27/10/12 Page 1 of 13

Circular Questioning as a Therapeutic Tool: Theoretical Basis and

Application to Couple Therapy.

Kevin Standish
BSocSci (Social Work) MA (Clinical Psychology) PG Dip (Psychotherapy) PG Dip (Couple therapy) PGCert HE

27/10/2012

Contents

Introduction: What is Circular Questioning? ............................................................................. 2

Circular Questioning: Theoretical basis..................................................................................... 3
Types of Circular Questions ...................................................................................................... 5
Application of Circular Questions to Couple Therapy .............................................................. 6
Reflexive Curiosity in the Development of Practise.................................................................. 8
Case study: The problem with the “internet” ............................................................................. 8
Approach (assumptions, values, theories, and working ideas) .............................................. 8
Method (Organisational pattern, ways of working) ............................................................. 10
Technique ( Practise activities and tools) ............................................................................ 11
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 11
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 12
 27/10/12 Page 2 of 13

Introduction: What is Circular Questioning?

Circular questioning (Penn, 1985) is a clinical technique introduced by Selvini

Palazzoli, Boscolo, Cecchin, & Prata, (1980) in their paper highlighting hypothesising,

circularity, neutrality as central guidelines for conducting a session. It is a core therapeutic

technique around which the other aspects of the session interact. It is the action focused point

of the hypothesising process and a way of maintaining neutrality as well as generating

curiosity (Cecchin, 1987). Tomm describes it as “a systemic enactment in the relationship

between therapist and family” (1985, p 34). Penn (1985) sees the aim as being to understand

the change in the coalitions over time that caused the problem in the system, thereby creating

an arc of time between present and past in the here and now of a session. Boscolo &

Bertrando (1996) regard circular questions as one of the most important interventions for

systemic therapists.

Circular questions seek information about the differences in the relationships before

and after the problem began (Penn, 1985; Burnham, 1988; Tomm, 1985, 1987,1988, 1998;

Boscolo & Bertrando, 1996; Jones, 2000). The transmission of “information that makes the

difference” (Bateson, 1972) aims at changing the couple’s thinking about themselves

(Burnham, 1988). Circular questioning is in line with the key axiom: “one cannot not

communicate” (Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974) in that one cannot not give a

relational description to a circular question (Penn, 1985).

This paper focuses on circular questioning’s theoretical basis (Penn, 1985), as a

second order cybernetic process (Tomm, 1985, 1988, 1998), and its relationship to the other

guidelines of hypothesising and neutrality (Selvini Palazzoli et al, 1980). A brief review of
 27/10/12 Page 3 of 13

the various types circular questions described by Penn (1985) and Tomm (1985, 1987, 1988,

1998) will clarify how the questions are applied in couple therapy. Circular questioning has

influenced my therapeutic approach to couples, changing and evolving into greater curiosity

about the couple’s “narrative” (Freedman & Combs, 1996; Dallos, 2006) about the problem.

Circular Questioning: Theoretical basis

The guidelines introduced by Selvini Palazzoli et al (1980) have come to be described

as “circular interviewing” (Tomm, 1985; Burnham & Harris, 1992) of which circular

questioning is one part in conjunction with hypothesising and neutrality. Burnham & Harris

(1992) succinctly describe the circular interview as follows:

“A circular interview begins when a hypothesis is formulated and circular questions

are selected to explore this systemic speculation. Linking questions to a hypothesis
creates a purposeful and coherent interviewing pattern wherein information is
revealed to the therapist and the family simultaneously. ... A circular interview
recycles these stories through circular and reflexive questions into patterns which
connect them into a systemic understanding. If the therapist has insufficient data
circular questions can elicit general information to create specific systemic
hypotheses.”

