THE FAMILY

Eckstein et al. /JOURNAL:

THREE-LEGGED
COUNSELING
RACE AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES / October 1999

v For Couples and Families

For Couples and Families features materials for use as handouts for
counselors working with couples and families. Send your ideas to
Daniel Eckstein, Ottawa University, 13402 North Scottsdale Road,
Suite B-170, Scottsdale, AZ 85257; telephone: (602) 998-2297;
e-mail: deckstein@juno.com.

Relationships as a “Three-Legged Sack Race”

Daniel Eckstein
Marilyn Leventhal
Sherry Bentley
Sharon A. Kelley
Ottawa University

The authors introduce the “three-legged sack race” as a metaphor
for three contrasting ways of describing a couple’s relationship. The
interdependent model has the inside two legs of the couple attached
and the outside two legs independent. Enmeshed, or overly depend-
ent couples have all four legs in the sack (no individuation). Con-
versely, independent couples have all four legs out of the sack
(detached). After having an individual self-assess his or her behav-
iors characterizing each of these styles, the authors present some
sample responses based on interviews with 55 adults. Attachment
theory is then discussed. The article concludes with implications and
applications to one’s own relationship and identifying a “next-steps
action plan.”
that the healthy relationship has a balance of independence
and interdependence.
Two classic imbalances occur in family systems theory:
One is the concept of too much dependence (no individua-
tion), which often is defined as “enmeshment.” The authors
describe this as having “all four legs in the sack.”
The other extreme imbalance is independence, no contact,
“all four legs out of the sack,” to continue the metaphor. The
authors seek to more fully concretize this concept with some
actual behavioral examples of the three types. You and your
partner will be invited to consider current and/or past rela-
tionships and to give behavioral descriptions for the follow-
ing three typologies in our metaphor.
Some representative responses taken from interviews will
be presented. This will be followed by a brief theoretical dis-

T he relationship between couples could be described meta-

phorically as a “three-legged sack race.” There has been
a traditional country fair contest in which two individuals
standing side by side have their inside legs tied together and
placed in a burlap sack. They then have to coordinate running
together as the two joined legs attempt to run in tandem. Both
outside legs remain free of the sack, however, symbolizing
cussion on attachment theory. Specific suggestions for
achieving a better balance between independence, depend-
ence, and interdependence will then be identified. Next, you
will be invited to share your responses with your partner as
well as to compare your comments. Implications/applications
and “next-steps” will conclude your self-assessment and the
proposed dialogue with your partner about your relationship.

THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES, Vol. 7 No. 4, October 1999 399-405
© 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.

