We all have a deep-rooted need to be loved, but often a rift opens between our romantic partners and ourselves. Over time, we may even resent the traits in our loved ones that initially brought us together. Why does this happen, and can anything be done to rescue a relationship in a downward slide?
In Getting the Love You Want: A Guide for Couples, therapists Harville Hendrix and Helen LaKelly Hunt suggest that we unconsciously seek out romantic partners with characteristics that resemble those of the first people we loved—our parents. In essence, our unconscious mind chooses a mate who will help us resolve the wounded parts of our childhood. When our partners fail to meet our unconscious expectations, we grow unhappy without knowing why, and our relationships fall apart.
(Shortform note: A 2002 CDC report that went beyond divorce statistics showed that while the probability of a marriage failing in its first five years was 20%, the probability of a cohabiting couple breaking up was nearly 50% in the same time frame. In the 21st century, divorce rates are falling, but mainly because Millennials are less likely to marry at all.)
But it doesn’t have to be that way. According to the authors, by becoming aware of the subconscious needs that drive what we expect from our significant others, we can engage our conscious mind to take control of our relationships. We can learn to recognize when a present-day conflict is reopening old, forgotten childhood wounds. We can choose to change defensive, knee-jerk reactions into thoughtful, understanding responses. Most importantly, we can become the people our partners need us to be, and by doing so heal ourselves in turn.
From 1977-1988, Hendrix and Hunt co-developed Imago Relationship Therapy as a response to the failure of the models of marriage counseling prevalent at the time. (Shortform note: Couples counseling at that time primarily viewed the family as a sociological unit, and it focused on maintaining the family’s utility as a functional part of the community. As a result, its practitioners were mainly concerned with identifying and solving specific problems in the family unit, while relying on and reinforcing assumptions about traditional family structure.)
In response, Hendrix and Hunt developed techniques to change how couples interact, allowing them to talk safely and openly about their unconscious needs. The goal of this process is to transform a marriage into a conscious, loving, beneficial partnership.
Other Forms of Couples Therapy
Two couples counseling approaches that developed in parallel with Hendrix and Hunt’s are Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT), introduced by Sue Johnson and Les Greenberg, and the Gottman Method, developed by John Gottman during his famous Love Lab experiments.
EFT is a form of “talk therapy” for couples, which uses conversation as a tool to understand emotional relationships. As in individual talk therapy, its premise is that working through the root causes of emotions will enable couples to draw closer together. On the other hand, the Gottman Method takes a data-driven approach to customizing solutions for a couple’s specific needs. While each of these approaches is somewhat distinct, some therapists try to integrate their concepts, depending on the couples they work with.
Since the 1988 publication of Getting the Love You Want, Hendrix and Hunt’s ideas have been taught to thousands of therapists worldwide. Couples workshops based on its principles are held in countries across the world. Resources to find licensed therapists and workshops can be found at ImagoRelationships.org.
(Shortform note: In addition to their work in psychology and counseling, Hendrix and Hunt both hold degrees from Union Theological Seminary. While their writing occasionally draws examples from the Bible or their own religious upbringing, their underlying psychological theories and tools don’t require adherence to any religious faith. For that reason, this guide will approach the topic from a non-religious perspective.)
In this guide, we’ll explore:
The Wide World of Relationships
Though all of the book’s discussions and examples are of cisgendered couples in a traditional marriage, nothing in Hendrix and Hunt’s therapeutic practice excludes it from applying to a wider range of gender orientations and nontraditional relationships.
Several therapists, including Jeannie Ingram and Maya Kollman, offer workshops teaching the authors’ ideas to LGBTQ couples. Kollman says that Imago Therapy is particularly useful in the LGBTQ community because so many of its members lack traditional support systems, and Hendrix and Hunt’s approach creates that support system within the framework of the relationship itself.
Our guide will expand on the psychological theories that underlie Hendrix and Hunt’s work, and it will examine how closely scientific research backs up the authors’ claims. We’ll also explore how Imago Relationship Therapy compares to various psychiatric methods and the ideas of other relationship experts.
