Show the full module text
Module 3 — Your Goals
The middle forty minutes of your first session, where each of you says what you want and it becomes a roadmap.
About forty minutes of your first session is about what the two of you want. You each say it in your own words, your therapist says it back, and then a few more questions go underneath it. This module tells you what those questions are, so you are not answering them cold.
What this is about
Most people arrive at a first session with a complaint, not a goal. That is the normal place to start. A complaint is specific, recent, and usually about the other person.
He never texts back.
She interrupts everything I say.
We cannot get through a Sunday.
A complaint is a fine thing to bring. It just cannot be worked on directly.
It describes something your partner is doing, and you are not in charge of that. So once it is said and understood, a few more questions follow. They turn the complaint into something that is yours to work on.
You will each be asked separately. Neither of you comments on the other’s answer, not yet. For a lot of neurodiverse couples this is the first conversation in years where each person gets to finish. That on its own does something.
What happens in the session
This part comes after the connection exercise and before the listening. Communication, time together, chores, the recurring fight, parenting, money, in-laws and sex are all ordinary answers. You will also be asked how you would know a session had gone well, which is often the easier question. And you will be asked what is good about the two of you at your best.
A list made while your partner is talking turns into a rebuttal, so the second list waits. The overlap is found out loud, and nothing goes on it that one of you would not say yes to.
How Goals Get Set
1 You each say what you want, in your own words. One of you goes first, without interruption, for as long as it takes. Then the other. Say it however it comes out. Nobody will ask you to phrase it well.
2 Your therapist says it back to you. Not word for word. The point is that you hear your own goal come back accurately enough to recognize it, and can correct it if it is off.
3 A few questions go underneath it. Tell me more. What would that give you? How would that help? What is it you really want? Each one moves down a layer. If you do not know, that is a real answer and we work with it.
4 A workable version goes on the roadmap. That means one that is yours to work on, not a change your partner has to make. Your therapist offers one out loud, as a question, and you can say it is wrong. Then the two lists are compared, the overlap is named, and the roadmap, the plan for what gets worked on first, is built with both of you watching.
If you would rather write your answers down beforehand, say so and we will send the questions ahead.
Say as much as you have. I want to hear what each of you wants out of this, separately, before either of you responds to the other. Take as long as you need, and give me all of it. Nothing is too small.
Letting you know it landed. Let me say that back to you, so you know I have it. Tell me where I have got it wrong, or where the words are not quite yours.
What it would give you. If it actually changed, what would that give you? How would that help? And if you had that, what would be different?
Offering the workable version. So, and stop me if this is wrong, it sounds like what you want to work on is more kindness between the two of you. Not just him being less sharp. Kindness going both directions. Does that sound like yours?
If “what would that give you” is a hard question, say so. There is another version: what would you notice was different? What would somebody watching see?
The questions that go underneath can feel like being asked to justify yourself. They are not that. Notice what changes as they go down. The first sentence needs your partner to change one particular thing.
The sentence at the bottom is one that several changes could produce, and some of those changes are yours to start.
How far down we get on the day varies; a first session often gets one layer under the complaint and stops there, and that is enough to start with.
Your own sentence is not thrown away when the workable version goes on the roadmap. It is what we check the plan against later. If the workable version does not sound like your life, we have not finished listening yet.
Wanting different things is not a problem. Almost every couple does, and the work is built for it. The real exception is when one of you is not really in it: going through the motions, or quietly working out whether to stay at all (a mixed agenda).
The way this goes wrong. The partner who is unsure says nothing, because saying it in front of the other person feels like setting something off. So the roadmap gets built on a goal one of the two does not hold, and the work stalls for months. You can raise this with your therapist on your own, before or after the session. You do not have to announce it in the room.
A separate service, not part of this module
Discernment Counseling
This is a different piece of work from couples therapy, and we offer it for neurodiverse couples. It is for when one of you has a foot out the door and the other wants to work on the relationship.
