Circular Questioning

CIRCULAR QUESTIONIN G AND NEUTRALITY ; AN INVESTIGATIO N OF TH E PROCES S RELATIONSHI P Michael J. Schee l Collie W. Conole y ABSTRACT: This stud y investigate d the possibilit y that interventiv e circula r question s violat e the principl e of neutralit y advance d by th e Mila n schoo l as essentia l to th e practic e of systemi c family therapy . A method for categorizin g circula r question s as interventiv e or descrip - tiv e wa s develope d to explor e neutralit y violations . Neutralit y was operationalize d as clien t perception s of therapis t side-takin g and feel - ings of discomfort . Immediatel y after famil y therapy , individua l fam - ily member s viewed videotap e replay s of moment s whe n circula r question s wer e pose d and rate d their perception s of therapis t side - takin g and feeling s of discomfor t for eac h selecte d moment . Finding s indicated a greater tendenc y for non-neutralit y wit h interventiv e questions . Neutralit y was also represente d as multidimensiona l throug h the lac k of correlatio n betwee n side-takin g and discomfor t ratings.

KEY WORDS : circular questions ; Mila n famil y therapy ; neutrality . Milan famil y therapy' s proces s of circula r questionin g and neu - tralit y has hel d a grea t dea l of interes t and centralit y in th e Mila n family therap y literatur e (e.g. , Matthews , 1984 ; Burroughs , 1985 ; Nitzberg , Patten, Spielrnan , & Brown, 1985; Reder , 1985 ; Speed , Michael J. Scheel , PhD , is assistan t professo r in th e Departmen t of Educationa l Psychology , 324 Milto n Bennio n Hall , Universit y of Utah , Salt Lak e City , UT 84112 . Collie W. Conoley , PhD , is professo r in th e Departmen t of Educationa l Psychology , 709 Harringto n Ed. Bldg. , Texa s A&M University , Colleg e Station , TX 77843 . Reprin t re- quest s shoul d be sen t to th e firs t author . 221 Contemporary Family Therapy, 20(2), June 1998 ® 1998 Huma n Science s Press, Inc. CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAP Y 1985; Mauksc h & Roesler, 1990) . Other s hav e objecte d to neutrality , proposing that its practic e perpetuate s power differential s in familie s (Avis, 1988; Bograd , 1988 ; Hoffman , 1990). Boscol o and Cecchi n ac- knowledg e that neutralit y is controversia l in it s functio n of non - blam e (Boscolo , Cecchin, Hoffman , & Penn, 1987) . Eve n so, neutralit y is viewe d as essentia l to systemi c practic e (Selvin i Palazzoli , Boscolo, Cecchin, & Prata, 1980) . Whethe r in favo r of o r oppose d to th e prac - tic e of neutralit y in famil y therapy , a clearer understandin g of wha t neutralit y is an d whe n it occur s in th e contex t of systemi c family therapy is needed . Thi s stud y investigate s the relationshi p betwee n type s of circula r question s and th e maintenanc e of clien t perspective s of therapis t neutralit y durin g family therapy . The fundamenta l aims of th e Mila n metho d of famil y therap y are twofold : a) t o provid e the therapis t and famil y a systemi c descriptio n through an efficien t method of informatio n gathering , and b ) t o fee d back to th e famil y contextua l informatio n upon whic h to bas e change . Change develop s throug h disruptio n of dysfunctiona l cycle s of inter - action and sympto m supportin g beliefs (Fleuridas , Nelson , & Rosen- thai , 1986 ; Tomm , 1984). Circula r questionin g is th e Mila n interviewin g metho d use d to gai n descriptiv e assessment s and delive r intervention s throug h ques - tion s to a famil y (Penn , 1982 ; 1985 ; Tomm , 1985; 1987 ; Boscol o et al. , 1987) . The proces s was develope d by th e Mila n Associate s and i s base d on th e wor k of Gregor y Bateson . Circular questionin g was develope d by th e Mila n tea m to connec t individua l family member' s arc s (pieces ) of understandin g int o circu - lar view s abou t a situatio n withi n a famil y (Selvin i Palazzol i et al. , 1980) . Circula r questionin g is describe d as a Socrati c metho d in whic h the therapis t ask s question s and famil y member s respond . The question s are inquirie s abou t difference s within the family . The ques - tion s are designe d to discove r and revea l systemi c processes . Whe n a family present s an opening , difference s in belief s amon g family mem- ber s are explore d throug h questions . Difference s lead to systemi c hy- pothese s of th e famil y dynamics . Questio n presentatio n is guide d by th e therapist' s developin g hypotheses (Boscolo et al. , 1987) . Famil y opening s are th e famil y members ' beliefs which take the for m of la - bel s or diagnoses . An inten t of th e circula r questionin g proces s is t o expan d these belief s beyon d the meaning s whic h the famil y currentl y holds . For example , durin g this stud y one mothe r was asked , "Wh o do yo u thin k is th e saddes t abou t the fighting? " Sh e responded , "I don' t 222 MICHAEL J. SCHEE L AND COLLI E W. CONOLE Y know. I grew up i n a famil y wit h no fighting. " He r experienc e wit h fightin g was differen t than othe r famil y members ' experiences . Thi s informatio n was regarde d as a n opening . The consultatio n tea m hy- pothesize d that becaus e of he r femal e status and famil y of origi n his - tory the mothe r saw hersel f as helples s to d o muc h abou t the fightin g between her thre e sons . The mother' s openin g was explore d by ask - ing , "Wha t is i t lik e in thi s famil y bein g the onl y female? " Also , the son s and husban d wer e asked , "Ho w coul d you ge t he r (th e mother ) to lik e bein g upstair s (wher e the fightin g occurs) wit h you more? " THE VIOLATIO N OF NEUTRALIT Y Neutrality was originall y presente d in th e Mila n metho d as th e basi c therapeuti c stanc e of bein g on everyone' s and n o one' s sid e in th e famil y at th e sam e tim e (Selvin i Palazzol i et al. , 1980) . Therapis t neutrality toward the famil y allows the therapis t freedom to wor k withou t defensiveness , scapegoating , or resistanc e by famil y mem- bers , becaus e the therapis t is no t bein g perceive d as takin g sides (Boscol o et al. , 1987) . Neutralit y (Cecchin , 1987 ) als o has bee n de- scribe d as a stat e of curiosit y abou t man y perspective s of th e family' s problem which allow s exploratio n and inventio n of alternativ e views. When the therapis t violates neutralit y mor e than momentaril y by a n overemphasi s on on e famil y membe r or on e solution , the thera - pist is believe d to los e som e famil y member' s open communication .

