Traumatic Cognitive Dissonance: When relentless contradictions cause chronic imbalance and confusion
When someone's caring words repeatedly clash with hurtful behaviour, you may find yourself replaying conversations and questioning what is happening in this relationship? Have you found yourself confused in the early stages of a relationship? Have you felt insecure, anxious, unsure, and a bit baffled, wondering, he’s so lovely but I feel clouded? Is it me? If this is you (or has been you) explore traumatic cognitive dissonance, the Lingering Imbalance Effect (LIE) and practical ways to begin restoring clarity.
Traumatic Cognitive Dissonance: When Mixed Messages Leave You Doubting Yourself
You remember their warmth. The thoughtful messages. The romantic gestures and long passionate kisses. The reassurance that you could always tell them how you felt and their comforting declarations of protection and care.
But when you express a concern, they call you difficult. When you mention an invite or suggested plan, they deny making it. When you ask about something hurtful, the conversation somehow ends with you apologising.
You find yourself thinking: “How can someone who seems so caring leave me feeling this confused?”
Perhaps you replay conversations, search old messages or try to find the explanation that will make everything fit. Maybe you rationalise, minimise or brush off inconsistencies reminding yourself what lovely things they’ve done and said. You find yourself feeling attached to this person while becoming less certain of your own judgement. This article explores traumatic cognitive dissonance, the Lingering Imbalance Effect (LIE) and epistemic injury as ways of describing aspects of this experience.
What is cognitive dissonance in relationships?
Cognitive dissonance describes the discomfort of holding conflicting beliefs, knowledge or attitudes, including a mismatch between what we believe and what we do. It is a well-established psychological concept associated with Leon Festinger's work.[1]
In a relationship, the conflict might sound like:
“I believe this person respects me, but they repeatedly ridicule my opinions.”
An explanation such as “They are just stressed” may temporarily soften that conflict. Sometimes stress is relevant. The question is whether the explanation helps you understand the whole situation or leads you to repeatedly overlook behaviour that is hurting you.
Cognitive dissonance can occur in everyday life without trauma or abuse. Feeling conflicted does not, by itself, establish that someone is manipulating you.
What is traumatic cognitive dissonance?
Psychologist Dr Peter Salerno uses the term traumatic cognitive dissonance to describe persistent, destabilising inner conflict in the context of repeated deception, gaslighting and emotional coercion. He describes the use of consistent contradiction, plausible deniability and perpetual ambiguity to create confusion. The inconsistencies and conflicting information you receive from the person is relentless. [2]
The relationship may contain experiences that feel difficult to reconcile: affection alongside contempt, reassurance alongside intimidation, friendliness alongside hostility, pledges of loyalty alongside criticism or promises of honesty alongside repeated denials.
A useful question is:
“What happens to my sense of clarity when I try to discuss the difference between this person's words and their behaviour?”
Can you explore the discrepancy together? Or are you repeatedly blamed, mocked, intimidated or told that your perceptions cannot be trusted?
The Lingering Imbalance Effect: when confusion follows you home
In my workbook, I use the Lingering Imbalance Effect (LIE) to describe the unsettled feeling that can remain after repeatedly confusing or undermining interactions.
It is a descriptive phrase drawn from my clinical perspective, study (e.g., Dr Peter Salerno) and experience, not a validated syndrome or diagnostic category.
“Lingering” captures the way the experience can stay with you after a conversation ends. “Imbalance” describes feeling internally unsettled: your thoughts, feelings and understanding of the relationship no longer seem to fit together.
You might recognise thoughts such as:
“I felt clear before we spoke, but now I am questioning everything.”
“I keep trying to explain it, but every explanation creates another question.”
“I feel uneasy, yet I want to continue the relationship with this person.”
“I want to make a decision, but it feels wrong to judge them.”
· “I am so attracted to them and I want them, but somehow I know this is dangerous.”
These experiences deserve attention. They do not prove deception or reveal another person's intentions. Their meaning needs to be understood in the context of the relationship and your wider wellbeing. But if you repeatedly find yourself feeling confused, it is likely the person you are seeing is giving you recurring inconsistencies (by what they say or do).
Examples of contradictory messages in dating and relationships
The following examples are illustrative. An isolated inconsistency is different from a recurring pattern of denial, intimidation or punishment.