It is short: a handful of sessions, some on your own and some together. Nobody is told whether to stay or go. What it produces is a decision made on purpose rather than by exhaustion. Ask us about it at any point, including before you book anything.
Why we do it this way
Your own words, because being heard is the point. Many of the people we work with have spent decades being told what their goals should be. Someone with that history will agree to a goal they cannot do, agree pleasantly, and then disappear. That is why the workable version is offered as a question.
We go underneath the complaint because the deeper sentence is both truer and easier to hear.
Almost nobody objects to “I want to matter to you.”
Plenty of people bristle at “text me back.”
In a room where one person is braced for a list of failures, that is not a small thing.
Both of you, in full. The work does not run on one person’s goal. In a large review of couple and family therapy studies, one partner being more bonded to the work than the other mattered to the outcome about as much as how bonded the couple was overall.1 The more lopsided it was, the worse things went.
That is also why we take it seriously when one of you is not sure. Standard couples therapy assumes both people want the relationship, and it is a poor tool when one of them is deciding whether to stay.2
Most repair is getting back something you already had and stopped being able to reach.
That is why the question about the two of you at your best is not a warm-up. If nothing comes, that is information, not a verdict. The answer usually changes when it is asked again later.
What is underneath a goal is usually older than the relationship. Flinching at any feedback often started with being corrected constantly as a child. Never quite feeling part of your own family often started with growing up autistic in a house you could not read.
That is the family-of-origin work, the work on the family each of you grew up in, and Part Three of this program covers it. For most couples it begins in the second and third sessions. It is not a search for somebody to blame. In the first session it only gets named and put on the roadmap.
After the session
The session ends with a roadmap, not a list. Your therapist maps out what gets worked on first and why, out loud, and asks whether anything is missing. Listening usually goes first, because everything else runs on it, and it is taught in the last part of this same session. At least one goal will usually be about wiring, meaning how one of you is built: how you handle sound, or time, or a conversation.
The order is a default, not a contract, and either of you can change it in any week.
You each carry your own side of it. The thing you already know you want to work on in yourself goes first, because you already believe it. Next to it goes one small thing that is yours alone and does not need your partner to cooperate.
It is hard to stay defended against somebody who has just named their own part first.
Every six to eight sessions, each of you rates your own side from one to ten, separately. When the two numbers are far apart, that is not a scoring error. It is the most useful conversation available that week.
The workbook below is a before. Fill it in on your own, ahead of the session, and take it with you. Nothing in it is shared with your partner.
The one thing, if that is all you have. If forty minutes of talking about what you want sounds like more than you have, tell your therapist at the start rather than partway through. The session can be run in writing, or split across two.
Your workbook
Your answers save to this device only - we cannot see a word of what you write. Fill this in BEFORE your first session, not after.
The complaint, and one layer down
Start where you really are. Nobody sees this but you, and a complaint is a fine place to start. The second question is the one your therapist will ask.
What is the thing that keeps happening?
If that changed, what would it give you?
How was that second question to answer? — Easy, Took a while, Hard, I could not do it
Before you go in
Only you see this. Both answers change what would be useful in the session.
Would you rather write your answers than say them out loud? — Yes, writing is easier, Out loud is fine, A bit of both, Not sure
Which is closest to true right now? — I want to make this work, I want to, most days, I am not sure whether I want to, I am working out whether to stay
One thing that is yours
Something you could do that does not need your partner to cooperate. Smaller than you think. A first draft, not a commitment.
One small thing that is yours alone
Where this comes from
Every source below was checked against the published record. They are grouped by the kind of evidence they are, so the numbers may not run straight down the page — a number points back to where the source is used in the lesson.
Research discussion
The forty minutes is built from the way this practice runs a first session: hear each partner’s goals in their own words, say them back, go a layer deeper, offer a workable version, and build the roadmap out loud with both partners watching. The reasons given in the lesson come from what thousands of neurodiverse couples have told us. No trial of this session format exists.