Therapeuticall y ope n communicatio n lead s to a mor e systemi c under - standin g and change . As Tom m (1987 ) asserts , the therapis t becomes non-neutra l for a momen t to delive r an intervention . Non-neutralit y exist s becaus e the therapis t sides wit h someon e when a suggestio n occurs, then other s may feel side d against . Interventio n in thi s frame - work is th e proces s of focusin g on on e par t of th e syste m becaus e multipl e foci at on e tim e perhap s canno t occur. Attemptin g chang e via focusin g may leav e certai n member s of th e syste m feelin g excluded , blamed, or upset . For instance , wit h the questio n "Ho w do yo u thin k you r child' s behavio r would be differen t if yo u an d you r husban d agree d more?, " the parent s may easil y feel tha t thei r husband-wif e interactio n is be - ing blamed . Anothe r questio n coul d hav e bee n pose d as "Ho w do yo u thin k you r husban d and wif e interactio n would be differen t if you r chil d wer e mor e cooperative? " Thi s statemen t may no t b e a s upsettin g to th e parents , but mor e upsettin g and blamin g to th e child . 223 CONTEMPORARY FAMIL Y THERAP Y One interventio n seldom , if ever , include s all famil y members ' perspectives . If al l perspective s wer e include d the interventio n would be trul y systemic . At th e momen t of interventio n whe n the proces s lose s its systemi c quality , the interventio n suggest s a belief in on e solutio n and on e problem , a more linea r causa l relationshi p (Boscolo et al. , 1987) . The dange r is tha t individual s feel blamed , leadin g to unproductiv e processes. In othe r approache s the unproductiv e pro - cesse s hav e bee n calle d resistanc e or oppositiona l behavior . Throug h multipl e hypothese s that eventuall y includ e all famil y member s (a systemi c relationship) , eac h membe r may hav e a sens e of influencin g the proble m syste m and , mor e importantly , the solutions . Violation of neutralit y is believe d to endange r therapeuti c prog - ress. Familie s may no t retur n if member s wit h mor e powe r in th e syste m feel side d agains t or extremel y uncomfortable . If familie s re- turn afte r violation s of neutrality , som e member s may adop t defen - sive position s whic h preven t the emergenc e of mor e circula r perspec - tives (Boscol o et al. , 1987) . Two indicator s of violate d neutralit y have bee n introduce d in th e Mila n literature . Selvini Palazzol i and associate s (1980 ) propose d that the member' s perceptio n of th e therapis t taking sides was indica - tiv e of neutrality . Boscolo and colleague s (1987 ) adde d that members ' upse t or arouse d feeling s were sign s of violate d neutrality . The feel - ings wer e believe d to b e relate d to non-neutral , mor e linear , questio n interventions . The presen t stud y assesse s neutralit y by clien t report s of therapis t side-takin g and clien t discomfor t associated wit h circula r questions . The clien t report s are solicite d as th e individua l clien t pri - vatel y observe s videotap e re-play s of circula r question s bein g aske d durin g famil y therap y sessions . INTERVENTIV E AND DESCRIPTIV E CATEGORIE S OF CIRCULA R QUESTION S Circular questionin g originall y was describe d as a mean s to in - vestigat e the famil y system withou t violatin g neutralit y (Selvin i Pal - azzol i et al. , 1980 ; Penn , 1982) . Late r writing s (Tomm , 1985; Penn , 1985 ; Fleurida s et al. , 1986 ; Boscol o et al. , 1987 ) propose d that cer- tain kind s of circula r question s are mor e interventiv e tha n others .