When a relationship starts to falter, it’s easy to blame your partner. Often, you’re not even consciously aware of the specific hidden needs you expect them to fulfill. In order to understand the unconscious drives that you bring into a romantic relationship, it’s important to examine your childhood frustrations as well as those of your significant other. Hendrix and Hunt propose that the process of mutual self-discovery will shine a light on your unmet childhood needs and will become the first step in transforming you and your partner from antagonists into allies on the road to rebuilding your relationship.
The Theoretical Background of Childhood’s Importance
The correlation between our early upbringing with mental and physical health is the basis of Attachment Theory, introduced by John Bowlby and further developed by Mary Ainsworth. The central tenet of Attachment Theory is that a person’s physical and mental development depends strongly on the quality of their relationship with their mother during infancy and the first few years of life.
Attachment Theory is not without its detractors. In The Nurture Assumption, psychologist Judith Rich Harris argues that personality is determined by genetics more than upbringing. In Behave, biologist Robert Sapolsky contends that the “nature vs. nurture” divide is a false dichotomy, and that the interaction between the two is complex. Nevertheless, clinical research has shown that our experiences as children do shape the patterns of our lives.
Many people are survivors of traumatic childhoods, having suffered abuse, physical hardships, or the loss of parents or siblings. However, Hendrix and Hunt point out that the events that warped your childhood need not be dramatic or overt in order to have lasting effects. All childhoods are imperfect, because parents are human, with unmet needs and flaws of their own. Usually when a parent says or does something that inadvertently hurts their child, the emotional wound will heal over time; but if the hurting is repeated and persistent, it leaves lasting damage that is carried into adulthood.
The purpose of exploring your childhood wounds is not to assign blame to your parents, but to understand your unconscious drives. Since people in relationships are often parents themselves, it’s valuable to acknowledge your own shortcomings in the way you interact with your children.
In Imperfect Parenting, child development expert Dona Matthews explains that parenting is a “learned skill” that must be developed on the fly. In The Gifts of Imperfect Parenting, Brené Brown suggests that embracing your flaws as a parent can be a teachable experience for you and your children.
While there are many ways parents can have a negative impact, Hendrix and Hunt focus on two broad categories of imperfect parenting:
How Closely Are You Attached to Your Partner?
In their book Attached, Amir Levine and Rachel Heller identify three “attachment styles” that we carry forward from childhood:
Secure, in which a person is comfortable with intimacy and acts in a nurturing manner
Anxious, in which a person fears for their relationship and needs reassurance from their partner
Avoidant, in which a person views an intimate relationship as a threat to their independence
Levine and Heller suggest that finding a partner who meets the needs of our own attachment style will increase our feelings of fulfillment and safety. On the other hand, Hendrix and Hunt argue that we unconsciously choose mates whose attachment needs are opposite our own, repeating the cycle that shaped us in childhood.
Hendrix and Hunt state that in seeking out romantic partners, your unconscious mind is searching for someone who closely resembles the traits of your parents. For example, a person whose father prioritized work over family may be drawn to someone who’s career-driven, with the unspoken agenda of getting their partner to make them their life’s focus, and not their job instead. In other words, your subconscious wants to recreate your childhood, with the intention that “this time, you’re going to get it right.”
Do We Really “Marry Our Parents”?
In psychology, this is referred to as the psychoanalytic theory of mate selection, introduced by Sigmund Freud in 1927. Studies have shown that not only do people often select partners with traits similar to their parents’, but that people may perceive their partners to have a stronger parental likeness than they do. In a more recent study involving online dating profiles, people who reported having “unfinished childhood business” were even more likely to find potential mates attractive if they shared characteristics with their parents.
Critics of psychoanalytic theory have argued that its claims about the unconscious are not scientifically testable and rely too heavily on anecdotal evidence. Its opponents also state that it takes an overly simplistic view of the human mind, ignoring the effects of biological, cultural, and economic factors on mental and emotional development.
Another emotional weight carried from childhood is the cultural expectations we’re raised with. The authors explain that parents, teachers, and clergy impose the rules as to what we’re not allowed to do, think, or say, while also defining our place in society—for example, “boys don’t cry” and “girls should be mothers when they grow up.” Socialization teaches children to close off parts of themselves—to repress certain thoughts, feelings, and desires.
