Contemporary Family Therapy

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 115–127 | Cite as

Marital crisis and the trigenerational context: A model of short-term therapy

  • Alfredo A. Canevaro


This article demonstrates a therapeutic technique used with dysfunctional couples or couples undergoing a divorce crisis which systematically incorporates both families of origin (FOS) in the treatment. The theoretical basis consists in seeing the perturbances of the conjugal couple as coming from a trigenerational context consisting of the confluence of both FOS with their set style of relating. The therapeutic aim is the definition of the relationship within the nuclear family system (NFS) and both FOSs. The technique consists of five scheduled sessions that incorporate alternatively both FOSs without the presence of the other spouse. The style of the intervention owes much to contributions of the systemic school of family therapy, especially those of strategic therapy and the Milan school. Ad hoc modifications are made for work with the FOSs.


Health Psychology Theoretical Basis Social Issue Systemic School Family Therapy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Boszormenyi-Nagy, I., & Spark, G. (1983).Lealtades invisibles. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu.Google Scholar
  2. Bowen, M. (1978).Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson.Google Scholar
  3. Canevaro, A. A. (1978). Un modelo de ficha clinica familiar.Terapia Familiar, 2, 11–27.Google Scholar
  4. Canevaro, A. A. (1982). El contexte trigeneracional en terapia familiar.Terapia Familiar, 9, 101–118.Google Scholar
  5. Canevaro, A. A. (1981). Family therapy with psychotic patients: An institutional approach.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7, 375–383.Google Scholar
  6. Framo, J. (1982).Explorations in marital and family therapy. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Garcia Badaracco, J. (1982). Family as the real context of psychotherapeutic processes. In F. W. Kaslow (Ed.),The international book of family therapy (pp. 293–308). New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
  8. Haley, J. (1980).Terapia para resolver problemas. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu.Google Scholar
  9. Selvini Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1975).Paradosso y controparadosso. Milano: Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
  10. Selvini Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, C., & Prata, G. (1980). The problem of the referring person.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 6, 3–9.Google Scholar
  11. Selvini Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, C., & Pratal, G. (1980). Hypothesizing-circularity-neutrality: Three guidelines for the conductor of the session.Family Process, 19, 3–12.Google Scholar
  12. Tomm, K. (1984). One perspective on the Milan systemic approach: Part I. Overview of development, theory, and practice.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 10, 113–125.Google Scholar
  13. Ugazio, V. (1984). Hypothesization and the therapeutic process.Terapie Familiare, 16, 27–45.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alfredo A. Canevaro
    • 1
  1. 1.Buenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations