NLP, or neurolinguistic programming, is a bona fde approach to coaching or therapy
As the following statement applies to NLP-practitioners as well, I am happy to repeat it here: “Unfortunately the field of self-styled ‘corporate image consultants’ or ‘leadership consultants’ has numerous practitioners with very little psychological expertise” (personal communication between Albert Mehrabian and Max Atkinson, published in his book on p. 34).
Even Wikipedia includes NLP in its list of topics that are characterized as pseudoscience. Let’s dive into this myth!
Key words
PRS, VAK, sensory preference, eye movements, eye direction, matching, tracking, anchoring, National Research Council.
What is NLP about?
NLP was ‘developed’ by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in the 1970s. According to the information I was able to trace, Richard Bandler was a mathematics student when he and John Grinder (a linguist) developed their model. Bandler later completed a master’s degree in psychology. They were the ‘founding fathers’ of NLP and published their first book The Structure of Magic on the subject in 1975. They described their method as ‘revolutionary,’ and claimed they had observed three psychotherapists who were ‘highly effective.’ They described the method as a combination of “ art and technique, ” positioning it as a commercial product. They started teaching NLP in a workshop format.
To preserve intellectual property rights, a centralized certification method was established. This certification program consists of several levels such as Practitioner, Master Practitioner, or NLP Trainer. NLP claims to be able to influence and change individual’s behaviors and beliefs, or to enhance advertising, management, and education.
NLP practitioners (or adepts) often claim NLP is only a synthesis of models and techniques used by trained psychologists. It is said that NLP is pragmatic: if a method works, they will use it, even if no theory exists to explain why it works. The methods used are (1) tracking the PRS (Primary Representational System, see later) by listening to the language used or observing eye-movements or body posture, (2) matching the preferred style of the other person, (3) anchoring,205 and (4) Visual-Kinesthetic Dissociation (VKD),206 which also became popular as a stand-alone therapy.
In their opinion, this blending of powerful models and techniques has made NLP revolutionary:
205 The term ‘anchor’ is used by NLP practitioners to describe what happens if they ‘pin down’ an internal response as auditory, visual, kinesthetic, or olfactory. For example, one of the fingers can be pressed to evoke positive feelings.
206 VKD requires that the patient imagine a trauma as if they were watching a videotape of the event from different perspectives, coupled with temporary dissociation and directed re-association of beliefs regarding the event (Devilly, 2005, p. 439) It is not to be confused with gradual exposure or gradual extinction therapies used for treating Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD
“We offer you one of a kind opportunity to join millions of people who mastered NLP to create extraordinary success in their lives. In the course of the last thirty years, NLP has developed a tremendous breadth and depth of knowledge for creating extraordinary success in life. We will teach you the most universal and effective skills and abilities of NLP that will tremendously enrich your life in a variety of ways.” (NLP website, 2006)
Their train-the-trainer programs promise to transform you into a specialist of the human psyche so that you can become an effective coach or even therapist… without having to study a master’s in psychology (which takes at least 5 years in Europe).
■ Executive Summary
Theory
Richard Bandler and John Grinder first said NLP was atheoretical, as they adopted only techniques that they ‘observed’ to work. But nevertheless, they developed some theory as to how NLP might work. For example, one of the central ideas of NLP is that people have a preferred sensory system.
Contrary to what the term ‘neurolinguistic’ suggests, there is no link to neurological research or the academic field of psycholinguistics. The theory contradicts well-established theories and findings from well-established therapeutic approaches like CBT. Bandler has officially said (in a lawsuit) that he created the Society of Neuro-Linguistic Programming as a marketing device, which is why he patented the service mark.
Empirical Data
People do not possess a preference for one sensory system over another. All people are predominantly processors of visual information, like other primates, and all of our sensory systems are highly interconnected. The effectiveness of NLP interventions has been assessed many times. The most noteworthy effort was undertaken by the U.S. National Research Council, which commissioned 13 high level professors to investigate the claims made by NLP. The investigation concluded that it was ineffective. At least three other systematic reviews have also refuted the effectiveness of NLP.