Circular causality or circularity (Bateson, 1972; Penn, 1985) is the fundamental

concept upon which circular interviewing is based (Selvini Palazzoli et al, 1980; Cecchin,

1987; Penn, 1985; Tomm, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1998; Burbatti & Formenti, 1988; Burbatti et al,

1993; Boscolo & Bertrando, 1996; Jones & Asen, 2000; Dallos & Draper, 2005). This is a

both/and view of a problem, moving away from a linear to circular description of causes e.g.:

she is depressed because her partner shows her no interest but he shows no interest as she is

depressed. They can both said to be involved in a circular loop where one person’s behaviour

triggers the others response and vice versa. This is Bateson’s “double description” (Penn,
 27/10/12 Page 4 of 13

1985, p 267). Circularity reduces the idea of blame and helps couples to alter their

interactions and belief systems away from a cause / effect view of a problem. Circularity is a

bridge that connects systemic hypothesizing and neutrality by means of the therapist’s

activity of circular questioning (Tomm, 1985).

Hypotheses formulated in line with systemic epistemology guides the therapist’s

circular questions (Selvini Palazzoli et al, 1980; Burnham, 1988; Tomm, 1985, 1987, 1988,

1998). Hypothesising is an attempt to explain the symptoms within the context in which they

occur, including all the significant participants, events and relationships in an interactive

pattern that offers a both an explanation and a solution (Burbatti & Formenti, 1988; Burbatti

et al, 1993; Boscolo & Bertrando, 1996; Jones & Asen, 2000). Cecchin says that using the

word “hypothesis” introduces a scientific connotation that implies there is a “truth”

somewhere and suggests using the idea of “fantasy" about the problem to remain curious

(Betrando, 2004, p 219). Circular questioning and hypothesizing form an important feedback

process between theory and praxis in understanding what is going on in a family.

Neutrality as defined by Palazzoli et al (1980) was a circular process whereby the

totality of the therapist’s interaction with the family was neutral by being aligned with all but

none at the same time. Cecchin, (1987) reformulated neutrality into a position of curiosity

that leads to an exploration of alternative views in a co-evolutionary manner. Circular

questioning allows for neutrality and curiosity to be maintained by ensuring that the questions

are inclusive “both/and” in their formulation. However Scheel & Conoley (1998) found the

violation of neutrality was dependent upon the intention of the question, with interventive

circular questions being more violating than descriptive circular questions.

The social constructionism of second order cybernetics (Freedman & Combs, 1996)

includes the therapist in the description as part of the system and not as an observer (Tomm,
 27/10/12 Page 5 of 13

1985, 1988, 1998; Cecchin, 1987; Betrando, 2004; Dallos & Draper, 2005). The family per se

is no longer the problem anymore, but how you understand the family, the way you talk to,

with and about the family, as well as the “problem”. There is no absolute “truth” but only the

way in which you hold a therapeutic conversation with the family, thereby co-creating a

reality that is more or less useful. This links into the importance as therapists to “recognise

the self-reorganising properties of the system” (Penn, 1985, p.268). This allows for new

narratives to be constructed through the process of therapy that enable change to occur

(Dallos, 2006).

Types of Circular Questions

The practise of circular questions follows a circular pattern where the feedback to the

therapist’s question will influence and shape the next question (Jones & Asen, 2000). Both

therapist and couple together construct a new understanding of the situation in this purposive

and responsive interviewing style. The intent is predominantly exploratory, based on

interactional and systemic presuppositions to highlight the patterns that connect (Tomm,

1985, 1987, 1988, 1998). There are broadly two types of circular questions: difference

questions, and contextual questions within which there are several subtypes: category-

difference questions, temporal- difference questions, category-context questions, and

behavioural-effect questions (ibid, Penn, 1985). Brown (1997) identifies the process and

pattern of questioning as more important than the category of question to maintain circularity.

By constructing questions in terms of “creating differences” and “drawing connections”, the

circularity principle is maintained (ibid, p 111). This falls in line with Tomm’s difference and

contextual questions. Scheel & Conoley (1998) raise the importance of balance in questions

as the family may feel overwhelmed and misunderstood by too many interventive circular
 27/10/12 Page 6 of 13

questions whilst on the other hand if there are too many descriptive circular questions the

session is experienced as bland and ineffective.

Application of Circular Questions to Couple Therapy

The simplest way to use circular questioning is to ask one partner what the other thinks,

or how the other feels about a particular issue. Circular questions help each partner to think

the issue through from the other person's perspective. The advantages of this are: the silent

partner may see that the other partner actually does understand where he /she is coming from;

the person talking may better understand the motives of the silent partner; it is a way of

fostering positive communication; and it facilitates communication as it is often easier to talk

in the third person than in the first person (Bobes & Rothman, 2002).