399
400 THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES / October 1999
Your Assessment of Your Relationship
You and (if possible) your partner are invited to respond
individually to the following questions. Afterward, you can
compare your examples and discuss your different responses
with each other.
1. With respect to your current relationship, how would
you describe your attachment?
2. Relate behavioral examples of what you consider to be
examples of independent behaviors in your present relation-
ship (“all four legs out of the sack”).
3. Cite examples of dependent or “enmeshed” behaviors
from your present relationship (“all four legs in the sack”).
4. Cite examples of interdependent relationship activities
(each person having “two legs in and two legs out of the
sack”).
5. Cite examples of independent, dependent, and inter-
dependent behaviors from your past relationships, friends, or
family members.
6. Describe your level of satisfaction with the balance of
independent, dependent, and interdependent behaviors in
your present relationship.
7. What do you predict your partner would say as to your as
well as his or her level of satisfaction with the balance of the
above three behaviors?
REPRESENTATIVE RESPONSES
What follows are some actual responses made by some of
the 55 individuals that we surveyed. Each individual person
defined for him- or herself each of the terms.
Attachment (Defined)
Sample responses indicated both a positive and a negative
view of attachment:
• A dependent relationship; codependency.
• Commitment, cooperation and bonding.
• A couple cannot bear to be separated for more than an hour.
• Joined at the hip with a huge staple attaching the two of them.
• When you don’t want to be without the other person; he or she
has a special place in your heart, and you don’t want to be
apart from him or her.
• Unconditional, 50-50 sharing.
• Striking a balance between enmeshment and independence.
• The commitment to be a friend and lover to your partner.
• The emotional or physical need to be connected to another in-
dividual, sometimes to the extreme.
• Purposefully interacting with another on a consistent basis for
a mutually, emotionally fulfilling reason.
• Two people connected in a mutually satisfying way that
brings them both a sense of completeness.
• Being so fixated on the one you love that you become like a
paper clip.
• Healthy attachment = sharing, growing, changing, exchang-
ing, loving; unhealthy attachment = no growing or changing,
controlling, loss of self.
• To live vicariously through the spouse.
• Two people standing side by side, not leaning on the other for
ideas, motivation, or energy, but contributing one’s own be-
ing to be more than, not less than.
• “I am a secretary. This reminds me of a letter with an attach-
ment included. The attachment is not complete without the
letter; the letter is not complete without the attachment, and
they are stapled together to make it complete. So it is in our
relationship.”
Independent:
Relate examples of what you consider to be overly inde-
pendent behavior in a relationship.
• The husband goes off for weeks (or months) at a time on busi-
ness and is “never there” for the wife.
• Taking separate vacations for the past 20 years.
• “I’m more important than the other person and my needs
come first.”
• A couple who each does their own laundry because “they
don’t want their germs to mix.”
• “The best example I have is a personal one! My
soon-to-be-ex-husband works from noon to midnight and I
work 8-3:00 p.m. to be available to the children. Ultimately
the children and I live our lives entirely separate of Dad even
though we live under the same roof and call ourselves a fam-
ily unit . . . Dad is gone when we are home and we are gone
when Dad is home!”
• One partner living a totally separate, secret life.
• Deciding at work to meet with friends or dine with them and
not calling home to inform partner.
• A purchase of a big ticket item (car, boat) without consulting
the spouse.
• Complete separation of finances.
• “Whenever my partner has an extra day off from work, he
goes fishing out of town.”
• “After he had his heart attack he was never home. It had
scared him and he felt that perhaps his life was ending and
he’d better do all that stuff . . . like staying out till two in the
morning . . . and then giving me lame excuses. Meanwhile I
was stuck at home with the two kids. Later I discovered he
was having an affair with my best friend.”
• Dating other people while in a long-term relationship.
• The husband who refuses to diaper a baby claiming “That’s
woman’s work.”
• “He was abusive but I stayed with him until the children grad-
uated. The only time we were together was for meals and then
no one talked during the meal.”
• Sleeping “in the sack” with someone else.