Interventiv e question s ten d to violat e neutralit y becaus e interventio n is inherentl y non-neutra l (Tomm, 1985; Boscol o et al. , 1987) . Circula r question s hav e becom e the primar y interventio n in th e Mila n metho d 224 MICHAEL J. SCHEE L AND COLLI E W. CONOLE Y of system s therap y (Penn , 1985; Tomm , 1985; 1987 ; Boscol o et al. , 1987) , an evolutio n awa y from deliverin g intervention s throug h pre - scription s at th e en d o f a session . Facilitatin g chang e via circula r question s make s the proces s mor e constructivisti c (Boscolo et al. , 1987) . The functio n of circula r questionin g developed into a proces s of delicatel y balancin g the introductio n of intervention s withi n a famil y intervie w with the maintenanc e of th e therapeuti c stanc e of neu - trality . Becaus e of th e dua l natur e of circula r question s several au- thor s hav e suggeste d typologie s to distinguis h betwee n the interven - tiv e (non-neutral ) and descriptiv e (neutral) . Question s see n as mor e interventiv e are : (a) future-oriented , (b) hypothetical , and (c ) hypoth - esis-revealin g (Boscolo et al. , 1987 ; Penn , 1985 ; Tomm , 1987). Ques - tion s see n as mor e neutra l by askin g for description s of presen t real- ities are : (a) proble m definitio n questions , (b) question s askin g for comparison s between family member s or issues , (c) question s askin g for famil y membe r classifications , and (d ) question s askin g abou t agreemen t (Boscolo et al. , 1987 ; Penn , 1985) . A proble m definitio n questio n suc h as "Wha t is th e proble m in you r famil y right now? " is descriptive . It ask s the famil y to repor t wha t exist s in th e present . A future-oriente d questio n suc h as "Wha t would it b e lik e in th e famil y in fiv e year s if thing s wer e to continu e as i t i s now? " is mor e interventive . It ask s the famil y to generat e new meaning s through speculation . Perturbation s in th e existin g meanin g system s are likel y (Boscol o et al. , 1987 ; Penn , 1985) . A hypothesi s revealin g questio n suc h as "Wha t do yo u thin k abou t the ide a that there is a connectio n betwee n you r daughter' s anorexi c behavio r and you tw o fighting? " i s als o associate d wit h perturbatio n (Boscolo et al. , 1987 ; Penn , 1985) . Tomm (1987 ) differ s from the previou s author s by differentiatin g upon the basi s of th e therapist' s intent rathe r than the structur e of th e circula r questions . Tomm (1985 ) point s out tha t all circula r question s hav e the potentia l to trigge r the therapeuti c system' s reflexiv e process whic h alters famil y meaning s and conse - quentl y promote s change . Whil e Tomm' s presentatio n is persuasive , the structura l qualitie s of th e circula r question s wer e use d in thi s stud y becaus e of thei r possibl e heuristi c value .

HYPOTHESI S OF TH E STUD Y This stud y investigate d the propositio n that interventiv e circula r question s would mor e likel y violat e neutralit y than descriptiv e ques - 225 CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAP Y tions. Interventiv e circula r question s wer e future-oriented , hypotheti - cal, an d hypothesis-revealin g questions . Violation s of neutralit y wer e define d as a ) clien t perception s of th e therapis t taking someone' s sid e in th e family , and b ) clien t reporte d discomfort . This stud y is signifi - cant becaus e it investigate s the theorize d relationshi p betwee n neu - tralit y and type s of circula r questions . Also, the stud y introduce s a procedure for measurin g neutrality from the client' s viewpoint , and categorizin g circular question s as interventiv e or descriptive .

