy and creates a new basis
contexts. experience. understand and not connected to for addressing relationship
their relationship process. processes.

3. Identify Relational Power Dynamics

1 2 3 4 5
Therapist ignores or takes power Therapist Identifies power issues Therapist is attuned to underlying Therapist names underlying Therapist names underlying
issues at face value and validates but minimizes them by attributing power processes and validates power issues in a way that both power issues in a way that both
complaints of the powerful person them equally to the relationship individual experiences such that partners feel validated. partners feel validated and
without attending to power system without addressing the client “feels felt,” but alienates the engages them to relate in ways
imbalances in the relationship. nuances of individual socio- partner. that challenge previous power
emotional experience. patterns.

4. Facilitate Relational Safety

1 2 3 4 5
Therapist assumes an inherent Therapist’s exploration of safety Therapist begins to identify and Therapist demonstrates ongoing Therapist actively supports both
equality between partners that and vulnerability issues in the name emotional as well as tracking of safety and vulnerability partners in building a relational
ignores power and safety issues relationship is limited to physical safety issues, and takes issues as they relate to the bond based on mutual
that encourages vulnerability concerns regarding physical a clear stance that encourages couple’s emotional and relational accountability, emotional
when it is not safe to do so. safety and potential violence. partners to be accountable for the processes in and out of session. vulnerability, and safety.
safety of self and other.

5. Foster Mutual Attunement

1 2 3 4 5
Therapist reinforces gender Therapist encourages both Therapist identifies gendered Therapist asks less attuned Therapist challenges gender
stereotypic power differences by partners to tune into each other, behaviors that influence each person to stretch toward partner stereotypes and empowers each
encouraging the more emotionally but does not addressing the partner’s ability to attune to the without putting this experience in partner to empathically imagine
attuned person to focus on the underlying power differences. other, but normalizes them a socioemotional context. the other’s experience such that
less attuned. instead of challenging them. they “feel felt” and are mutually
changed by that resonance.

6. Create a Relationship Model Based on Equality

1 2 3 4 5
Therapist uses language that Therapist identifies unequal Therapist interrupts unequal Therapist clearly names invisible Therapist helps couple create a
collapses individual positions in relationship patterns but doesn’t relationship processes and power processes and helps relationship model based on
the system and ignores how know how to engage clients in introduces questions that begin to couple identify their options and equality and works with their
gendered power contributes to further exploration of these address equality issues. goals regarding relationship micro-processes to expand &
the relational issues. issues. equality. develop their picture of equality.

7. Facilitate Shared Relational Responsibility

1 2 3 4 5
Therapist actions allow Therapist points out stereotypic Therapist names the gender Therapist asks the less Therapist facilitates a process
stereotypic gender patterns to gender interactions but does not patterns that limit mutual responsible partner to initiate that enables both partners to
organize the session. link them to shared responsibility responsibility and begins to track relationship change but does not genuinely engage with difficult
and mutual accountability. their emotional and relational support the couple in establishing issues while maintaining concern
impact. a new relational pattern for the other’s well-being and for
the relationship.

Figure A1. Competencies for working with gender and power in couple relationships.

220 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2015