The theoretical/empirical grid
Conclusion
I couldn’t have said it any better than Grant Devilly did in 2005, so I will borrow his cynical conclusion:
“To end where I began—NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 1970s and 1980s, but is still practised in small pockets of the human resource community today. The science has come and gone yet the belief still remains. In fact, you can enroll in an Australian workshop today for certification as: an NLP Practitioner ($3995); a Master NLP Practitioner ($4395); or an NLP Trainer ($10 570). The companies offering the training will even arrange finance. Be quick, places are limited!” (p. 444).
Moral Assessment
Notwithstanding the overwhelming refutation of the central tenets of NLP as a theory or model and the demonstration of its effectiveness as a therapy or communication tool, its proponents continue to spread the unwarranted claim that “NLP is founded upon well-established science; science that has often been ignored or taken for granted.”207 It is immoral to treat patients or coach people using NLP if it doesn’t work. All you end up doing is stealing their money when it doesn’t deliver on its promises. Even more worrying is the risk that people will not turn to bona fide treatment that can actually help them. Thus, they run the risk of aggravating their problems. It is also highly concerning that unqualified people (those without a master’s degree in psychology or who aren’t accredited therapists) could potentially harm people seeking out help or therapy.
Discussion
■ Theoretical soundness
The principle theoretical assumptions of NLP
Bandler and Grinder basically tried to describe how the understanding of another person’s subjective experience 208 and communication of that understanding could be enhanced (Ellickson, 1983). They thought this had to do with a Primary Representational System (PRS): a tendency or preference to think in a specific mode, often called the VAK 209—the visual, auditory and sensory systems. NLP postulated six representational systems, mainly expanding on the VAK: constructing of visual images, remembering of visual images, constructing of auditory images, remembering of auditory images, attending to kinesthetic sensations, and holding internal dialogues. If you listen carefully to the kind of communication a person uses, you can ‘discover’ this person’s PRS.
Another well-known idea of NLP is that the direction of your eye movements or your posture can reveal your PRS-mode. This is important because you can help, develop, or even cure people if you match their PRS, according to NLP. For example, if you see a person is looking left and upward, NLP sees this as a sign of a visually remembered image, and thus you should address that person like this: ‘I see how you can…’ To someone who is kinesthetic (looking right and downward), you should say things like “I feel you might be right in saying…” To someone who is auditory (making horizontal or left downward eye movements), you should say ‘It sounds like you…,’ etc.
Another central assumption is that an NLP practitioner should engage in matching, mirroring, and pacing: they should try to match their words (match), body posture, blinking or gestures (mirror), and speed (pace) to that of their conversation partner (employee, customer, patient, or client). In that way, NLP posits, the practitioner tunes in to the client’s PRS, resulting in more trust in the practitioner and improved communication. Like the HBDI, NLP has its roots in the superseded idea of left-brain/right-brain differences and dominance of one hemisphere over another.
The curious case of… switcheroos and lawsuits
Bandler and Grinder observed transcripts and film from psychotherapy sessions of only three psychotherapists, 210 from which they derived their NLP ‘theory.’ Instead of gathering which techniques worked best (as one would expect from observations), they concocted their own theoretical assumptions. One of the therapists observed was the infamous Milton H. Erickson who became (in)famous for his use of hypnosis in therapy (and was heavily criticized for his work on hypnotism too). Bandler and Grinder subjectively judged that those psychotherapists were particularly effective. Indeed, instead of relying on meta-analyses of the effectiveness of psychotherapeutic approaches or psychotherapists, they trusted their—obviously biased—own judgments. Of course, as with many pseudoscientists, Bandler and Grinder did not ‘believe’ in the scientific method to a great extent. With regards to their mumbo jumbo approach, they wrote this line full of contempt for the scientific method:
208 ‘The map is not the territory’ is a metaphor used to express the idea that we make internal representations of the world that are not necessarily good representations of the ‘real’ world. I wonder if people consider gravity or airplanes to be social constructs too. Or if they have a car accident and are badly injured, is that real or not? Will their representation fail?
209 The VAK-assumption is the basis of the learning styles myth too.
210 Milton H Erickson (hypnotherapist), Virginia Satir (family therapist), and Fritz Perls (German founder of Gestalt Therapy).