The lesson states one research finding. A large meta-analysis of the alliance in couple and family therapy found that a split alliance, one partner more bonded to the work than the other, was linked to outcome about as strongly as the overall alliance was.1 That is a correlation. It shows that split alliances and poor outcomes travel together; it does not prove that fixing the split fixes the outcome. The mixed-agenda point rests on a practice paper with no data, and controlled evidence for discernment counseling is essentially absent.2
There is no trial showing that a goal in a client’s own words works better in couples therapy than one a therapist writes. What exists is a broader finding about goals in general. Across three studies, goals people held for their own reasons predicted whether they got there, and the strength of goals held for outside reasons predicted nothing at all.3 That is undergraduates pursuing personal projects, not couples in a room. We think it transfers. We cannot show you that it does.
One more finding is worth stating carefully. Across many samples of couples, how well two partners’ goals fit together had the strongest link to relationship satisfaction of any goal measure.4 That is a correlation in community samples, and it cuts both ways. Couples who are already doing well may simply describe their goals as more aligned. We are not claiming that writing a shared line on a page raises anyone’s satisfaction.
Who this research was done with. The couples studies behind most of this module drew heavily on white, comparatively well-off, English-speaking participants. If your household carries pressures those samples did not — money, immigration, racism, disability, unsafe housing — the practice still applies, but the room you are practicing in is harder. That is the room, not you.
Peer-reviewed research
1. Friedlander ML, Escudero V, Welmers-van de Poll MJ, Heatherington L (2018) Meta-analysis of the alliance-outcome relation in couple and family therapy. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 356-371. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000161 Meta-analysis of 48 studies across 40 independent samples covering 2,568 families and 1,545 couples, 491 effect sizes, three-level random effects. Overall alliance-outcome correlation r = .297; split alliance, across 7 samples and 31 effect sizes, correlated r = .316 with outcome. Limitation: a correlational alliance literature, not an experiment. It does not show that repairing a split alliance causes a better outcome, and it does not separate agreement on goals from the bond and task parts of alliance.
3. Sheldon KM, Elliot AJ (1998) Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(5), 546-557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298245010 Three studies with undergraduate participants listing their own personal goals, one concurrent and two prospective. Goals held for autonomous reasons predicted attainment; the strength of controlled motivation did not predict attainment at all, and the path ran through sustained effort. Limitation: students pursuing personal semester goals, not couples in therapy, and it does not compare client-worded with clinician-set goals. It supports the principle that a goal has to be owned to be pursued; it is not evidence about goal wording in couples work.
4. Toma AM, Rusu PP, Podina IR (2023) The role of goal interdependence in couples' relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(6), 1740-1769. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221128994 Meta-analysis of 32 reports yielding 49 independent samples of romantic couples. Goal congruence between partners had the strongest link to relationship satisfaction at r = .43; goal support r = .28; goal conflict r = -.29. Limitation: the accessible record reports no confidence intervals or total sample size, and the underlying studies are overwhelmingly cross-sectional community samples. It cannot show that making goals more congruent in therapy raises satisfaction, or rule out that satisfied couples simply describe their goals as more aligned.
Clinical sources and public data
2. Edwards C (2023) The integration of discernment counseling and emotionally focused therapy: Attachment-based therapy with mixed agenda couples. Contemporary Family Therapy, 45(2), 186-194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-021-09610-9 Conceptual integration paper with no participants and no data. Argues that couples with differing levels of commitment are poorly served by standard couple therapy, because building secure attachment presupposes both partners want the relationship, and proposes a discernment process before treatment goals are set. Limitation: a practice framework only. There is no outcome data here, so it cannot show that separating discernment from therapy improves results, and controlled evidence for discernment counseling is essentially absent.
You do not need this worked out before you come
The Neurodiverse Couples Counseling Center works with couples where one or both partners are autistic, ADHD or AuDHD. Most people arrive with a complaint and no idea how to turn it into a goal. That is what the first session is for. Therapy for clients in California, coaching worldwide, all by telehealth. A first conversation costs nothing.
Up next
Module 4 — Reflective Listening