Some differences between the double-bind hypothesis and Mc-Reynolds' theory of perceptual incongruence are highlighted. It is concluded that the double-bind hypothesis has not been thoroughly researched within its present theoretical framework and that McReynolds' paradigm is insufficiently similar to it to serve as an appropriate alternative research strategy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BatesonG.JacksonD. D.HaleyJ.WeaklandJ.Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1956, 1, 251–264.
2.
HaleyJ.The family of the schizophrenic: a model system. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1959, 129, 357–374.
3.
HaleyJ.Strategies of psychotherapy. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1963.
4.
LesterD.The double-bind hypothesis and the failure to assimilate. Psychological Reports, 1968, 23, 520.
5.
McReynoldsP.Anxiety, perception, and schizophrenia. In JacksonD. D. (Ed.), The etiology of schizophrenia. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Pp. 248–292.
WeaklandJ.The “double bind” hypothesis of schizophrenia and three-party interaction. In JacksonD. D. (Ed.), The etiology of schizophrenia. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Pp. 373–388.