“As far as I can tell, there is no research to substantiate the idea that there is eyedness. You won’t find any research that is going to hold up. Even if there were, I still don’t know how it would be relevant to the process of interpersonal communication so to me it’s not a very interesting question.” (Bandler & Grinder, 1979, p. 31, as cited in Witkowski, 2012)
Bandler’s First Institute of Neuro-Linguistic Programming stated:
“Neuro-Linguistic Programming was specifically created in order to allow us to do magic by creating new ways of understanding how verbal and non-verbal communication affect the human brain. As such it presents us all with the opportunity to not only communicate better with others, but also learn how to gain more control over what we considered to be automatic functions of our own neurology.” (purenlp.com, 1996, 2016 – Richard Bandler)
Grinder, for his part, stated his view of NLP in the following manner:
“My memories about what we thought at the time of discovery (with respect to the classic code we developed - that is, the years 1973 through 1978) are that we were quite explicit that we were out to overthrow a paradigm and that, for example, I, for one, found it very useful to plan this campaign using in part as a guide the excellent work of Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) in which he detailed some of the conditions which historically have obtained in the midst of paradigm shifts. For example, I believe it was very useful that neither one of us were qualified in the field we first went after - psychology and in particular, its therapeutic application; this being one of the conditions which Kuhn identified in his historical study of paradigm shifts. Who knows what Bandler was thinking?” (Interview in 1996 with Chris and Jules Collingwood)211
Grinder demonstrated he was not very familiar with Kuhn’s writings in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn never promoted the notion that not being qualified in a field is a condition for making significant contributions or creating paradigm shifts. Kuhn took an historic view on past scientific breakthroughs, but he never considered this a condition as if part of a ‘recipe.’ Regardless, I find it self-aggrandizing to claim that their ‘discovery’ of NLP had the capacity to overthrow the paradigm of psychotherapy at the time. That is probably why they seemingly felt no shame in claiming that NLP could treat myopia or a common cold.
As for Richard Bandler, he allows himself use of the title ‘Dr.,’ whereas his website only mentions he received an ‘MA’ (master’s degree) in psychology. In the US, as in many European countries, you can only call yourself a Dr. if you have earned a doctoral graduate degree (Ph.D.). On November 30, 2015, the Verifications Coordinator of the University of San Francisco sent me an e-mail confirming that Bandler was awarded a Master of Arts in Clinical and Theoretical Psychology on June 30, 1975. However, there is no trace of a PhD. One could say—in NLP’s own words—that this frog apparently would like to turn himself into a Prince. I have written to Bandler asking why he calls himself a Dr., but as of yet I haven’t received an answer, except for an auto-reply on November 25, 2015:
“Thank you for writing. Dr. Bandler travels quite a bit and this email will be checked as soon as possible.
NLP Seminars Group International PO Box 424 Hopatcong, NJ 07843”
211 The full interview can be read here: http://www.inspiritive.com.au/interview-john-grinder-1996/
Richard Bandler’s personal website also mentions that he also developed Neuro-Hypnotic Repatterning, Design Human Engineering, and Charisma Enhancement. Sounds quite science-y and complicated, but you will soon find out how much we are to believe from this man.
In 1986, a special commission from the U.S. National Research Council, consisting of several influential psychologists, interviewed Bandler and confronted him with some of their findings from their literature review. They reported that Richard Bandler told them that he no longer considered the PRS to be an important component (Druckman & Swets, 1988). A nice switcheroo, once again!
Something else that is also typical of people in the pseudoscientific world, or whose primary goal is to earn large sums of money, is that they end up in a quarrel and eventually split up—which is the case here as well. Bandler has officially said (in a lawsuit) that he created the Society of Neuro-Linguistic Programming as a marketing device, and that is why he patented the service mark. On many occasions he has tried to prevent Grinder from continuing to conduct NLP seminars. Bandler even claimed a staggering 10 million dollars in punitive and exemplary damages from Grinder and other defendants! Their legal dispute over intellectual property started in 1981 and lasted until 2000, when they jointly stated that they were the co-creators and co-founders of NLP. In the UK, Bandler was also sued by Tony Clarkson for trademarking NLP, and Bandler lost that case: on September 10, 1998, the court ruled the trademark invalid, resulting in a stop in trademark registration (the term used by the British Intellectual Property Office is to say the trademark is ‘dead’). Bandler didn’t want to pay the costs awarded to Clarkson by the court, which may be why he went bankrupt (July 11, 2000).