The impact of culture on child development can’t be overstated. A study of teenagers from 19 countries found that their sense of fulfillment and self-esteem depends on how well they live up to their cultural values—not what they value themselves.
One factor not touched on by Hendrix and Hunt is the effect of social class on child development and emotional well-being. Many studies show that low socioeconomic status affects children’s mental and physical health, as well as increasing the risks of child abuse and neglect.
When we commit self-denial to fit into the strictures of family and culture, we create a lost self like a hole in the psyche. On some level, we may be aware that an essential part of ourselves is missing, and in relationships we may be attracted to people who exhibit the traits that were repressed in our own lives. For example, someone who feels socially awkward may be attracted to a person who is outgoing. Hendrix and Hunt suggest that in addition to looking for a parental match, your unconscious is actively searching for a partner who will fill your missing pieces and make you feel complete.
(Shortform note: The feeling that something vital is missing from your life is closely linked to depression, shame, and addiction. It’s experienced as an emotional void that you may fill through overwork, fixations, substance abuse, or relationships. For many, the “lost self” goes hand-in-hand with childhood physical and emotional neglect.)
Hendrix and Hunt state that during childhood, your subconscious creates a blended image of all the people responsible for your care—parents, grandparents, foster parents, older siblings, and so on. The authors call this imaginary gestalt “the Imago.” Your own Imago is an idealized image that closely resembles the people who raised you, with all their positive and negative traits, while also making up for your repressed desires and feelings.
Consider the example of a woman we’ll call “Patty.” She was raised by thoughtful, intelligent parents who nevertheless fell short in some ways of nurturing her fully as a child. Patty’s father was an investment adviser who worked long hours and was rarely at home. He encouraged Patty to excel in school, but couldn’t acknowledge her feelings. In fact, he would get angry if she was openly sad or anxious at home.
Patty’s mother was more available, a painter who worked from a studio in their house. Since she spent most days alone, she relied on Patty to provide much of the emotional support she didn’t receive from Patty’s father. As such, she monopolized Patty’s time whenever she could, micromanaging her daughter as if she was an extension of herself.
As a result, Patty’s “idealized parental image” is of a person who is intelligent, hard-working, and creative, while also being controlling, dismissive, and in need of their own emotional care.
The Imago and the Founders of Psychology
The term Imago was coined by Carl Jung to describe an unconscious mental archetype, especially that of a parental figure. In Jung’s work, you evoke this archetype when a present-day event makes your emotions regress to those you felt in childhood. Jung believed that many archetypes are universal and not based on individual upbringing.
Freud used the Imago concept to explain children’s subjective perceptions of their parents. For Freud, the Imago comes into play when a person projects certain parental traits onto another person (for example, their psychiatrist).
Hendrix and Hunt suggest that whether we know it or not, this parental image is the template we use when evaluating potential romantic partners—and the more closely a potential mate matches your unconscious parental image, the more you feel attracted to them. While we may think we know why we find certain people attractive, this process is entirely unconscious and can take place very quickly.
(Shortform note: In Blink, Malcolm Gladwell spotlights the concept of “thin-slicing,” the process by which our mind can make very fast judgments based on limited data. While quick, unconscious decision-making is an evolutionary advantage, it can be problematic when unconscious biases creep into our decision-making.)
If two people match each other’s parental image, the mutual attraction can be irresistible. In the case of close “perfect partner” matches, love at first sight can be very real. (Shortform note: Sparking love at first sight is the premise behind “speed dating,” in which people have a limited time frame to determine their level of romantic interest. Studies on speed dating show that the characteristics people consciously state they’re looking for bear little resemblance to the partners they select. However, some studies show that certain stated preferences, particularly those made along gender lines, do conform to stereotypical trends, such as men preferring women who are physically attractive, and women preferring men with higher social status.)
Now that we understand how and why we select romantic partners, how do those same unconscious patterns drive our relationships as we move forward?
Your subconscious mind thinks it has found a “perfect partner” who will resolve all your issues from childhood. Hendrix and Hunt state that you’ll naturally experience an emotional high, followed by an inevitable slide to disappointment as the reality of your partner’s imperfection sets in. Much like the structure of a novel or a play, a relationship is marked by an intense emotional rise, an unexpected turn, and a downfall into conflict.
According to Hendrix and Hunt, the feeling of reconnection with your idealized parental figure lets you see your partner through rose-tinted glasses. Meanwhile, your body releases a flood of hormones that create a natural euphoria. While the effects of the hormones are biochemical in nature, their release is triggered by your unconscious, which believes that its deep-seated childhood needs will at last be met.
For instance, when you say to your partner, “You complete me,” you acknowledge that being with them allows you to reconnect with your own repressed feelings. When you say, “I can’t live without you,” you’ve made them responsible for your survival, just as it was once the responsibility of your parents.
People Do Have Chemistry
The stages of romance can be further broken down into three distinct neurochemical processes:
Lust is characterized by an increase in the “sex hormones,” testosterone and estrogen, resulting in a heightened sex drive.
Attraction brings about a “natural high” when the brain’s reward center floods the body with dopamine and norepinephrine, while paradoxically lowering the amount of serotonin, the hormone that regulates mood and appetite.
Attachment is sealed by the production of oxytocin, the hormone linked to emotional bonding—not only between sexual partners, but also between a mother and child.
As your romantic connection grows stronger, you continue to view your partner through the lens of your unconscious parental image while also projecting a false image of yourself in order to come across as more giving and less needy. As a result, neither you nor your partner ever see each other as you truly are. Both of you have the unspoken expectation that the other will meet all your emotional needs freely.
As soon as cracks begin to show in this illusion, and you realize that your partner isn’t as perfect as you imagined, resentment creeps in. Furthermore, say Hendrix and Hunt, now that your subconscious has recreated your childhood, it worries that you’re about to relive all of your childhood hurts and disappointments. Unfortunately, this shift usually takes place shortly after you decide to make a commitment to each other.
The struggle that follows is similar to the prior romantic stage of the relationship in that both of you are driven by your need to feel loved. In the beginning, you thought love would come without effort. Deep inside, you both feel angry when you realize it won’t. You either react by withdrawing or by trying to force your partner to meet your emotional needs.
What Pulls Us Apart
It’s a general consensus among relationship experts that one of the major stressors on a couple is unmet expectations. Perhaps the most pernicious of these is that love should be unconditional, with no need for personal compromise. In The 5 Love Languages, Gary Chapman points out that once the initial romance has faded, each partner turns their focus back to their own happiness, and everyone has differing expectations of what a loving relationship should look like.
On the other hand, in Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, John Gray suggests that it’s the safety of a comfortable romance that allows unresolved childhood issues to emerge. Studies have also shown that young couples may not have the skills to deal with external stressors that lead them into conflict: such as money problems, issues at work, or the death of a close family member.
As a relationship starts to lose its shine, some traits you once found attractive in your partner now become abrasive. Hendrix and Hunt point out that those traits are usually the ones that fill in parts of your “lost self,” but over time they activate your own repressed feelings, and with them comes all the anxiety and pain that taught you to keep those feelings at bay.
For instance, David is active and outgoing; as a child he had to be to get his parents’ attention. He was attracted to Patty’s calm and reserve, a luxury he’d never had growing up. However, he starts to see their quiet time together as wasted time together. The more Patty awakens his inner need to slow down and be still, the more anxious he becomes. The repressed child within him equates stillness with an absence of parental affection.
Repression vs. Suppression
There is a difference between consciously suppressing an emotion, such as when you clench your teeth to stop from snapping out in anger, and repressing an emotion, which is done on an unconscious level. Repressed emotions are those we were taught to avoid, either by our families or society.
Unlike suppressed feelings, which we might express later if we deem it safe to do so, repressed feelings never get processed. They fester in the mind and may eventually emerge in the shape of a host of mental and physical issues, such as chronic illness and depression.
