You’ve probably seen couples who are struggling because of too much reactivity and inadequate ability to tolerate differences. That was the challenge in this case that I consulted on a few years ago: a hostile dependent couple on the brink of divorce, caught in a cycle of accusation, withdrawal, and escalating distrust.

What made the work so challenging was not only the content of the conflict, but the speed with which the couple could turn on each other. A question about trust quickly became a fight about honesty. A request for clarity turned into a discussion of whether one partner was “crazy.”

This dynamic is familiar in couples therapy. One partner pursues, the other retreats. One asks harder questions, the other gets more slippery. Then both become more convinced that the other is impossible.

The negative cycle

The wife in this case was intensely focused on honesty, fidelity, and money. She wanted open books, clear answers, and reassurance that she was not being deceived. The husband responded by calling her “crazy,” minimizing her concerns, and offering explanations that often sounded more like evasions than answers. He could repeat back what she said, but he did not really join her emotionally or acknowledge the possibility that his own behavior might be contributing to the mistrust.

That combination created a painful loop. The more she pressed, the more he withdrew. The more he withdrew, the more she escalated. And the more she escalated, the easier it became for him to portray her as irrational.

This is where many therapists get pulled off course. It is tempting to get lost in the facts: Was there an affair? Is he hiding money? Is she overreacting? Those questions matter, but they are not the first question. The first question is: what is happening between these two people in the room right now?

Why structure matters

This case is a good reminder that some couples need structure before they need insight. They are not ready, at least at first, for deep emotional reflection or mutual empathy. They need help staying with one another long enough to keep the conversation from spiraling.

That means the therapist has to be more active than they might be with a different couple. It means interrupting, slowing things down, and making the pattern visible. It means saying, in essence: this is what each of you does, this is how it affects the other, and this is what we are going to work on right now.

For a couple like this, asking them to mirror, validate, and empathize all at once is probably too much. A more realistic goal is helping each partner become a little more self-aware in the moment. What do you feel when you get activated? What do you do next? What happens when your partner doesn’t respond the way you want? How would you prefer to respond?

Under the anger

The therapist asked the wife what she experienced when she and her partner saw things differently. The wife answered, “I get angry. He’s not making the marriage a priority.”

“And underneath that anger?” the therapist asked.

She paused. “I think I’m scared.”

That mattered. Anger was the surface response, but fear was underneath it. Once that fear came into view, the work had somewhere to go.

Then the therapist turned to the husband and asked what happened in him when his wife became upset.

“I just want to get out of there,” he answered.

That was honest, and it was also revealing. His move was not to engage more deeply or stay emotionally present. His move was to distance himself. And the more he distanced, the more her fear intensified.

In my next blog post we’ll see what else this kind of case needs in addition to structure. Meanwhile, please comment on your experience with this kind of negative loop and any tips or pitfalls you’d like to share.