To be healthy in our emotional life we need good boundaries.  What does it mean to have good boundaries? In a basic sense, good boundaries means being able to define yourself and your values as distinct and separate from those of others.  Defining ourselves is important because we must first be separate to fully experience and benefit closeness to others. In all relationships we need to be able to protect our interests, take care of others without excessive sacrificing of our needs, and maintain the freedom to say no.  These abilities correlate highly with self-confidence, self-esteem, and healthy intimate connections with others. Good boundaries are incompatible with two of the most common afflictions of modern society, anxiety and depression. Saying no is a critical aspect of boundary-setting, as denying others’ requests is essential to freedom. Without freedom, relationships begin to feel like servitude.

Dialectical Behavior Therapy, or DBT, is an approach to treating a condition notorious for both poor boundaries and extreme states of distress.  Marsha Linehan, the creator and matriarch of DBT, provides a number of useful tools to help not only the clinical population she initially targeted, but all people determine when their boundaries were being violated and what corrective action to take.  One such tool is a useful list of questions to help determine whether we should say no to a request and how forcefully we should say no. 

These questions were designed for you to consider when weighing whether or not to agree to something being asked of us that makes us uneasy. The questions to ask ourselves are as follows:

1. Capability: Do I have what the person wants?
2. Priorities: Is my self-respect on the line?
3. Self-Respect: Will saying no make me feel bad about myself?
4. Rights: Is it my duty to give this person what they want? Would it violate their rights to withhold what they are asking for?
5. Authority: Does the person asking me have authority over me (boss, teacher, etc.) within the domain of the request?
6. Relationship: Is the request appropriate to my relationship with this person? 
7. Long-term vs. Short-term Goals: Is giving in in the short term best for the relationship in the long-term? Is it best for me outside of this relationship in the long run?
8. Give and Take: Do I owe this person? Does this person do a lot for me?
9. Homework: Is the request clear?  Do I know what I am agreeing to?
10. Timing: Is this a bad time for me to say no?

Inspired and informed by Linehan’s Interpersonal Effectiveness skills, I developed my own tool to help people sort and manage requests.  The tool is a quadrant that allows us to sort requests according to relationship type–especially relevant to question #6 above.  My hope is that consistent practice with the tool will eventually become an automated, internal process of evaluating all types of requests, favors, inquiries, propositions, and the like.The Trusting Relationship: High Commitment, Low Intrusiveness

This is the type of relationship we all aspire to have. In this quadrant we can place all family, romance, and friendships wherein participants are dedicated to one another without demanding excessive control over the other.

Need a ride to the airport? These are the people you call.  Have a problem you don’t know how to solve at work? You see if one of these trusted confidants is free–free being the operative word. 

Trust is the hallmark of these relationships.  Not only do you trust these people to support you in a manner that prioritizes your best interests, but you also trust them to decline if they are unavailable.  No one wants to be resented, so before we ask for help it is important to feel like the person to whom we reach out will be honest about what they can provide. One sage mentor of mine frequently says the following: If you can’t be angry with someone, then you don’t trust them.  I believe the same thing can be said about saying no. In fact, I could argue that saying No is a capacity rooted in an ability to express anger without conflict.

Put another way, the prospective helper must also trust that the request is not a demand or obligation.  If the recipient of a request cannot say no without retaliation, then intimacy and connection will suffer.  Calls will be dodged. Excuses will be made. Gossip and backstabbing will emerge. 

Very few consider how essential the word no is to mature relationships.  Developmentally it arises when the child is no longer fused with with mother.  From this perspective, being able to say no means accepting that we cannot return to this fused state and we must gift the autonomy we wish to receive from others.

The Enmeshed Relationship: High Commitment, High Intrusiveness

In my clinical experience, one of the most common misunderstandings is that mental illness comes from harsh, abusive childhoods. While this true, it is not the full story. Many enter therapy for the first time confused and ashamed that they need help (and may have unnecessarily delayed the realization that treatment is indicated) because their parents were some of “the most loving.”

Children need love, attention, and nurturance.  They need it especially when in distress. However, too often love and affection are “given” when the parent is in distress.  Very young children, as early as 4 months, can experience the needs of the primary caregiver, implicitly learning that the parent demands synchrony with the child to meet the caregiver’s emotional needs.  This is a form of harshness and neglect, but is not typically recognized as such. These early experiences can lay the foundation of a lifetime of poor boundaries, resentment, and guilt–no matter how many times they say “yes.”