It is a way of involving a partner who is attending sessions reluctantly and is physically

present without actively participating. As one "gossips" in the presence of the other person

he/she cannot help but become active - even if it is only by listening to what is being said. Of

course, if something is said with which they disagree, they have choice to correct the

misinformation thereby engaging.

Another important issue is that the couple is usually not “alone” with you in the room.

The issues they have brought with them invariably involve outside parties. The questions

need to involve at least one generation down and up (ie parents and children), as well as

family scripts and beliefs. This helps widen the landscape of the problem by asking a

question like: "what do you think he would do with his son if he stopped drinking?" or "if her

mother were still alive, would she be coping any differently with her depression and if so,

how?"
 27/10/12 Page 7 of 13

Circular questioning can gain information about how it was before and after the

problem, connecting the past and the present, for example: "Did you have these kinds of

arguments before or after the illness began?" It is important to come full circle, and relate the

"then" behaviour to "now" by asking what has changed, e.g.: "What is it, Mary, that has

caused John to react so differently now than he would have ten years ago?" Taking heed of

Burbatti et al (1993) and Scheel & Conoley (1998) warnings of when working with couples,

circular questions asked too insistently and frequently can lead to vicious circles being

created , and “disturbing both partners, causing them to become less collaborative, and

ultimately provoking them to become rigid in their view points” (Burbatti et al, 1993, p 71).

When using intensive interventive circular questions, it is important to respond in an

empathic manner as you do not have the rest of the family in the room to whom you can

direct questions.

As the extended family is absent, the coalition alignments are not obvious. Circular

questions help to identify these in a non-threatening way by using imagined responses from

family members, which can validate any hypotheses held in respect to triads which might

exist. For example: "If your mother were here, would she say John is closer to Mary or

Andrew? What would your father say? Would you tend to agree or disagree with this

assessment?"

Careful questioning can enlarge “the story” that the couple bring. Explanation

questions, agreement questions, time questions, comparison questions and problem definition

questions are all tools in which difference is introduced into the "reality" which has been

painted by the couple. It is the difference you create in the couple’s minds about the reality

they have created for themselves that is therapeutic.

 27/10/12 Page 8 of 13

Reflexive Curiosity in the Development of Practise

Like many other therapists, I have been grappling with the problem of how to develop

beyond thinking, perceiving and acting as if relationship is a linear and two-dimensional,

rather than a circular and multidimensional affair. I began to search for the kind of

therapeutic interventions and experiences which will be most effective in helping people truly

grasp - perceptually, cognitively and affectively – the systemic reality of their relationship.

Burnham’s (1993) Approach-Method-Technique (AMT) framework structures the reflexive

journey on a case study showing developments in my practise.

Case study: The internet affair.

The couple presented for therapy because the wife, Mary, had been having a “cyber

affair” on the internet over the last year. This was the second such occurrence, the first one

being 6 years ago, for which they had gone for therapy with the problem being apparently

“solved”. The recent “cyber affair” was “discovered” by the husband John who became

suspicious of the amount of time she was spending on the internet again. John had changed

jobs a year ago that meant he spent more time at home. They presented in the first session

with John having the view that “there was something wrong in Mary’s head” and that she had

an “internet addiction” as the result of her father’s death and an abortion a few years ago.

Mary was “confused” and did not know why this had happened again. She struggled to find

an answer for John and had seemed to concede to his definition of the problem that she was

“mentally ill”. She did concede that she enjoyed the pleasure of engaging in the “forbidden”

as it was sexually exciting.

Approach (assumptions, values, theories, and working ideas)

My immediate sense on presentation was that I was being handed a narrative by the

couple that defined “problem” in terms of linear “pathology”: ie Mary was “ill” and she
 27/10/12 Page 9 of 13

needed to be “fixed”. The multiple levels involved in this problem were informed by CMM

(Cronen & Pearce, 1985) and because this was a repeated problem, it indicated a possible

systemic problem. The approach was influenced by the following ideas:

 Why a cyber affair and not a real one?

