Concurrent Treatment of Marital Couples By One Or Two Analysts

These General Remarks will consider certain aspects of treatment technique which impressed me during the private treatment of six couples over periods ranging from fifteen months to eight years. Three of the couples under consideration were treated by me alone, and three couples were treated by me in conjunction with another analyst.¹ The clinical material was limited to six couples to avoid being swamped by excessive amounts of raw data. Usually studies such as this are made with a large number of patients derived from clinics and centers, but in this instance I chose cases from my private practice since I believe much can be learned from our work in the office as well as in clinics. In order to reduce the number of variables, I selected couples who were non-psychotic, living together and had always lived in this country.

Since in the past the majority of therapists regarded the treatment of couples by the same analyst as “hazardous and unrewarding,”² one of the first considerations arising from this small sampling of clinical material is the matter of attempting to compare and contrast the two methods of approach. Is one preferable to the other in results, and if so, under what conditions? How do they differ and resemble one another, and what technical aspects must be emphasized for better therapeutic results?

In the single-category group, the partners of three disturbed marriages were treated separately by me on the basis of two to three sessions per week for each partner. In only one of these cases was the therapy of both husband and wife started simultaneously. In both of the other cases, the wife was treated first and the husband entered treatment approximately one month after the wife started hers. The patients were seen separately and were seen jointly only at rare intervals.

The results of treatment in this group have been variable, one couple leaving to take up permanent residence in another country after fifteen months. A s