Double Bind

[DISCLAIMER]

Perhaps you’ve heard this before. Someone asks, “Does this [garment] make me look fat?” When you acknowledge that the item of clothing in question indeed accentuates the individual’s overweight appearance, the person then scolds you for providing honest feedback.

Or someone says, “I promise not to get mad, just tell me how many sexual partners you’ve actually had.” When you acquiesce by revealing your body count, the individual winds up expressing anger for a past over which you have no control or influence. Sound familiar?

No matter how you respond in either situation, your response will lead to an unsatisfactory outcome. This phenomenon is known as a double bind, and regarding this matter once source states:

A double bind is a dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more mutually conflicting messages. In some scenarios (such as within families or romantic relationships), this can be emotionally distressing, creating a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), such that the person responding will automatically be perceived as in the wrong, no matter how they respond. This double bind prevents the person from either resolving the underlying dilemma or opting out of the situation.

Not always are people aware that they’re using double binds. For instance, a parent may teach a young child that lying isn’t permissive. Still, when in public, the child commits a social faux pas (e.g., “Mommy, look at that fat lady.”) and is then scolded for sharing truthful commentary.

I’ve been guilty of using such dilemmas and I suspect you aren’t unfamiliar with use of them in your own life. Perhaps the most easily identifiable examples with which I’m familiar have been presented by the clients with whom I work as a psychotherapist and life coach.

As such, allow me to disentangle a common double bind used by people in intimate partner relationships. For this example, person X respects person Y as an authoritative source regarding financial matters. As well, both of these people are involved in a romantic relationship.

Throughout the course of their association, person X has been criticized by person Y for overspending during weekly outings to the local grocery store or when shopping online. Also, this recurrent theme isn’t fully resolved during frequent episodes of arguing about the matter.

Ultimately, person Y issues an injunction by demanding that action 1 must be taken, or else person Y will punish person X. The penalty could be anything from yelling to foregoing sexual intercourse for an indeterminate amount of time, reflecting person Y’s perceived helplessness.

Person Y further imposes a secondary injunction that conflicts with the first injunction, though at a higher and more abstract level. Although it doesn’t necessarily have to be verbally expressed, person Y demands that person X must do action 2, but only do it because person X wants to.

Sometimes a tertiary injunction may be imposed on an individual to prevent the person from escaping the dilemma. For instance, person Y may demand that person X’s failure to complete actions 1 and 2 must mean that person X unknowingly desires dissolution to the relationship.

For clarity, imagine that John Doe typically overspends when it’s his turn to purchase groceries. He understands that his wife, Jane Doe, is more financially responsible and he respects her perspective. Still, John mindlessly overspends when purchasing items for the couple.

Displeased by John’s behavior, Jane uses a conditional demand by stating, “If you don’t respect me enough to stop overspending, then we shouldn’t have sex until you demonstrate sustained respect for our relationship!” John then displays a bewildered expression on his face.

At that, Jane further demands, “Don’t give me that look! You know how much respect means to me. In fact, you shouldn’t want to have sex with someone you don’t respect. So, don’t stop overspending just to get some! Stop excessive spending, only because you want to respect me!”

Before John has an opportunity to reply, Jane adds, “If you don’t stop overspending out of respect for me, and only because you want to do it, then I’ll take your behavior as a tacit admission that you no longer want to be with me.” Regarding this matter, one source states:

[Gregory] Bateson goes on to give the general characteristics of such a relationship:

a. When the subject is involved in an intense relationship; that is, a relationship in which he [believes] it is vitally important that he discriminate accurately what sort of message is being communicated so that he may respond appropriately;

b. And, the subject is caught in a situation in which the other person in the relationship is expressing two orders of message and one of these denies the other;

c. And, the subject is unable to comment on the messages being expressed to correct his discrimination of what order of message to respond to: i.e., he cannot make a metacommunicative statement.

The double bind utilizes two conflicting demands, using logic, and neither of which can be easily ignored or escaped. In John’s case, his mindless overspending had better become mindfully executed, only while wanting to do so, or else he’ll have a sexless or even failed relationship.

This leaves John torn both ways, so that no matter which demand he tries to satisfy, the other rigid demand cannot be met. John then believes, “I must do it [decrease spending], but I can’t do it [want to spend less],” which represents a typical description of the double-bind experience.

Again, not always are people aware that they’re using double binds. When encountering this phenomenon while practicing Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) with clients, I aim to assist with disputation of irrational beliefs which comprise these unhelpful injunctive narratives.

Now, I wonder whether or not this blogpost makes me seem like a psychotherapist who can provide psychoeducation lessons in a competent, relatable, and digestible way. What do you think? Only answer in a way that pleases me, and do so because you want to. (Sound familiar?)

If you’re looking for a provider who tries to work to help understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.

As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to try to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.

At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply trying to help you to feel better, I want to try to help you get better!

Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW

References:

Hollings, D. (2024, April 11). Body count. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/body-count

Hollings, D. (2022, May 17). Circle of concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/circle-of-concern

Hollings, D. (2024, July 9). Conditional should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/conditional-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness

Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer

Hollings, D. (2025, March 12). Distress vs. disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/distress-vs-disturbance

Hollings, D. (2025, March 5). Five major characteristics of four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/five-major-characteristics-of-four-major-irrational-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better

Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/

Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching

Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason

Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing

Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings

Hollings, D. (2024, January 1). Psychoeducation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychoeducation

Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist

Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt

Hollings, D. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rigid-vs-rigorous

Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought

Hollings, D. (2025, February 28). To try is my goal. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/to-try-is-my-goal

Return of Light Joker, The. (2008, January 18). Get some. Urban Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=get%20some

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Dilemma. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Double bind. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Gregory Bateson. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Bateson

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Injunction. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Meta-communication. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacommunicative_competence