Because you unknowingly chose a partner who shares similarities with your childhood caregivers, they will at times do or say something that resurrects painful memories from your past. Reawakening these hurtful episodes triggers a fight-or-flight response, as if you're in physical danger. Depending on your upbringing, you may respond in one of two ways:
(Shortform note: Hendrix and Hunt return several times to the idea that the part of our nervous system directly tied to our fight-or-flight instinct doesn’t differentiate between physical and emotional pain. MRI scans of people who have recently experienced emotional rejection show that the same regions of the brain are triggered as in people experiencing physical distress. Furthermore, similar studies suggest that emotional stress may cause physical sensations of pain in young children.)
As we can now see, unconscious needs bring couples together, while unconscious reactions drive couples apart. In order to bridge the rift, you both have to bring your needs and reactions to the forefront of your conscious, rational minds. To enable this, Hendrix and Hunt created a structured way for couples to communicate, called the “Imago Dialogue.” As a scripted format, this dialogue embodies mirroring your partner’s statements to ensure that you’ve understood them correctly, validating their point of view, and responding with empathy for their emotions.
(Shortform note: The skills employed in the conscious dialogue script match those involved in active listening, a practice that’s not only useful in relationships, but in any part of life that requires clear communication. Although the elements of active listening vary from source to source, it generally involves listening without interrupting, reflecting what someone says back to them, validating their thoughts, and speaking to the core emotions they express. In order for this process to be fully effective, you and your partner must commit to using this method for conscious communication.)
To demonstrate how the Imago Dialogue works, we’ll return to the example of Patty and David. Patty wants to discuss an important issue, one that would normally trigger a conflict. Using the structure, she first checks with David and asks whether he’s available to talk. If he is, the conversation may proceed. If he isn’t, he needs to suggest a better time to talk. By initiating the dialogue, Patty is empowered by knowing she’ll be able to speak safely and be heard. David is empowered because he can ensure that the conversation takes place when he’s emotionally ready.
According to Hendrix and Hunt, the need to create a “safe space” in the relationship is paramount. Although it’s contrary to the way couples normally have conversations, scheduling an appointment to discuss a sensitive subject creates an atmosphere of safety and cooperation.
In Crucial Conversations, Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, et. al. set safety as the first prerequisite for having a healthy dialogue, and they provide a list of signs to remain mindful of to ensure that conversational conditions remain safe:
Monitor physical and emotional cues that indicate a conversation is entering sensitive territory. (In an Imago Dialogue, the presumption is that the conversation will, by necessity, tread on sensitive topics.)
Pay attention to signals that the other person is having a fight-or-flight response, such as whether they start interrupting, talking over you, or withholding opinions.
Keep watch on your own reactions under stress.
Patty discusses the issue on her mind (which might be a frustration, a childhood experience, or even something positive). David mirrors by repeating and rephrasing, checking in with Patty until both agree that he’s fully understood what she said.
David then talks through Patty’s thought process rationally, in order to understand and validate why she thinks the way she does. As before, David checks in with Patty as many times as needed to make sure he understands her experience.
In the next step, David imagines how Patty must feel, then acknowledges and empathizes with her emotions. Throughout, he confirms with Patty that he’s correctly understood her feelings.
Once David has mirrored what Patty told him, validated her thought process, and empathized with her emotions, their roles reverse. David may now speak safely about the thoughts and feelings the discussion brought up for him. Patty engages by repeating David’s statements, validating his thoughts, and responding with empathy. This back-and-forth can go on as many times as needed until they both feel the topic has been fully explored.
(Shortform note: Newer editions of the book emphasize the importance of using “I” statements in the dialogue. Studies confirm that especially when in conflict, sentences based on “I feel” or “I think” are greeted more receptively. “You” statements, such as “you never do this,” or “you make me feel that,” trigger defensive and hostile reactions.)
(Shortform note: David Schnarch, author of Passionate Marriage, who died in 2020, criticized the Imago Dialogue. Schnarch’s approach focused on “differentiation,” the balance between the desire for togetherness and the need for individual growth. While Schnarch agreed with some of Hendrix and Hunt’s basic principles, he objected to how the dialogue places validation in the hands of your partner. Schnarch believed this creates codependency, not intimacy.)
This structure through which partners can communicate safely is the central tool around which Hendrix and Hunt designed Imago Relationship Therapy. It’s meant to be used often as a couple works to rebuild their relationship.
