Clinical Insights
A request becomes therapeutic when it can be freely received
Using Behaviour Change Requests to connect understanding with concrete relational action
A partner says they need more support. The other lists everything they already do. Soon the couple is debating effort, fairness and whether the need should have been expressed differently. The clinician may be tempted to solve the practical problem immediately. Yet the interaction around asking and receiving is also part of what needs attention.
Imago’s Behaviour Change Request process connects the meaning of a frustration with an observable action. Its therapeutic rationale includes what it takes for one person to make a need known and for the other to respond with understanding and choice. The request has relational significance because it emerges within an encounter, and its follow-through becomes part of the relationship’s lived experience.
Readiness precedes the full process
The ICT materials describe the full Behaviour Change Request Dialogue as an advanced process. It requires enough capacity to express and contain feeling, receive the partner with empathy and make a credible commitment. A couple may be able to practise a simple request early in therapy while needing more support before using the full developmental dialogue.
This distinction matters in an initial session. Moving directly from a complaint to a negotiated task can bypass the experience of being heard. A request offered while the receiver is defending may become reluctant compliance. A promise made before its difficulty is understood can recreate the disappointment that brought the couple into therapy.
The clinician therefore assesses the interaction before progressing. Can the receiver summarise what matters to the sender? Can the sender describe the frustration without demeaning the partner? Are both free to express uncertainty? Where these conditions are weak, the next intervention is more support for the dialogue rather than pressure to produce an agreement.
From frustration to relational longing
The sender begins with a specific event or behaviour, followed by its meaning and emotional impact. A possible stem is, ‘When that happens, the meaning I make is … and I feel …’ The receiver mirrors and checks. The therapist may help the sender notice their own response, while keeping responsibility for any actual harmful conduct clearly located.
If relevant and welcome, the dialogue can explore what feels familiar from earlier relationships. The aim is to understand the longing beneath the complaint: perhaps to be considered, accompanied or able to rely on a response. The therapist does not need to force a developmental link. The current need can be understood on its own terms.
Validation and empathy prepare the ground for a request. The receiver has heard why the issue matters before considering what they might offer. The sender has had an opportunity to experience that the longing can be spoken without ridicule. These conditions help distinguish the process from bargaining over whose needs deserve priority.
Making the invitation concrete
The sender is helped to develop several positive, specific requests. The ICT process commonly uses three possibilities. Each should describe an achievable action, relevant to the longing, with clear timing or frequency. ‘Care more’ leaves the response undefined. ‘Would you check in with me for ten uninterrupted minutes on two agreed evenings this week?’ gives the partner something recognisable to consider.
The receiver mirrors the requests and freely chooses what they are willing to offer. The selected action may require a meaningful stretch beyond a familiar response, but willingness cannot be inferred from silence or a pressured yes. An alternative can be explored if it honours the underlying need. The therapist maintains room to name that no workable agreement has yet been reached.
The language of a gift applies to freely offered care. It does not make consent, basic respect or the ending of harmful behaviour optional. Nor should a request become a test through which one partner must prove love. The clinical task is to support a response the receiver can own and the sender can recognise.
Follow-through is part of the intervention
At review, ask what it was like to offer and receive the action. Was it carried out? What meaning did each partner make of it? If it did not happen, use the dialogue to understand the difficulty and acknowledge the impact. Repeated non-fulfilment requires attention; endlessly refining the sender’s wording can obscure the actual problem.
The intervention is therefore more than the agreement reached in the room. It includes preparation, voluntary choice, lived action and review. Through that sequence, understanding can become a dependable experience of responsiveness. Whether it does so is assessed with the couple, rather than assumed because a request was successfully written.
Clinicians who want to learn the full Behaviour Change Request process can explore Imago Clinical Training at imagotraining.co.za. The method requires attention to readiness, empathy, choice and follow-through as well as the wording of the request.