METHODOLOG Y Procedure Thre e familie s received four session s of Mila n systemi c family therapy . Eac h of th e thre e familie s was see n by a differen t therapist for fou r sessions , wit h sessio n lengt h rangin g betwee n 60 an d 9 0 min - utes . A consultatio n tea m assiste d eac h sessio n from behin d a view- ing mirror . The therapis t initiated consultatio n break s and conferre d with the tea m at leas t twic e durin g eac h sessio n regardin g new idea s or feedbac k about wha t had jus t occurre d in session . The consulta - tions wer e to develo p multipl e idea s (hypothesizing ) linkin g togethe r the element s in th e proble m situatio n that help the famil y towar d their goals . Circula r questioning , neutrality , and hypothesizin g wer e verifie d as occurrin g in thi s study . The Mila n Associate s designate d thos e thre e ingredient s as essentia l to conductin g a family intervie w in a systemi c manne r (Selvin i Palazzol i et al. , 1980) . After each famil y sessio n ther e was a 15-minut e brea k followe d by individua l session s wit h eac h famil y membe r lasting about 30 min - utes. Durin g the 15-minut e brea k two experimenter s readie d the video-tape d circular question s from the session . The tw o experiment - ers jointl y selecte d three descriptiv e and thre e interventiv e question s to us e a s stimuli . One interventiv e and on e descriptiv e questio n was selecte d from eac h thir d of th e intervie w in orde r to exer t som e con- tro l ove r the influenc e of whe n a questio n was asked . Question s wit h simila r conten t wer e not used . The individua l interview s consiste d of on e tea m membe r meeting individuall y with a famil y member . Famil y member s separatel y viewed the videotape d circula r question s and reporte d their perception s of therapis t side-takin g and th e leve l of discomfor t for eac h question . An initia l practic e questio n was include d at th e beginnin g of eac h inter - view so th e familie s could becom e accustome d to seein g themselves . The therap y tea m member s wer e blin d to th e purpose s of th e stud y 226 MICHAEL J. SCHEE L AND COLLI E W. CONOLE Y and ha d n o knowledg e of whethe r question s sample d in th e videotap e replay s wer e categorize d as descriptiv e or interventive . The categorizatio n of th e circula r question s underwen t a correc- tion procedure . The in-sessio n categorizatio n of th e circula r question s was correcte d by a se t o f fou r rater s who coul d wor k in a les s pres - sure d manne r after the session s wer e over . Thi s allowe d for a mor e thoughtful , reflective final categorization . Twelv e of th e 7 2 question s sampled change d categorie s as a resul t of rate r judgment . Conse - quently , there was a slightl y unequa l number of descriptiv e and in - terventiv e question s sample d (37 interventiv e and 3 5 descriptive) . Participants Three familie s wer e give n the optio n of receivin g family therap y when they sough t service s at a universit y trainin g clinic . All thre e familie s had mal e and femal e parent s and a t leas t one chil d identifie d as a behaviora l problem . All famil y member s wer e Caucasian . The identifie d children wer e score d by thei r parent s in th e clinica l rang e of th e Achenbac h Chil d Behavio r Checklis t (Achenbac h & Edelbrock, 1983) . All thre e wer e boys , and wer e rate d as uncommunicative , ag- gressive , and delinquent . Non e of th e thre e score d in th e clinica l rang e for schizoid-anxious , somati c complaints , socia l withdrawal , or socia l activitie s subscales .