Dependent “Enmeshed” Behaviors:
• The woman whose life is her husband. She stays home,
cleans, cooks, and so on. She does not do anything on her own
and “depends on him to take care of all financial, emotional
and social matters.”
• One person cited a case in which the husband had an affair.
They had a young child and the wife was so financially de-
pendent on him that she refused to acknowledge this was
wrong and leave him.
• When he comes home from work they discuss every little as-
pect of his day.
• One person who was interviewed joked that they are “staying
together in the relationship because neither one wants custody
of the children.”
• Not being able to make a decision without consulting the
partner.
• She is not able to deal with her own wants and needs because
she is so focused on meeting everyone else’s needs.
• The husband feels insecure and doesn’t really know who he is,
other than what he can achieve at work.
• “I can’t go to the concert unless you go too.”
• He needs to page me whenever I leave home.”
• The only opinion the wife has is her husband’s, or vice versa.
• Basing your feelings and moods on the other person’s feelings
and moods.
• Wanting to know your partner’s whereabouts at all times.
• Walking on eggshells. Watching what you say or do for fear
the other person will not like it and leave you.
• “My parents are not very happy with each other, constantly
battling, yet they will physically take care of each other for
fear of being without the other.”
• In describing her first relationship after she was widowed, a
woman stated “I had both legs in the sack and he had only half
a leg in. I was needy and receptive to any attention and affec-
tion given, wanting to be with him all the time, but he was very
standoffish. I felt someone was slipping through my fingers
once more.”
Attachment Theory
What follows is a brief statement of some highlights of
attachment theory. A more extensive review of that topic is
provided in other articles (Lopez, 1995; McCarthy, Brack, &
Brack, 1996; Pistole, 1996).
Simpson, Rholes, and Nelligan (1992) observe that a
growing number of researchers have begun to explore how
different attachment styles influence what transpires within
adult relationships. Much of this research has been guided by
Bowlby’s (1969, 1973, 1980) attachment theory.
Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) identified
three primary infant attachment behaviors. Children involved
in secure relationships use their caregivers as a base of secu-
rity to regulate feelings of distress and anxiety. Children
involved in avoidant relationships neither actively seek
Eckstein et al. / THREE-LEGGED RACE 401
• The widow (or widower) who marries the first one who co-
mes along, not wanting to be alone.
• “No matter what he does she stays with him, sure he is going to
change. He could stay out all night and she will forgive him.”
Interdependent Behaviors:
• Traveling together.
• Making decisions together.
• “When raising our children each has to have a leg in the sack.
We need to be as one and stick together in setting guidelines.”
• “When sending cards or letters to people, we put both of our
names on them.”
• “Each of us works outside of the home and then we divide up
the work at home in a fair manner.”
• “I read a book, recommend it to him, he reads it and then we
discuss it.”
• Remodeling a home together.
• “We surf the Internet together.”
• “He has two legs in and I have one in and one out. I feel his
two legs in is a sign that he is more codependent and needy,
and I am more comfortable not sharing myself with him com-
pletely. I am more secure and willing to share while maintain-
ing my own autonomy.”
• “We do almost everything together. It is a 50-50 relationship.
Neither one of us ‘depends on the other for life support’. He
goes out with the guys once in a while and I go with the girls
once in a while. We are independent and yet feel we have a
perfect balance.”
• “We agree, ‘You make the sandwiches and I’ll make the salad
for the picnic.’”
• “We respect each other’s need for space and time alone.”
• Exercising together.
• Knowing each other’s strengths and weaknesses and creating
a balance between the two (for example, one may be better at
“this” and one may be better at “that”).
• Budgeting two salaries to pay bills and then utilizing extra
money for items both partners agree to purchase.
support from the caregiver nor use the caregiver to regulate
and dissipate negative affect when it arises. Children involved
in anxious or ambivalent relationships make inconsistent,
conflicted, and ambivalent attempts to derive emotional sup-
port from their caregivers, actions that seem to reflect an
underlying sense of uncertainty about the caregiver’s avail-
ability and supportiveness.
According to attachment theory, the relationships an indi-
vidual has during infancy, childhood, and adolescence relate
to decisions one later makes in adult relationships. Such men-
tal models are thought to become stable and traitlike over
time. Early relationships are thus presumed to exert long-
term impact on subsequent adult relationships.
402 THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES / October 1999

Ainsworth (1985) noted that adults who possess a secure

attachment style tend to develop mental models of themselves
as being valued and worthy of others’ concern, support, and
affection. Significant others are described as being accessible,
reliable, trustworthy, and well-intentioned. Secure individu-
als report that they develop closeness with others easily, feel
comfortable depending on others and having others depend
on them, and rarely are concerned about being abandoned or
others becoming extremely close to them. Their romantic
relationships, in turn, tend to be characterized by more fre-
quent positive affect, by higher levels of trust, commitment,
satisfaction, and interdependence, and by happy, positive, and
trusting styles of love (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989).
Adults who manifest an anxious or ambivalent style tend to
harbor mental models of themselves as being misunderstood,
unconfident, and underappreciated, and of significant others
as being undependable and either unwilling or unable to
pledge themselves to committed, long-term relationships.
FIGURE 1. Four-Category Model of Adult Attachment
They report that others are reluctant to get as close as they pre- Source: Bartholemew (1997).
fer, frequently worry that their partners do not truly love them
or will abandon them, and often desire to become extremely
close to their partners. disconfirming information in their conversation with each
Finally, those who have an avoidant style perceive them- other. This shared meaning provides individuals security and
selves as being aloof, emotionally distant, and skeptical, and identity. When reduction in commitment to the marriage
significant others as being unreliable or overly eager to make occurs as a result of decreases in marital quality and satisfac-
long-term commitments to relationships. Avoidant individu- tion or increases in attractions that are alternatives to mar-
als indicate that they are uncomfortable being close to others riage, both spouses will likely experience distress because
and find it difficult to completely trust and depend on others. attachment bonds are threatened. Even though the marriage
may be in trouble, spouses may cling to it in a desperate
attempt to preserve the symbolic, jointly created property of
ATTACHMENT THEORY AND DIVORCE their world view (Donovan & Jackson, 1990).