 Why now and why 6 years ago?

 How had the previous one been “resolved” to set this one up?

 The meaning of a cyber affair for them as individuals and as a couple?

 How to de-pathologize the problem and define it as a relationship dynamic? To

accept the couple’s linear definition was to keep a very narrow view that would not be

workable in the session.

 Gender issues of power and control seemed to involved with male dominance and

control over Mary’s movements and behaviour.

 Sexual issues were raised as the cyber affair’s sex had been “perverted and

disgusting” for John but exciting for Mary. This raised thoughts about the nature of

their sexual relationship.

 John’s life script about his parent’s divorce when he was aged six that had left him

“devastated” and he had vowed to not allow this to happen to his marriage.

This circular view is different from my psychodynamic approach where I would be

looking for deeper pathology within Mary to understand the need for an affair, and how this

had then affected the relationship. The approach would have been finding the “answers” for

couple by looking at circular connections as objective facts rather than co-created narrative

with the couple in the session. I changed my lineal position by identifying the “recursiveness
 27/10/12 Page 10 of 13

in the sequence” (Tomm, 1985, p 42): The circularity of his controlling behaviour activated

by her withdrawal via the cyber affair links to his “devastation” life-script and her caretaking

life-script. By understanding circularity in couple therapy it has contributed to developing a

better understanding of the patterns of behaviour that keep couples stuck in the “more of the

same fight”, which breaks the blame game that occurs between couples: John was blaming

Mary for the marital crisis that she accepted, as she could not find an adequate explanation

for her behaviour.

Method (Organisational pattern, ways of working, hypothesizing)

The core hypothesis formulated from file data and their initial presentation was: His

life script that “divorce devastates” has created an insecure attachment which he secures by

behaving in a clinging, demanding and controlling manner, to which she responded by being

a “passive perfect wife” making few demands on him. Following a change in work hours,

meant John had more time around Mary demanding constant reassurance from her. John also

hated his new job and was “depressed”. Mary was not able to claim the space that was

previously available and used a cyber affair to create space as well as to create crisis

indicating she was feeling smothered. By defining the “cyber affair” as a way of gaining

space within the relationship, the circular process emerged in the story line that had been co-

created with the therapist into this new narrative.

By retaining circular thinking throughout the process, empathic responses and even

linear questions can be asked about the problem. It is necessary to be flexible and adaptable

to the specific circumstances in a therapy session to enable the self-reorganising properties of

the system, but also to be aware of my own omnipotent thinking (I can make them change)

when working with clients.

 27/10/12 Page 11 of 13

Technique (Practise activities and tools)

Circular questions create a double description (both/and) for a couple allowing for

true co-evolution. By exploring John’s life script, a long-standing pattern of controlling

behaviour around Mary was highlighted, starting even before they were married. This had

suited Mary’s life script of “being needed”. The arc of time questions (“when did you first

feel you could no longer manage John’s demand to be the perfect wife?”) identified the

changes in John’s job and his “depression” as a key elements in the loss of “space” for her.

Previously rather than allowing generativity of new patterns (Tom, 1985) and trusting

in the couple-therapist interaction so a new story can emerge via curiosity, I was directive

with a couple to help them find a solution which destroyed my neutrality as I have placed

myself in the “expert position”. I now know this is when I need to engage in a circular

questioning to interrupt patterns without telling the couple them what to do: Trust the system

to heal itself.

The ethics of second order cybernetics is important because if the truth is relative to

the co-creation, then as a therapist I need to be even more respectful about what I am curious,

so that therapy is more rather than less useful.

Conclusion
The intention of circular questions to highlight the relational descriptions allows for a

deeper exploration with a couple in an empathic manner as part of the coevolving process of

a new description of the couple. The stories emerge and are enlarged upon, allowing for a

richness of life that as therapists we are privileged to be part.