Family A ha d thre e boys , age s 10, 8 , an d 8 wit h the oldes t identi - fied by th e parent s as th e problem . Famil y B ha d on e boy , age 7 , wh o had bee n referre d by th e famil y physician . Famil y C ha d thre e boys , age s 11 , 10 , an d 6 wit h the oldes t referre d by hi s school . The thre e therapist s receive d three year s of trainin g in th e Mila n metho d and wer e experience d family therapists . Two therapist s had a master s degre e and fiv e year s of experienc e as famil y therapists , and one ha d a doctora l degre e and 2 0 year s of experienc e as a famil y ther- apist. The observatio n tea m consiste d of fiv e graduat e student s who had take n a semester-lon g clas s in famil y therap y and fou r two-hou r session s of informatio n and role-playin g specificall y on th e Mila n model . Two experimenter s acte d as conten t selector s durin g the ses - sions . The experimenter s wer e graduat e student s who receive d the sam e trainin g as th e observatio n team , and additiona l trainin g in identifyin g types of circula r questions . The fou r rater s were graduat e students who receive d trainin g in identifyin g type s of circula r ques - tions . 227 Measures Type of circular question. Th e criteri a use d to discriminat e be- twee n the tw o categorie s of circula r question s were : (a) th e conten t of th e circula r questio n and (b ) th e origi n of th e question . If th e conten t of th e questio n was future-oriented , hypothetical , or speculative , re- veale d an hypothesi s of th e therapist , or containe d an embedde d sug - gestion , the n the questio n was classifie d as interventive . All othe r question s wer e considere d descriptive . Descriptiv e question s wer e about the proble m definition , comparing family member s or issues , classification , and agreemen t questions . If th e questio n clearl y origi - nate d fro m a famil y statemen t the questio n was descriptive . If th e origi n of th e questio n cam e from therapists ' hypotheses , the questio n was interventive . If th e origi n of th e questio n was fro m a famil y open- ing bu t th e conten t was hypothetica l or hypothesis-revealing , the questio n was classifie d as interventive . An exampl e of a questio n coded interventiv e is: "Wha t woul d hap - pen if yo u tw o ha d a nigh t a week alone? " It ha s future-oriented / hypothetica l content . The famil y is aske d to speculate , and th e ver b tens e is future . Additionally , the questio n originate d from hypothese s presente d by th e consultatio n team . The question , "Ho w do the y no- tice th e competition? " was code d as descriptive . It ha s descriptiv e con - tent , originate d from a famil y discussin g competition , and th e ver b tens e is no t future . Reliabilit y for th e identificatio n of categorie s of circula r question s was establishe d at 90 % agreemen t for th e fou r rater s throug h prac - tice . Th e interrate r reliabilit y calculate d after the stud y was a n 85 % agreemen t and a Cohe n Kapp a of .76 . Neutrality measure. Neutralit y was assesse d from two clien t self- reports : the clients ' perceptio n of th e therapis t takin g side s (Selvin i Palazzol i et al. , 1980) , and th e clients ' leve l of discomfor t with a ques - tion (Boscol o et al. , 1987) . Side-takin g was assesse d throug h the indi - vidua l intervie w wit h a three-poin t anchore d Likert-typ e scale . Eac h paren t was asked . "Fro m you r viewpoint , whil e the counselo r ask s this question , doe s it see m she o r he : (1 ) take s someone' s side , (2) partiall y takes someone' s side , or (3 ) take s no one' s sid e in particu - lar? " The childre n wer e aske d a simila r questio n wit h les s comple x wording. "While the counselo r asks this question , is h e o r she : (1) o n someone' s side, (2) a littl e bit o n someone' s side , or (3 ) no t o n some - one's side? " CONTEMPORAR Y FAMIL Y THERAP Y 228 MICHAEL J. SCHEE L AND COLLI E W. CONOLE Y Level of discomfor t was also assesse d during the individua l inter- view. The parent s wer e asked : "Ho w comfortabl e wer e you feelin g af- ter th e counselo r aske d the question ? (1) th e sam e comfor t level as befor e the question , (2) som e discomfort , (3) uncomfortable , (4) muc h les s comfortable , and (5 ) extremel y uncomfortable. " Childre n wer e asked : "Ho w did yo u fee l afte r the counselo r aske d the question ? (1) the sam e as befor e the question . (2) a littl e bit wors e than befor e the question , (3) wors e tha n before , (4) bad , or (5 ) reall y bad. " RESULT S A decision was mad e prio r to analysi s to no t conside r response s from childre n unde r the ag e o f 10 . Th e interviewer s reporte d that the younge r childre n did no t appea r to respon d seriously . Som e freel y admitte d the y wer e providin g answer s not relate d to intervie w ite m content . For instance , one youn g participan t reported all th e sam e answer s withou t listenin g to th e interviewer . Anothe r answere d ques - tion s befor e the question s wer e asked .

Aggregat e neutralit y score s for eac h questio n wer e tabulate d usin g the followin g procedure : For eac h questio n raw scor e rating s from famil y member s of side-takin g and o f discomfor t were summe d and converte d to z-score s for eac h family . The resultan t side-takin g and discomfor t z-scores for eac h questio n wer e the n summe d to con - stitut e a singl e neutralit y scor e for eac h question . Mean s and stan - dard deviation s of neutralit y score s for interventiv e and descriptiv e question s and t-ratio s comparin g the type s of question s are displaye d in Tabl e 1. An overal l t-ratio resultin g from the combine d response s of th e thre e familie s indicate d a significantl y greater (p<.005 ) tendenc y for violation s of neutralit y wit h interventiv e question s than descriptiv e questions . Tabl e 2 summarize s question s whic h wer e associate d wit h the mos t (-1 o r les s standar d scor e from the mean ) neutra l and leas t (+1 o r greate r standar d scor e from the mean ) neutra l responses . DISCUSSIO N Findings Our finding s were supportiv e of th e theorize d relationshi p be- twee n neutralit y and type s of circula r question s mos t prominentl y 229 CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAP Y forwarded by Boscolo , Cecchin , Hoffman , and Per m (1987 ) as wel l as Tomm' s (1985) hypothesize d lin k betwee n interventivenes s and neu - trality . Specifically , our finding s were as follows . 1. Violation s of neutralit y occurre d mor e ofte n durin g interven - tiv e circula r question s tha n descriptiv e circula r questions . Evidenc e not supportin g the researc h hypothesi s was also present . The non - supportiv e data wer e largel y circula r question s rate d as interventiv e that wer e not viewe d as side-takin g or uncomfortabl e by famil y C members . As researcher s we woul d like to predic t the influenc e of circula r question s upo n neutralit y wit h precision . As clinician s we be - liev e tha t if w e ar e t o err , it i s bette r to b e perceive d as neutra l when we expecte d non-neutrality .