The scripted nature of the dialogue will feel awkward and artificial—but the authors say that’s the point. By forcing you to engage your conscious mind within a predetermined format for having a conversation, the dialogue short-circuits the unconscious reactions that activate your childhood fears and prevent true understanding.
When used regularly, this method for addressing difficult issues creates a safe space within the relationship. Within this space, say Hendrix and Hunt, couples who previously treated each other as adversaries can now become true partners on the path to healing each other’s old scars.
Make It a Habit
Ideally, using the scripted dialogue to address relationship issues can be turned into a habitual process. In The Power of Habit, Journalist Charles Duhigg identified the criteria needed to make a habit automatic:
A cue to trigger the behavior (This could be a feeling you want to express or a request you’d like to make of your partner)
A routine of actions to follow (This is provided by the dialogue’s script)
A reward from performing the behavior (This is received when your partner validates your feelings)
Taken together, and repeated often enough, these elements create a craving to enact the new behavior (the dialogue) more and more.
Given this tool for changing the way that couples interact, how can we use it to mend fractured connections with the people we love?
In order to transform a broken relationship, the authors stress that each partner must feel emotionally safe. You must learn to see each other as separate individuals, and then gradually change to become the person your partner needs you to be. In making this change, you’ll eventually discover that you’re healing yourself as well.
To enable this to happen, Hendrix and Hunt devised a program of exercises around the core concepts of mirroring, validation, and empathy. These exercises fall into three broad categories designed to create feelings of mutual safety, explore your childhood needs and frustrations, and guide you to making the hardest changes of all.
Because the healing process requires forming new habits that take time to set in, Hendrix and Hunt insist that each partner must commit to the process and agree to remain a couple for at least three months. This creates a feeling of security for a partner who fears abandonment, while the time-limited nature of the commitment can be calming for a partner who feels trapped in an unhappy situation.
(Shortform note: Hendrix and Hunt choose three months for the commitment period in order to create enough time for new relationship habits to set in. While the idea that it takes 21 days to form a habit may be a myth, new routines and behaviors can be established. In Atomic Habits, James Clear argues that forming identity-based habits that revolve around your personal values, such as what kind of partner you want to be in a relationship, have a higher success rate than those based on achieving short-term, finite goals.)
The next step is for both of you to identify and limit the ways in which you “escape” from the relationship, whether by working late, staying out with friends, or spending excessive time pursuing hobbies. It’s also important to discuss the reasons and fears behind these escape routes, using the scripted conversation technique.
(Shortform note: In general, relationship experts encourage couples not to rely on their romantic relationships to fulfill all of their emotional needs—some aspects of your life must be focused on yourself. Recent studies on the effects of the “forced togetherness” imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic have shown a spike in divorce rates and break-ups. However, the same studies also acknowledge that the pandemic lockdown may have simply exacerbated preexisting marital problems by stripping away unhealthy coping mechanisms.)
Finally, in order to return the relationship to a state that doesn’t inspire the need to escape, it’s vital for a couple to have fun again, and to act the way you once did when you first fell in love. This can be very hard for couples who have been at odds for years, so Hendrix and Hunt provide specific exercises to identify ways each partner can show their love and engage in spontaneous fun.
(Shortform note: Many relationship experts agree on the importance of rekindling and maintaining a sense of romance in long-term relationships. Therapist David Schnarch, who was otherwise a critic of Hendrix and Hunt, made rebuilding intimacy the focus of his work, particularly by creating approaches for couples to rediscover each other while maintaining their own sense of self.)
Once a setting of safety has been established, it frees you to become open about your unmet needs. Part of this step requires individual work that begins when you visualize your primary caregivers—whether they be parents, grandparents, or anyone else who was responsible for your upbringing.
Childhood Leaves a Mark on the Brain
Therapists and other mental health professionals place so much importance on uncovering childhood wounds because of how the brain and body process memory and emotion, whether from dramatic, life-defining events, or from occurrences that took place over and over, wearing an emotional groove into your mind.
In particular, Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) concentrates on identifying the links between childhood and present-day emotions, with the assumption that becoming consciously aware of your own emotional experience can help to resolve depression, anxiety, and problems within a relationship.