The following examples are illustrative.
Initial message
“I'd love to spend Friday evening with you.”
Later interaction
When you confirm, they accuse you of assuming too much.
The question you may be left carrying
“Did I misunderstand the invitation?”
Initial message
“You can talk to me about anything.”
Later interaction
When you describe feeling hurt, they call you oversensitive.
The question you may be left carrying
“Is it wrong to bring up my feelings?”
Initial message
“I admire your independence.”
Later interaction
They become hostile when you spend time with friends.
The question you may be left carrying
“Can I have my own life without upsetting them?”
Initial message
“We can take physical intimacy at your pace.”
Later interaction
They pressure you or withdraw affection when you say no.
The question you may be left carrying
“Will having boundaries cost me the relationship?”
Initial message
“Honesty matters to me.”
Later interaction
Their account changes, and they attack your memory when you ask about it.
The question you may be left carrying
“Can I trust what I remember?”
Similar experiences can occur outside romantic relationships. A parent might say they want you to be happy, then punish ordinary independence with criticism or dislike. A friend might invite honesty, then humiliate you for expressing a different view.
Changing a plan or remembering something differently is not automatically gaslighting. Consider the difference between these responses:
“I know I suggested Friday. I need to change the plan, and I'm sorry I wasn't clearer.”
“I never invited you. You always invent things.”
The second response introduces an attack on your credibility. Whether it forms part of an abusive pattern depends on the broader context, including repetition, power, fear and how disagreement is handled. Antagonistic abusers demonstrate a distinct lack of collaboration when problems or disagreements occur. Deliberately undermining someone's confidence in their own memory, mental health or decision making capability is as a form of psychological abuse.[3]
Epistemic injury: when you begin doubting your ability to know
“Epistemic” refers to knowledge and how we understand what we know. In the context of this article, epistemic injury describes harm to confidence in your own perceptions, memory and judgement.
The shift may be from:
“I do not understand why they are behaving this way.”
to:
“Perhaps I am not capable of understanding what happens to me.” OR
“I get things wrong. Stop overreacting. You don’t know what you’re thinking.”
Philosopher Andrew D. Spear examines how gaslighting can undermine a person's trust in themselves as someone capable of independent judgement.[4] For reflection, you might ask: Have I started treating another person's account as automatically more reliable than mine? Do I dismiss my observations before considering them? Can I acknowledge uncertainty without deciding that my entire perspective is worthless? Am I letting another person dictate what I believe because I don’t trust I can understand it?
Rebuilding self-trust leaves room for both careful questioning and respect for your own experience.
Why the caring moments can make things harder to understand:
If a relationship were painful all the time, your feelings about it might be easier to name. Caring moments can complicate the picture.
You may remember someone holding your hand, kissing you tenderly, showing interest in your life, promising to protect you or comforting you during a difficult day. You may hope that this version of the relationship will return. Recognising harm can also bring grief about what you wanted the relationship to become.
You do not need to erase the positive memories to acknowledge painful experiences. Two things can be true at once. A balanced statement might be:
“The caring moments mattered to me. The hurtful behaviour matters too. I can consider the whole pattern.”
Nor do you need to decide whether someone is entirely “good” or “bad” before considering your boundaries. You can ask whether the relationship, as it currently operates, allows respect, safety, security and room for your needs.
Feeling anxious, foggy or disconnected
My workbook invites reflection on experiences such as racing thoughts, numbness, unease and difficulty deciding. These are prompts for discussion, not a checklist that establishes a particular trauma response.
If you notice these experiences, consider both what is happening in the relationship and what else may be affecting you. Persistent changes in sleep, concentration, mood or functioning warrant individual assessment. Understanding relational harm and receiving appropriate mental health care can go together.
Your bodily sensations also deserve attention without being treated as a verdict. A tight stomach or racing heart tells you something about how you are feeling; it cannot, on its own, establish that another person is lying. You can listen to that discomfort while also considering observable behaviour, context and support. Is this a pattern or a one-off-incident.
Practical ways to begin rebuilding clarity and self-trust
The following reflection steps are adapted from my workbook. They are starting points to explore, ideally with professional support when distress or safety concerns are significant.
1. Separate observations from explanations
Choose one interaction rather than trying to reconstruct the entire relationship.