We ar e intereste d in creatin g finer distinction s in ou r operationa l definitions of interventiv e and descriptiv e circula r questions . There - fore, we use d the dat a as suggestiv e of a furthe r refinemen t in devel - oping a typolog y of interventiv e and descriptiv e circula r questions . 2. On e area tha t appeare d clea r from the dat a was that Famil y C was comfortabl e with severa l future oriente d circula r question s that we predicte d would be non-neutral . Thes e question s explore d the fu - ture existenc e of th e presentin g problem. However , whe n aske d abou t father feelin g vulnerabl e rather than the presentin g problem about 230 TABL E 1 Means , Standar d Deviations , and T-ratio s of Neutralit y Score s for Interventiv e and Descriptiv e Question s Measure Family A Interventiv e Descriptive Family B Interventiv e Descriptive Famil y C Interventiv e Descriptive Families A, B , & C Interventiv e Descriptive N 11 1 2 13 11 11 1 3 3 5 36 Mean 8 5 -.7 3 .78 -.9 1 .20 -.1 7 .62 -.5 8 SD 1.4 8 1.0 0 2.1 0 .87 1.1 3 1.3 1 1.6 9 1.1 1 T-Ratios t(21 ) = 2.98 t(22 ) = 2.04 t(22 ) = .6 5 t(69 ) = 3.57 P p<.02 5 p<.0 5 p>.10 p<.00 5 MICHAEL J. SCHEE L AND COLLI E W. CONOLE Y TABLE 2 The Mos t and Leas t Neutra l Question s for Al l Thre e Familie s Family A — Violations of Neutrality (Greater than + 1 z-scores) IV: Ho w migh t you ge t peopl e to ac t nic e towar d you i n thi s family ? IV: So wha t woul d you sa y i f I sai d I thin k a proble m this famil y has is tha t the y don' t hav e enoug h way s to ge t attentio n from one an - other ?

IV: Wha t coul d the runnin g awa y mean ? IV: Ho w coul d you tw o (th e parents ) show affection ? IV: Wha t do yo u thin k is goin g to happe n if yo u kee p ignorin g you r mom whe n she say s something ? IV: Ho w migh t you kno w if someon e in th e famil y is goin g to ge t mad ? Family A — Neutral (Less than - 1 z-scores) D: D o yo u thin k mor e fightin g occurs whe n Dad i s gon e ? IV: Wh o is th e saddes t in th e famil y that ther e are fights ? D: Ho w doe s it fee l to b e th e onl y female ? D: Wh o d o yo u lov e more ? D: Wer e the y nic e to yo u whe n you cam e out o f th e basement ? D: Ho w do yo u notic e the competition ? D: Wa s ther e tensio n in th e famil y today? Family B — Violations of Neutrality (Greater than + 1 z-scores) IV: Whe n thing s are goin g wel l betwee n the tw o o f you . how doe s that affec t your parentin g wit h R (the son) ? IV: Doe s the grandmothe r sho w you mor e affectio n now sinc e R (the IF) taugh t Grandm a that? IV: Is i t safe r to no t touc h eve n wit h you r wife ? IV: If someon e would have bee n abl e to hel p you bac k then , how d o yo u thin k thing s things would be differen t today? D What hav e you don e to mak e sure it doesn' t stop (th e progress) ? IV: Ho w woul d you lik e thing s to b e a yea r from now ? Family B — Neutral (Less than - 1 z-scores) D: Wh o enjoye d the touchin g the most ? D: Wha t kin d of change s hav e you notice d that are differen t tha n before? ' D: Ho w ha s th e counselin g helped? IV: If R wasn' t so active , how woul d things be different ? D: Hav e you notice d any difference s whe n you change d schools ? Family C — Violation s of Neutralit y (greater than + 1 z-scores ) IV: Ho w ar e thing s goin g to b e i n 5 year s dow n the road ? 231 CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAP Y the children , a strong non-neutra l respons e was received . We ten - tativel y interpre t this as meanin g that Famil y C ha d talke d and though t abou t the misbehavio r of th e boy s enoug h to develo p a com- fort wit h the discussio n (no t to b e confuse d with a comfor t with the misbehavior) . However, when explorin g the nove l systemi c lin k of fa - ther' s feelin g of genera l life inadequacies , there were stron g percep - tion s of discomfort . The implication s lea d us t o sugges t that interven - tive question s that ask abou t the presentin g proble m withi n the contex t of th e family' s presentation , tend to b e les s non-neutra l than question s addressin g allie d issue s or differen t contexts . 3. Thi s stud y contribute s to th e teachin g of Mila n systemi c ther - apy. Trainin g in th e us e o f circula r questionin g is difficul t (Fleurida s e t al. , 1986) . This stud y support s a simpl e taxonom y o f interventiv e and descriptiv e question s on th e empirica l finding o f th e degre e of neutrality . This taxonom y has relevanc e becaus e understandin g the likel y emotiona l effect of interventiv e question s help s the therapis t to guar d agains t an overl y threatenin g atmosphere . Practically , this may allo w the therapis t to investigat e sensitiv e area s of famil y func- TABL E 2 (Continued) IV: Di d yo u (Dad ) giv e it a chanc e to thin k abou t how yo u migh t pre - fer fo r peopl e to sho w you the y car e abou t you? IV: Wha t migh t be mor e preferabl e way s to fee l importan t in thi s family ?