Once you and your partner have established the general traits of your caregivers and the unmet needs left over from childhood, you’re ready to engage in the “Parent-Child Dialogue.” This scripted exercise is much like the Imago Dialogue, except that one person speaks from their point of view as a child, while their partner takes the role of a parent. The “child” speaks about a negative childhood experience, while the “parent” responds with validation and empathy.
For Hendrix and Hunt, what’s more important than any specific childhood issues is the way in which you and your partner interact. It’s vital that you listen to each other with curiosity and compassion so you can recognize each other as separate individuals and not merely placeholders for your unconscious parental images.
After exploring the ways in which your childhoods shaped you, you will then, on your own, make a list of your partner’s traits as you perceive them. Many of these will match characteristics that you ascribed to your primary caregivers. Hendrix and Hunt state that with this information, it’s possible to consciously spell out the unconscious needs that you brought into your relationship.
(Shortform note: This dialogue technique is essentially a form of therapeutic role-play. Role-playing has long been used as an educational tool for students, and by therapists as a method for addressing anxiety and phobias. A form of role-play known as drama therapy incorporates aspects of stage theater to help people process past experiences and address current problems in their lives. The Parent-Child Dialogue uses some of drama therapy’s tools to play out a positive parental interaction that you and your partner may never have experienced.)
Through this process of self-discovery, you can become more aware of the unconscious drives that led you to seek out and create a loving bond. More importantly, you can also learn to understand your partner’s unspoken needs. This is where the hard part begins.
When a relationship is in crisis, we often wish our partner would change to meet our own desires. In a relationship where the couple are conscious allies, we commit to changing ourselves in order to meet our partner’s deepest needs.
Healthy vs. Unhealthy Mutual Dependence
It may appear at first glance that Hendrix and Hunt are promoting codependency, in which someone has an unhealthy reliance on their partner for their own emotional well-being. In Codependent No More, Melody Beattie encourages codependent people to detach from their toxic partners and learn to take care of themselves.
While this seems to argue directly against the type of bond that Hendrix and Hunt wish to create, it should be noted that a truly codependent relationship does not meet two of the basic requirements for a couple taking part in Imago Relationship Therapy: that both partners commit to the therapy process, and that they create a safe space within the relationship for growth and expression.
The tool that Hendrix and Hunt provide to facilitate gradual transformation is the “Behavior Change Request Dialogue.”
(Shortform note: In order to succeed, the requests should be in the form of SMART objectives, a concept first introduced by management expert George T. Doran. Such objectives should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely. For example, if you feel that you do too much of the housework, you might request that your partner makes dinner three times a week for a month. SMART requests are limited in scope, practical to fulfill, and easy to determine whether or not they’ve been achieved.)
Through this process, you and your partner will make incremental changes to your behavior. However, the Behavior Change Request is not transactional. Any changes you make must be done so freely, as a gift. The fact that you will be able to choose whether or which changes to make ensures that you don’t give up personal autonomy.
An Alternate View: Negotiation as a Model
While Hendrix and Hunt stress that personal growth shouldn’t be tit-for-tat, many couples therapists adopt a more traditional negotiation approach (each side giving something) to address relationship issues. The Gottman Institute recommends that couples discuss their emotional needs using a tool developed by the Harvard Negotiation Project that embodies the following principles:
Appreciation for each other’s point of view
Affiliation between partners, not adversaries
Autonomy to set your own personal boundaries
Status between partners recognized as being equal
Role of two parties working toward compromise
While there is certainly some overlap between modern couples’ negotiation methods and Hendrix and Hunt’s behavior change process, it was the authors’ experience of the failure of the older, quid pro quo model of negotiation that led them to devise another way.
It will be easier for you to meet some requests for change than others. According to Hendrix and Hunt, the requests that spark the strongest resistance are those that touch on areas where you have the greatest need for growth. Part of your resistance to making changes may be rooted in the feeling that you’re violating a rule or taboo set by your parents. If you feel resistance to your partner making changes, your caregivers may have taught you that you weren’t worthy of receiving love in that way.
As you and your partner make gradual changes, you create a cycle of mutual growth. By changing yourselves to meet your partner's needs, you fill in the pieces of your own Lost Self.
