No abstract

No abstract

In designing this study, we aimed to obtain a rich, phenomenological understanding of the experiences of couple and family therapists who transitioned their practice to telehealth due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Twelve experienced therapists from the U.S., Spain and Australia were interviewed in depth about their experiences of this transition, particularly how they developed and maintained therapeutic alliances in a virtual context with couples and families suffering pandemic-related hardships. The qualitative analysis identified 40 themes reflecting participants’ initial impressions of telehealth and their positive and negative reactions and adjustments to practicing remotely. Upon overcoming some initial wariness about providing services virtually, many participants described advantages to this way of working with families. Indeed, participants were creative in adjusting to this novel therapy modality, finding new ways to connect emotionally with their clients, to work meaningfully with children, to assess in-session dynamics, and to ensure their clients’ privacy and safety. Notably, several participants commented on the relatively slower development of alliances with new cases and the challenge of repairing split alliances between family members. Many of these difficulties were described as due to having minimal access to their clients’ raw emotions and the inability to use typical systemic interventions, such as moving family members around physically. Participants also reflected on being a “participant observer” to the upheaval caused by the pandemic, a distressing experience they shared with the families in their care.

Theoretically, securely attached adults view the world as safe and see their romantic partners as emotionally available, supportive, and non‐threatening. Little is known, however, about which relationship domains are most problematic for securely (versus insecurely) attached adults. To fill this gap, we asked 62 adults in committed relationships to complete the Marital Satisfaction Inventory‐Revised (MSI‐R; Snyder, 1997), a measure of the frequency and severity of 10 kinds of couple problems, and the Experiences in Close Relationships‐Revised (ECR‐R; Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000), a measure of attachment insecurity. High Avoidance and Anxiety were associated with numerous relationship problems being rated as frequent and severe. A canonical correlation showed that 26.5% of the variance in the set of relational problem areas was accounted for by attachment insecurity and gender. While greater attachment security was associated with fewer perceived difficulties in affective communication, irrespective of gender, greater Avoidance and Anxiety were associated with more difficulties in this area. Female participants with high Anxiety (and low Avoidance) reported more global relationship and family‐of‐origin distress, but fewer financial disagreements and less difficult problem‐solving communication; conversely, male participants with high Avoidance (and low Anxiety) reported more financial disagreements and difficult problem‐solving communication, but less global relationship and family‐of‐origin distress. These results have implications for practice by suggesting ways in which couples’ attachment dynamics can become manifested in specific kinds of relational difficulties.