When in relationships, people with this relational pattern, will often provide sensitive and attentive care, but will do so with feelings of obligation instead of genuine empathy.  Oscillating patterns of avoidance and dependence predominate over boundaries, empathy, and trust.

As a therapist, what is most cruel about this pattern is that the people suffering believe that they are flawed because of the conviction that the seemingly abundant love, care, and affection was for them–despite having a nagging feeling that something was missing.  They doubt their instincts, feel frequent guilt, and have difficulty enjoying pleasant activities because they are compulsively tuned into the thoughts, feelings, and desires of others.

For this growing population of people, saying “no” is both the most difficult and most important.

Expert tip on how to say “No” in an Enmeshed Relationship:

Use “The Broken Record” Technique:

1. Say the word “No” with a succinct, unapologetic explanation for declining.
2. The enmeshed party who is asking will likely insist on further discussion and negotiation.  Simply reply to every subsequent request with “No.”
3. The enmeshed party who is asking will likely demand further explanations.  Of course, explanations are requested to challenge, not to gain understanding.  Respond to any “why/why not?” question with “I already stated my reason(s)”
4. Repeat as many times as necessary to end the discussion.

The Neighborly Relationship: Low Commitment, Low Intrusiveness

The neighborly relationship is one we often take for granted.  The low commitment and intimacy makes the possibility of saying no easier.  Most of us want to live in a world where a stranger can be trusted to watch your belongings while you go to the bathroom, your neighbor can spare a cup of sugar if they have extra, and we can ask a passerby for directions when we are lost.  In most cases, we don’t feel like we are burdening others with simple requests, nor do we wring our hands when we have no sugar to spare. These acts of “altruism” are now explained as down payments on future favors. That is, we help others because it is in our best interest in the long run.  In a healthy social world, a good-faith effort to help out is all that is required. If you can’t help, then you do not lose goodwill in this type of boundaried relationship. This is perhaps why we work so hard to create excuses when we simply don’t want to offer help.  

The Parasitic Relationship: Low Commitment, High Intrusiveness

Residents of New York City or other major metropolises, will recognize this dynamic immediately.  The classic example from my day to day life, is the gaunt, disheveled man who moves from subway car to subway car, peddling a tragic tale of being unjustly fired, serious illness, hard luck, and other unfavorable circumstances.  While I don’t dismiss all of these stories as fraudulent, my cynicism spikes when the pleading, obsequious tone shifts to an indignant, guilt-inducing scold upon the realization that donations are not forthcoming.

Here’s an important point.  These characters are extremely successful in evoking guilt.  As social creatures, the healthy among us are disturbed to see such pathos and suffering–regardless of whether the story is genuine.  Some are content to make a small or even substantial contribution to remove this guilt (behaviorists call this negative reinforcement).  Those who do not donate rationalize their restraint by stating with conviction that the beggar is probably trying to support a disgusting drug habit.  In my view, both of these responses miss the point. 

The point I believe is this: your boundaries are being violated. Obligation and human empathy are being conflated in a way that breeds resentment and erodes social goodwill that healthy societies require–especially as these societies grow in size and complexity.  When you feel the urge to help a lost soul, I encourage you to ask yourself whether you are acting out of empathy or out of parasitic exploitation (i.e., coercion through guilt). While the latter may feel like “the right thing to do,” I would argue that confusing being manipulated with empathy contributes to an erosion in social goodwill rather than helping to create a more just and equitable society.

Expert tip for saying no in a parasitic relationship:

1. Make eye contact, force a polite smile, and say a firm “no.”  Fight the temptation to say, “I’m sorry.”
2. Any protest, objection, further pleading, etc. should be ignored.  Remember that you do not owe a stranger with whom you have no prior or ongoing relationship anything more than a singular, polite response.

Alternative response:

1. A mentor of mine has a wonderful judo-like stock response to these intrusive inquiries from strangers with a phrase akin to the “Free beer tomorrow” sign commonly posted in bars.  She responds with a simple “Not today.”  This works, and the more you think about it, the more brilliant it becomes.

Summing Up:

I close with a priceless rant from Dave Ramsey on saying “No.” Without realizing it, Dave demonstrates a key technique in confronting people who push boundaries: “The Broken Record” technique (See above).

Dave’s rant here is funny, inspirational, and spot on.  However, people who struggle saying no often need much more than a single inspirational rant to change their relationship to limit-setting.  I invite questions, comments, and messages on setting boundaries to keep the discussion going!

Linehan, M. (2014). DBT Skills Training Handouts and Worksheets. Guilford Publications.