The Success Rate of Change
Anyone who’s ever tried to quit smoking, go on a diet, or spend less time watching TV knows how hard it is to make lasting, permanent changes. Polls on the success of people attempting to make personal changes vary wildly—showing failure rates from 50% to as much as 96%. However, the results do show that there are ways to influence your individual outcome.
In Switch, business experts Chip and Dan Heath explain that in order to successfully make a lasting change, you must engage your emotions and your rational mind, while adapting the environment around you to support the change you want to make. If applied faithfully, Hendrix and Hunt’s behavior change method addresses all three of these criteria.
Though Hendrix and Hunt’s process begins with a couple in crisis making a time-limited commitment, if you’re able to bridge the divide that’s grown between you and your partner, then the cycle of growth and change will never stop. The endgame of Imago Relationship Therapy is not to produce a perfect “happily ever after,” but to change the way you and your partner interact so that you may continue to evolve and support each other over years to come.
To implement this change, they suggest that you strive to eliminate your negative reactions to each other, push through the inevitable periods of back-pedaling, and apply conscious, thoughtful communication in every aspect of your relationship.
Negativity, such as put-downs, hurtful criticisms, and worst of all, outright contempt, is the death of many a loving relationship. In its rawest form, “negativity” is the denial of another person’s right to exist as they are. Hendrix and Hunt don’t suggest that you repress your negative thoughts and feelings, but when they occur you should bring them out into the open so that you can consciously examine them and determine what issues lie beneath.
(Shortform note: Psychologist John Gottman determined the hallmarks of negativity as a predictor of divorce in his Love Lab studies in the 1980s. The principle behaviors Gottman identified as “tells” of a relationship in crisis are criticism, contempt, being defensive, and stonewalling. These, in conjunction with other negative conversational tactics, led Gottman to claim a 94% success rate in determining whether a couple would split up.)
The process to create a successful, supporting relationship entails a lot of hard work and incremental change. You can expect that sometimes the changes will be clear, while at other times you’ll slip back into old, destructive habits. Hendrix and Hunt offer reassurance that so long as there is commitment to the process, then even at times when it feels like you’re backsliding, there will still be gradual progress. The lows won’t be as low as before, and with practice the way forward will be easier.
(Shortform note: The cycle of incremental progress and backsliding is common to human nature and has been the focus of much work in the field of overcoming addictions. One tool that’s helpful for getting back on track is Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), developed by psychiatrist Albert Ellis. Unlike the psychoanalytic approach, REBT is a way of dealing with your emotional reactions in the present, not the past. This form of therapy can help identify the events that triggered a regression and build a new thought process to help you move forward.)
Over time, the stilted, artificial nature of the communication tools in Imago Relationship Therapy will start to become ingrained and habitual. In time, you may find that you no longer need to follow the full script to address a touchy subject or request a change in behavior. You may also discover that the tools of conscious communication—mirroring, validation, and empathy—carry over into other parts of your life.
Our unconscious drives will always be with us, but Hendrix and Hunt insist that by bringing our unspoken needs into the open within the safety of a conscious, loving relationship, we can empower ourselves to at last grow beyond them.
Hendrix and Hunt’s underlying premise is that we carry the emotional reactions we learned as children with us into adulthood. Even without knowing, we may react to an event in the present by replaying a scenario from our past.
Recall a time when you felt angry or hurt as a child. What happened to make you feel that way, and how did you react?
What specific emotions did you feel? (Name as many as you can think of, whether or not you openly expressed them.)
Has anything happened to you as an adult that made you feel the same way? If so, what was it?
According to Hendrix and Hunt, making gradual change is essential to growth, and yet it’s the hardest part of any process. They suggest that the most difficult changes to make are ones that contradict lessons we were taught as children.
Think of a time when someone (a colleague, friend, or member of your family) asked you to change in a way you didn’t like. What was the change they asked you to make?
What feelings did the change request bring up? (Name as many as you can think of, whether or not you openly expressed them.)
Is there a message or value that you may have learned from your caregivers that led you to feel the way you did?
If so, does this message or value still apply to the present? Why or why not?