IV: If yo u becam e disabled , do yo u thin k the famil y would love you any less ? D: D o yo u eve r feel forgotten ? IV: Ho w ca n yo u hel p her righ t now ? Family C — Neutral (less than — 1 z-scores) IV: Ho w hopefu l are yo u tha t thing s will get better ? IV: Ho w woul d you lik e peopl e in you r famil y to sho w you reall y mat - ter ? IV : Wha t woul d be helpfu l for T (secon d younges t child) ? IV: Wha t woul d be helpfu l in gettin g R's (younges t child ) need s met ? D: Wha t make s you importan t to th e family , A (the IP) ? D: Wha t do yo u d o t o ge t peopl e to liste n to yo u (th e father) ? D: A ( th e IP ) d o yo u hav e an ide a why T (secon d youngest ) has a har d tim e stayin g involved ? IV-Interventiv e D-Descriptiv e 232 MICHAEL J. SCHEE L AND COLLI E W. CONOLE Y tioning (Tomm , 1987), and kee p clien t familie s from droppin g out be - caus e the therapis t may hav e los t neutrality . Future researc h may also clarif y whethe r interventiv e question s do pertur b family mem- ber s in a manne r that facilitate s productiv e evolution . 4. A n importan t unanticipate d finding wa s th e differenc e be- twee n side-takin g and discomfort . The tw o measure s of neutralit y had almos t no overla p of meanin g (r=.06) . An interpretatio n of th e differenc e between the measure s is tha t neutralit y is multidimensio - nal . In retrospec t it make s sens e that neutralit y is a broa d multi - faceted concept . But i t als o suggest s that the concep t of neutralit y is no t wel l describe d in th e literature . This researc h is helpfu l in indi - catin g ther e may b e differen t types of neutrality . We sugges t that Cec - chin' s descriptio n of neutralit y as a n attitud e of curiosit y be incorpo - rated int o futur e research . An importan t questio n migh t be, "Ca n curiosit y abou t multipl e possibl e solution s exis t whe n individual s are experiencin g discomfort or perceivin g sidetaking? " 5. Ther e are clinica l implication s from the findings . Som e ques - tion s wer e mor e associate d wit h perturbatio n of famil y member s tha n others . This indicate s that questio n heuristi c as wel l as questio n con - tex t shoul d be considere d by a therapist . Clinician s shoul d ask them - selve s whethe r the y are balancin g the introductio n of intervention s wit h the gatherin g of meaning s throug h descriptio n from all member s of a family . How muc h does a questio n diverg e from famil y members ' existin g realities ? If th e divergenc e is to o grea t famil y member s may demonstrat e resistanc e or fee l too anxiou s to b e differen t than pas t problemati c patterns. If clinician s tip th e scale s too muc h towar d in- tervention , familie s may fee l overwhelme d and misunderstood . On the othe r han d if question s cumulativel y are to o descriptiv e and lac k intervention , a session may b e perceive d as blan d and ineffectiv e by famil y members . Side-takin g throug h question s mus t be balance d among all famil y members . Therapist s shoul d ask themselve s whethe r the outcom e of a sessio n is a n achieve d balanc e for th e dimension s of neutralit y and interventivenes s amon g family members . Eve n in case s in whic h som e famil y member s are clearl y disempowered , the therapis t must be cognizan t of ho w influenc e can b e gaine d from all famil y members . A tool to achiev e influenc e may com e from aware - nes s of th e typ e of questio n bein g posed . A family membe r who previ - ously was no t define d as par t of th e proble m may perceiv e blamin g and reac t defensivel y when interventiv e question s are pose d if th e therapis t has no t firs t sough t that famil y member' s viewpoin t throug h descriptiv e questions . 233 Limitations There wer e severa l limitation s inheren t in thi s study . One limita - tion concern s the generalizabilit y of result s to othe r familie s with dif - feren t characteristics . The data wer e gathere d from onl y thre e fami - lies, all o f who m were two-paren t intac t familie s from the majorit y culture . A second possibl e limitatio n was ou r applicatio n of th e Mila n model . We attempte d to us e th e Mila n metho d and adher e to th e guideline s of th e proces s as w e understoo d them . Still, our versio n may diffe r fro m other s who us e it . A thir d limitatio n is relate d to th e researc h design . Eac h circula r questio n was treate d as a n indepen - den t even t throug h the researc h methodolog y employed . Othe r factor s suc h as previousl y pose d question s or pas t famil y or therap y event s may hav e als o influence d the measuremen t of neutrality .