I will repeat here what I wrote about NLP in 2006: their house of cards seems to be built on thinking errors and bank accounts.
What else is wrong with this stuf?
Willem J.M. Levelt (1996) from the Max Planck Institute for psycholinguistics in the Netherlands said that NLP has nothing to do with neuro-linguistics whatsoever. This field of study deals with how speaking and understanding a language is produced and steered by the brain. The field uses modern brain imaging techniques such as fMRI that didn’t exist at the time NLP was ‘invented.’ Michael C. Corballis (1999) also expressed his dismay at the misleading name of NLP for the same reasons.
Moreover, thinking is not necessarily related to the senses: we don’t need language to think (like other animals), and babies show thinking activities even before they can express themselves or are capable of understanding language.
You might remember from my discussion of the learning style myth, that our visual sense is dominant over the others. This is nicely demonstrated in the classic Stroop-test: it is difficult for any person to say the color of a word printed in a specific color if that word expresses another color (e.g. the word ‘green’ is printed in yellow, so you are tempted to say ‘yellow’). Most children say ‘look’ as one of their first words. But this does not imply that every child is visually oriented, in the way NLP suggests, of course. And what about people who use gestures and facial expressions when they are on the phone? Those gestures help us better formulate what we want to say. If the other dialogue partner can actually see us (not when using a traditional telephone, of course), these gestures also help him or her interpret our communication.
Bandler and Grinder also claimed that hypnosis using the Milton model (referring to Milton Erickson) improved memory. This is an unsubstantiated claim that has been researched a great deal. It has been refuted time and time again (for an overview, see Lilienfeld et al., 2010). One of Erickson’s colleagues, Weitzenhoffer, even said there was no proof of the effectiveness of NLP hypnosis (Weitzenhoffer, 2000, p. 108)
My hypothesis is that Bandler and Grinder understood very early on that including the word ‘neuro’ in their trademark would surely impress the gullible public. How trustworthy someone is, is likely to be reflected in his claims. It is a fact that Richard Bandler himself has admitted that he was once addicted to smoking and to cocaine and had sometimes acted violently. He dismisses criticism of this problematic behavior, stating that if he were perfect, he wouldn’t have been able to improve himself.
What does my Champions League of experts say?
Lilienfeld et al. (2003) wrote that they thought they had figured out the secret formula of NLP:
“(Quick Fix + Pseudoscientific Gloss) x Credulous Public = High Income.” (2003, p. xvi)
What does the majority of the feld of experts think?
They think NLP is theoretically unsound and does not work. Sergio Della Sala and Barry Beyerstein referred to NLP in the following manner:
“As the philosopher Dale Beyerstein has observed, ‘nonsense often piggy-backs on reliable knowledge’. The personal enhancement method called Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) is a case in this point. It began with some now outmoded information from legitimate psychology, linguistics, and neuroscience that even most experts accepted back in the 1960’s, when NLP first arrived on the scene. The nice thing about real science, as opposed to pseudoscience, is that the former eventually corrects its mistakes as new discoveries emerge. NLP remains mired in the past or the never-was.” (2007, introduction p. xx)
At one point in time, the U.S. Congress commissioned the National Research Council (NRC) to investigate which performance-enhancement methods lived up to the advertised claims of their promoters. Among other models, the panel of psychologists and neuroscientists assessed the claims made by NLP. They concluded that not a single model, including NLP, convincingly demonstrated that their claims were true: they did not improve worker efficiency or well-being (Druckman & Swets, 1988).
The theoretical score: -6. Due to Bandler and Grinder’s contempt for the scientific method while always having promoted NLP as scientific. There is also the fact that the theory contradicts findings from other fields of science, meaning this is a well-deserved score.
■ Empirical findings
What is the level of evidence?