Reflection
Example
What did I directly hear, read or observe?
“They invited me to call, then later said I had pressured them.”
What explanation did I give it?
“Perhaps I am too demanding.”
What remains uncertain?
“I do not know why their account changed.”
What need can I still acknowledge?
“I need to be able to clarify plans without being insulted.”
2. Notice what happens when concerns are raised
Reflect on previous interactions. Can the person acknowledge a specific action? Is there room for disagreement? Do apologies lead to sustained changes? What happens when you say no? Is the person willing to be collaborative?
3. Give yourself permission to pause the replay
When you notice that reviewing an event is producing more distress rather than new information, ask:
“Is there a useful action I can take, or am I asking myself to solve something I cannot resolve right now?”
“Do I need to focus on self-care and self-compassion right now?”
A next step might be writing one question for therapy, contacting someone supportive or returning to an ordinary activity. Try gently noticing the room, feeling the chair beneath you or moving your feet. The World Health Organization's stress-management guide offers grounding and other practical coping skills.[5]
4. Practise small choices that belong to you
You might begin with choosing a meal, making time for a hobby or noticing when you need rest.
Ask yourself: “What do I prefer? What matters to me? What is one manageable choice I can make?”
These reflections make room for your perspective.
5. Let support strengthen your own judgement
Consider speaking with someone who listens carefully, respects your privacy and allows you to think. Useful support makes room for your observations and questions without pressuring you towards a predetermined conclusion.
Keeping a diary that records every time you had a physiological reaction or “gut feeling” only to discover you were right can also be extremely helpful.
If there is intimidation, coercion or fear of retaliation, seek private help with safety planning. Your next step should take account of your circumstances, resources and possible risks.[6]
Relationship trauma therapy on the Gold Coast and online
You do not have to explain the relationship perfectly before asking for help.
I am Angie Wakelin, a Clinical Psychologist with over 19 years of experience. I support people navigating relationship trauma, betrayal, emotional abuse and relationship anxiety, with appointments in Hope Island on the Gold Coast and online across Australia.
In therapy, we can explore what has happened, how it is affecting you, and what support may help. This can include considering relationship patterns, working with distress, clarifying boundaries and gradually strengthening confidence in your own choices.
[Find out more about relationship trauma therapy](https://www.therelationshippsychologist.com/relationshiptrauma-1).
For structured reflection, my 14-page Traumatic Cognitive Dissonance and Lingering Imbalance Effect workbook contains six worksheets for use with a therapist or as a guide for personal reflection. It explores contradictions, self-trust, distress, boundaries and support. You can enquire about this resource through [Open Heart Assets] (https://www.openheartassets.com/).
You are allowed to take your experience seriously while some questions remain unanswered.
Support and further reading
If you are in immediate danger in Australia, call 000. For domestic, family or sexual violence support, contact 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit [1800respect.org.au](https://1800respect.org.au/) from a safe device.[6]
*This article provides general education and reflection, not an individual assessment or diagnosis. Traumatic cognitive dissonance, LIE and epistemic injury are used here as descriptive concepts. The workbook is not a validated treatment protocol. Examples are illustrative and do not describe identifiable clients.*
1. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press. [Publication information](https://casbs.stanford.edu/theory-cognitive-dissonance).
2. Salerno, P. (n.d.). [What Is Traumatic Cognitive Dissonance?](https://www.drpetersalerno.com/fitforoffduty). Author's clinical description; cited for his use of the term, not as validation of a distinct diagnosis or mechanism.
3. 1800RESPECT. (n.d.). [Psychological abuse](https://1800respect.org.au/violence-and-abuse/psychological-abuse).
4. Spear, A. D. (2023; first published online 2019). Epistemic dimensions of gaslighting: Peer-disagreement, self-trust, and epistemic injustice. Inquiry, 66(1), 68–91. [Author's university repository](https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/oapsf_articles/127/). DOI: 10.1080/0020174X.2019.1610051.
5. World Health Organization. (2020). [Doing What Matters in Times of Stress: An Illustrated Guide](https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240003927).
6. 1800RESPECT. (n.d.). [Domestic and family violence](https://1800respect.org.au/violence-and-abuse/domestic-and-family-violence) and [support services](https://1800respect.org.au/).