Thi s proces s researc h contribute d to th e literatur e by usin g real clien t population s to investigat e theorize d principle s of Mila n sys - temi c famil y therapy . We believ e this is a ver y difficul t area to re - searc h becaus e of th e phenomenologica l natur e of th e premise s unde r investigation . The concept s of neutralit y and interventivenes s of cir - cula r question s wer e operationalize d base d upo n the literature . The result s sugges t that the manne r of distinguishin g betwee n interven - tiv e an d descriptiv e question s support s the theor y and shoul d be in - clude d in th e teachin g of circula r questions . We believ e this stud y lay s the groundwor k for futur e studies . REFERENCE S Achenbach, T. M. , & Edelbrock , C. (1983) . Manual for th e child behavior checklist and revised child behavior profile. Burlington , VT: Universit y of Vermont . Avis, J. M. , (1988) . Deepenin g awareness : A private stud y guid e to feminis m and famil y therapy . In L . Braverma n (Ed.), A guide to feminist family therapy (pp. 15-32) . New York : Harringto n Park Press . Bograd , M. (1988) . A feminis t examinatio n of famil y system s models of violenc e against women in th e family . In L . Braverma n (Ed.), A guide to feminist family therapy (pp. 65-78) . New York : Harringto n Park Press . Boscolo , L., Cecchin , G., Hoffman . L., & Penn , P. (1987) . Milan systemic family therapy: Conversations in theory an d practice. Ne w York : Basic Books . Burroughs , C. (1985) . Workin g with familie s of severel y disturbe d children in a da y treatmen t setting. Clinical Social Work Journal, 13(2), 129-139. Cecchin. G. (1987) . Hypothesizing , circularity, and neutralit y revisited: An invitatio n to curiosity . Family Process, 26, 405-413 . Fleuridas , C., Nelson , T. S. , & Rosenthal , D. M . (1986) . The evolutio n of circula r ques- tions: Trainin g famil y therapists . Journal of Marital an d Family Therapy, 12(2), 113-127 . Hoffman , L. (1990) . Constructin g realities: An ar t o f lenses . Family Process, 29, 1-12 . CONTEMPORAR Y FAMILY THERAP Y 234 MICHAEL J. SCHEE L AND COLLI E W. CONOLE Y Matthews, W. (1984) . Ericksonia n and Mila n therapy : An interactio n betwee n circula r questionin g and therapeuti c metaphor . Journal o f Strategic an d Systemic Thera- pies, 3(4), 16-25 . Mauksch , L., & Roesler . T. (1990) . Expandin g the contex t of th e patient' s explanator y model using circula r questioning . Family Systems Medicine, 8(1), 3-13.

Nitzberg , L., Patten , J., Spielman , M., & Brown , R. (1985) . In-patien t hospital systemi c consultation : Providin g tea m systemi c consultatio n in-patient settings where the tea m is par t of th e system . In D . Campbel l & R. Drape r (Eds. ) Applications o f systemic family therapy: Th e Milan approach (pp . 203-212) . New York : Norton .

Penn , P. (1982) . Circula r questioning . Family Process, 21, 267-280 . Penn, P. (1985) . Peed-forward : Futur e questions , futur e maps . Family Process, 24, 299 - 310. Reder , P. (1985) . Milan in th e Eas t End : Systemi c therapy with lower-incom e and multi-agenc y families. In D . Campbel l & R. Drape r (Eds.) , Applications of systemic family therapy: Th e Milan approach pp. 97-106) . New York : Norto n Selvin i Palazzoli , M., Boscolo , L, Cecchin , G., & Prata , G. (1980) . Hypothesizing - circu - larity-neutrality . Family Process, 19, 3-1 2 Speed , B. (1985) . The us e o f th e Mila n approac h in se x therapy . In D . Campbel l & R. Drape r (Eds.) . Applications o f systemic family therapy: Th e Milan approach (pp .

119 - 126) . New York : Norton . Tomm, K. (1985) . Circula r interviewing : A multifaceted clinica l tool . In D . Campbel l & R. Drape r (Eds.) . Applications o f systemic family therapy: Th e Milan approach method (pp . 33-45) . New York : Norton . Tomm K. (1987) . Interventiv e interviewing : Part II. Reflexiv e questionin g as a mean s to enabl e self-healing . Family Process, 26, 167-183 . 235 Copyright of Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.