 27/10/12 Page 12 of 13

Bibliography
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine Books.
Betrando, P. (2004). Editorial - Farewell to Gianfranco. Systems in Evolution: Luigi Boscolo
and Giafranco Cecchin in converstation with Paolo Bertrando and Marco Bianciardi. Journal
of Family Therapy , 213 - 223.
Bobes, T., & Rothman, B. (2002). Doing Couple Therapy: Integrating theory with practice.
New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Boscolo, L., & Bertrando, P. (1996). Systemic Therapy with Individuals. London: Karnac.
Brown, J. (1997). Circular Questioning: An Introductory Guide. Australian, New Zealand
Journal of Family Therapy , 18 (2), 109 - 114.
Burbatti, G., & Formenti, L. (1988). The Milan approach to Family Therapy. Northvale, New
Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc.
Burbatti, G., Castoldi, I., & Maggi, L. (1993). Systemic Psychotherapy with Families,
Couples and Individuals. Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Araonson Inc.
Burnham, J. (1988). Family Therapy: First Steps towards a Systemic Approach. London:
Routledge.
Burnham, J. (1993). Systemic Supervision: The evolution of reflexivity in the context of the
supervisory relationship. Human Systems: The Journal of Systemic Consultation and
Management , 4 (3-4), 349 -381.
Burnham, J., & Harris, Q. (1992). Systemic Family Therapy: The Milan Approach. In Barker,
P. Basic Family Therapy (Chapter 3). London: Blackwell.
Campbell, D., Draper, R., & Huffington, C. (1991). Second Thoughts on the Theory and
Practice of the Milan Approach to Family Therapy. London: Karnac.
Cecchin, G. (1987). Hypothesizing, Circularity, and Neutrality Revisited: An invitation to
Curiosity. Family Process , 26 (4), 405-413.
Crawley & Grant. (2007). Couple Therapy: The Self in Relationship. Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Cronen, V., & Pearce, W. (1985). Toward an Explanation of How the Milan Method Works:
An Invitation to a Systemic Epistemology and the Evolution of Family Systems. In
Campbell, D. & Draper, R. Applications of Systemic Family Therapy: The Milan Approach
(pp. 69 - 84). NY: Grune & Stratton.
Dallos, R. (2006). Attachment Narrative Therapy. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
 27/10/12 Page 13 of 13

Dallos, R., & Draper, R. (2005). An Introduction to Family Therapy: Systemic Theory and
Practice. London: Open University Press.
Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred
Realities. New York: W.W.Norton & Company.
Hannah, C. (1994). The Context of Culture in Systemic Therapy: An Application of CMM.
Human Systems: The Journal of Systemic Consultation & Management , 5, 69-81.
Jones, E. (2000). Working with Depression. In Jones, E. & Asen, E. Systemic Couple
Therapy and Depression (pp. 45-76). London: Karnac.
Jones, E., & Asen, E. (2000). Systemic Couple Therapy and Depression. London: Karnac.
Keeney, B. (1983). Aesthetics of Change. New York: Guildford Press.
Penn, P. (1985). Circular Questioning. Family Process , 267 - 280.
Scheel, M., & Conoley, C. (1998). Circular Questioning and Neutrality: An Investigation of
the Process Relationship. Contemporary Family Therapy , 20 (2), 221 -235.
Selvini Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1980). Hypothesizing-
Circularity- Neutrality: Three Guidelines for the Conductor of the Session. Family Process ,
19 (1), 3 -12.
Selvini Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1978). Paradox and
Counterparadox. London: Jason Aronson.
Tomm, K. (1985). Circular Interviewing: A Multifaceted Clinical Tool. In: Campbell, D. &
Draper, R. Applications of systemic family therapy: the Milan approach. London: Grune &
Station.
Tomm, K. (1987). Interventive Interviewing: Part 1. Strategizing as a Fourth Guideline for
the Therapist. Family Process , 26, 3 -13.
Tomm, K. (1988). Interventive Interviewing: Part III. Intending to Ask Lineal, Circualr,
Strategic, or Reflexive Questions? Family Process , 27 (1), 1 - 15.
Tomm, K. (1998). Interventive Interviewing: Part II. Reflexive Questioning as a Means to
Enable Self-Healing. Family Process , 26 (2), 167-183.
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change. New York: Ballantine Books.