According to Thweatt (1980), a specific pattern of distress

presents itself when attachment bonds are disrupted. Such dis-
tress occurs in four phases: denial, protest, despair, and detach-
ment. This pattern of responses has been used to explain the
paradoxical situation in which the divorce-petitioning spouse
becomes distressed over the potential loss of the spouse. The
attachment bond provides a necessary sense of psychological
security and personal identity even when commitment to the
relationship is ending. That is because commitment is differ-
ent from attachment.
Attachment can persist even though there is a loss of love
and a reduced commitment to the spouse and the relationship.
Commitment is different from attachment. Commitment is
described as a sense of being irrevocably invested in a rela-
tionship and of having feelings that cannot be easily with-
drawn and placed elsewhere. It is related to the spouses’ sense
of marital relationship quality and satisfaction. Conversely,
attachment involves the symbolic bonds between two people
emerging because of shared beliefs, values, meaning, and
identity. Such a shared reality of symbolic interdependence
develops over time as a result of an exchange of confirming or
THE FOUR-CATEGORY MODEL OF
ADULT ATTACHMENT
Bartholomew (1997) conceptualizes four prototypic
attachment patterns which are defined in terms of the inter-
section of two underlying dimensions—how positive to nega-
tive models of the self are and how positive to negative mod-
els of hypothetical others are (see Figure 1). She stated that
the self-model dimension is associated with the degree of
emotional dependence on others for self-validation. Thus, a
positive self-model reflects an internalized sense of
self-worth that is not dependent on ongoing external valida-
tion, and a negative self-model is associated with anxiety
regarding acceptance and rejection in close relationships.
The other-model dimension reflects expectations of others’
availability and supportiveness. Positive other-models thus
facilitate actively seeking out intimacy and support in close
relationships, and negative other-models lead to avoidance of
intimacy.

Individuals who are characterized by a positive image of
the self and positive images of others, generally received con-
sistently responsive caretaking in childhood. Such a secure
typology is thus high on both autonomy and intimacy, and
such individuals are comfortable using others as a source of
support when needed.
Preoccupied individuals are characterized by a negative
self-model and a positive model of others. Inconsistent
parenting, particularly if accompanied by messages of paren-
tal devotion, may lead children to conclude that they are to
blame for any lack of love from caretakers. Preoccupied indi-
viduals are obsessed with their attachment needs and actively
seek to have those needs fulfilled in their close relationships.
The result is an overly dependent style in which personal vali-
dation is sought through gaining others’ acceptance and
approval.
THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ADULT
ATTACHMENT AND COUPLE VIOLENCE
Roberts and Nolles (1998) have made a significant contri-
bution to attachment theory by showing its corresponding
relationship to couple violence. They suggest that the associa-
tion between attachment and couple violence can be
explained by the dysfunctional communication patterns that
are linked with insecure attachment and that create an envi-
ronment in which couple violence is more likely to occur. One
of the most useful contributions of attachment theory is its
ability to explain the apparent contradiction between violence
and intimacy.
Attachment can be adequately represented in terms of two
underlying dimensions. These dimensions reflect the degree
to which an individual feels uncomfortable in close romantic
relationships (discomfort with closeness) and the degree to
which he or she fears abandonment from romantic partners
(anxiety over abandonment). High discomfort with closeness
involves a belief that attachment figures are untrustworthy
and cannot be relied upon to provide assistance in times of
need. In contrast, high anxiety over abandonment involves a
belief that one is “unlovable” and unworthy of help from
attachment figures in times of need.
Another common way of viewing attachment has been by
way of four discrete categories: preoccupied, fearful-
avoidant, dismissing-avoidant, and secure. These four catego-
ries are easily conceptualized in terms of the two underlying
dimensions of attachment. Fearful and dismissing individuals
report more discomfort with closeness, whereas preoccupied
and fearful individuals report higher levels of anxiety of aban-
donment (Roberts & Nolles, 1998).
The relevance of attachment in the development of couple
violence is indicated by several findings. First, many victims
of violence in dating relationships interpret their abuse as a
sign of love. Second, the first occurrence of violence tends to
Eckstein et al. / THREE-LEGGED RACE 403
coincide with periods of transition from one level of intimacy
to another. In dating relationships, violence is most likely to
occur for the first time following the couple becoming seri-
ously involved. Third, a large number of violent people are
not violent outside of the marital relationship. This finding is
particularly true for females. If attachment insecurities are
seen to underlie women’s use of violence, that helps to
explain why women are far less likely to be violent in the pub-
lic domain, where attachment insecurities do not arise rela-
tive to the private domain. Retzinger (1991a, 1991b) has pro-
posed a model of marital conflict in which threatened bonds
result in the emotional reaction of shame which, if unac-
knowledged by the partner, leads to rage and violence. Thus,
there is some support in the literature for an association
between attachment (particularly of abandonment) and cou-
ple violence.
COUPLE VIOLENCE, ATTACHMENT,
AND COMMUNICATION PATTERNS
Roberts and Nolles (1998) note that one important way in
which insecure attachment may lead to an increased risk of
couple violence is through the development of dysfunctional
communication. Adult attachment is often linked with the
manner in which individuals express their emotions and the
level of intimacy in their romantic relationships. Discomfort
with closeness is primarily associated with a lack of emo-
tional involvement in relationships and a strong tendency to
deny negative affect. They also believe that levels of marital
conflict are related to attachment, with conflict levels consis-
tently being related to anxiety over abandonment and less
consistently to discomfort with closeness. Attachment is con-
cerned with the availability or attachment figures, and con-
flict can be seen as a threat to a partner’s availability. Conflict
may offer the opportunity for increased intimacy between
partners through the sharing of their beliefs and feelings, and
the airing of their grievances. Therefore, conflict may repre-
sent a highly anxiety-provoking situation for individuals who
are anxious over abandonment and for those who are uncom-
fortable with closeness.
If conflict does represent a highly threatening situation for
those who are anxious over abandonment, then those individ-
uals have three options. First, they can “integrate” with their
“abandoning” partners by simply submitting to their part-
ners’ wishes. Second, they can attempt to prevent a partner’s
“abandonment” by dominating partners through the use of
hostility and exaggerated displays of anger and coercion.
Finally, they can avoid the possible abandonment by with-
drawing from the conflict, essentially fleeing from the
unpleasantness that conflict brings with it, and denying its
very existence. Couple violence is positively linked to high
levels of withdrawal from conflict. Thus couples in violent
relationships suffer from communication deficits that are at
404 THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES / October 1999
least heightened during marital interaction. Also, they tend to
withdraw from conflict and to express heightened levels of
hostility and anger during conflict interactions.
Implications/Applications Pertaining to Your Relationship
Describe some of your conclusions relating the theory of
attachments to your own relationship.
————————————————————————
————————————————————————
————————————————————————
————————————————————————
————————————————————————
————————————————————————
SUGGESTIONS FOR CREATING A BETTER
BALANCE IN YOUR RELATIONSHIP
Here are some suggestions that our interview sample made
for creating a proper “three-legged sack race” balance
between independence, dependence, and interdependence in
relationships:
• Effective communication: Communicate! Communicate!
Communicate!
• Compromise.
• Respect.
• Trust.
• Unconditional love. Being non-judgmental.
• Being there for the other person.
• A good balance of dependence and independence.
• Give and take.
• Seek each other’s advice. You do not necessarily have to take
it but know that their opinion is important. One should not
make important decisions without the other one.
• Have at least one meal together every day.
• “Dance” together! Do things together . . . hiking . . . danc-
ing . . . bowling . . . something!
• Do things together and do things separately. Make sure there’s
a happy medium.
• Be there for the other person . . . emotionally, spiritually, and
physically.
• The old cliché: Never go to bed angry at each other.
• “Don’t bring your garbage from your outer leg into the sack.
NEXT STEPS
Identify two to three specific behaviors in which you
would like to further balance your own relationship.
Summarize what you have learned or relearned about
yourself, your partner, and your relationship based on the
author’s “three-legged sack race” relationship metaphor.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M. (1985). Attachments across the life span. Bulletin of the New
York Academy of Medicine, 61, 792-812.
Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attach-
ment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bartholomew, K. (1997). Adult attachment processes: Individual and couple
perspectives. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 70, 249-263.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Volume 1. Attachment. New York:
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Volume 2. Separation: Anxiety and
anger. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Volume 3. Loss: Sadness and
depression. New York: Basic Books.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1989). Research on love: Does it measure
up? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56, 784-794.
Lopez, F. (1995). Attachment theory as an integrative framework for family
counseling. The Family Journal, 3.
McCarthy, C., Brack, G., & Brack, C. (1996). Relationship of cognitive
appraisals and attachment to emotional events within the family of ori-
gin. The Family Journal, 4.
Pistole, C. (1996). After love: Attachment styles and grief themes. The Fam-
ily Journal, 4.
Retzinger, S. M. (1991a). Shame, anger, and conflict: Case study of emo-
tional violence. Journal of Family Violence, 6, 37-60.
Retzinger, S. M. (1991b). Violent emotions: Shame and rage in marital quar-
rels. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Roberts, N., & Nolles, P. (1998). The associations between adult attachment
and couple violence in attachment theory and close relationships. New
York: Guilford Press.
Rounsaville, B. J. (1978). Theories in marital violence: evidence from a
study of battered women. Victimology, 3, 11-31.
Simpson, R., Rholes, W., & Nelligan, J. (1992). Support seeking and support
giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of
attachment styles. American Psychological Association, 62, 434-446.
Thweatt, R. W. (1980). Divorce: Crisis intervention guided by attachment
theory. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 34, 240-245.

Daniel Eckstein, Ph.D., ABPP, is currently an associate professor at
Ottawa University/Phoenix campus. He is also adjunct faculty for
Arizona State University. Dr. Eckstein is coauthor of seven books,
including Leadership By Encouragement with Don Dinkmeyer. He
has a diploma in counseling psychology from the American Board of
Professional Psychologists.
Marilyn Leventhal received a B.A. from Hunter College, New York.
She is currently a graduate student at Ottawa University pursuing a
degree in counseling psychology with a marriage and family special-
ization. She is a former elementary school teacher with 14 years of
experience, and has taught art and Spanish to both children and
adults. She is also a realtor, professional artist, and has presented
numerous workshops on the art of meditation.
Eckstein et al. / THREE-LEGGED RACE 405
Sherry Bentley received a BSW degree from the University of Cal-
gary, Alberta, in Canada. She is currently a medical social worker
with past experience in correctional, educational, and state social
services. She is also a graduate student in counseling psychology at
Ottawa University. She is interested in art therapy and working with
children.
Sharon A. Kelley spent 12 years in the banking industry and is pres-
ently a graduate student working toward a master’s degree in clini-
cal mental health at Ottawa University. She graduated cum laude
with a BA in psychology from Ottawa University in January, 1998.