The Primary Representational System, or PRS, was the central idea in the hypotheses that Bandler and Grinder launched. It is closely related to the theorizing about our preference for one of three sensory systems, called VAK212 at that time. This is also very similar to beliefs about how people learn, though research has convincingly demonstrated that our brain is highly interconnected, resulting in high integration of all of our senses (the visual sense being the most important for all people) and it is incorrect to think that people learn or communicate using a preferred visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory, or tactile
212 A short reminder: VAK = Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic.
mode (for a thorough discussion, see the learning styles myth). Research into the PRS was conducted by Yapko (1981), who thought he found support for this theory. However, Yapko used only 30 undergraduates who were exposed to 3 different hypnotic inductions. This should be considered sloppy research. On the other hand, Owens (1977), Dowd and Pety (1982), Gumm et al. (1982), Fromme and Daniell (1984), Coe & Schahcoff (1985), and Graunke and Roberts (1985) found no statistically significant support or no support at all for the PRS Dorn et al. (1983) reviewed the findings in the literature and concluded that no reliable methods had been used to determine the PRS. Lastly, British psychologist and skeptic Michael Heap reviewed the literature and found many more studies, but wrote that there was a “preponderance of negative results” (1988, p. 271).
One of the most well-known claims made by NLP adepts is that eye movements can be seen as indicators of the PRS. The theory about the significance of our eye movements is based on the assumption of brain lateralization, resulting in our preferred use of language. I have already debunked this myth about brain lateralization in-depth in previous chapters. Falzett (1981) reported some support, but used only 24 female volunteers, meaning the study was underpowered and methodologically flawed. Ellickson found that her results contradicted the Falzett findings and, based on her study and a study by Richardson (1978), she concluded that:
“ upward eye movement (visual system) and downward eye movements (auditory and kinesthetic systems) may have occurred solely because of the sex of the interviewer rather than in response to the participant’s preferred mode of representing his or her experience internally.” (Ellickson, 1978, p. 344)
Wertheim et al. (1986) examined whether eye-movements reflected sensory processing and found no differences between visual, auditory, and kinesthetic modalities. Auditory-type eye positions were most prevalent, and they concluded that none of their findings were supportive of NLP.
In 1988, a subcommittee of the U.S.-based National Research Council, consisting of an important body of psychological experts, 213 issued a book that reviewed several methods and theories that claimed to improve well-being or human performance. Their review was commissioned by the U.S. Congress and NLP was one of the investigated methods. I summarize their conclusions on NLP as follows (pp. 141–148):
1. Many of the theories that NLP claimed to draw upon are merely metaphors or are not accepted in the scientific community.
2. There is no direct support for the relationship between eye gaze and the PRS.
3. NLP claims there is a relation between NLP and EEG, but EEG patterns related to specific eye movements reveal nothing about PRS or subjective experiences.
4. NLP is a series of concatenated anecdotes and facts that lead to no particular conclusions.
5. The descriptions of the basic biological processes contain errors.
6. The biological and psychological references were dated.
7. The 20 studies meta-analyzed by Sharpley (1984)214 and Harris and Rosenthal show that there is no effect.
213 Professors of psychology John A Swets, Robert A. Bjork, Thomas D Cook, Gerald C Davison, Daniel Druckman, Lloyd G Humphreys, Ray Hyman, Michael Posner, Jerome E Singer, Sally P Springer, Richard F. Thompson; Professor in health and physical education Daniel M Landers; professor of management and psychology Lyman W Porter.
214 Christopher Sharpley further reviewed more studies in 1987 and concluded that the PRS probably doesn’t exist and doesn’t assist counselors in a reliable manner.
8. There is no support for correlations between eye movements, choice of predicates and self-reports, nor is there any support that predicates matching 215 increases influence.
9. Perceived counselor empathy is not a good measure of the capacity to modify behaviors or feelings.
10.Using modeling experts to improve performance or skills for training purposes is understudied, and one well conducted study (an analysis of expert shooters) showed no differences between NLP-derived training and traditional training for army recruits.
As a general conclusion: there is no support for the claim that NLP improves influence or skilled motor performance. It should not be used for expert modeling purposes. Ouch, that hurts! This seems like the final blow to NLP, since no empirical research of any significance is found in the academic databases later on.
A meta-analysis by Sharpley et al. (1987) found no effect of matching representational systems to eye movements. Michael Heap (1988) also looked at the evidence for the ‘eye gaze’ claim. He identified 11 studies that found no support for the eye movements claim, and 2 studies that found some support for the upward eye movements of visual items only. It should be noted that most of these research articles were published in the Journal of Counseling Psychology, a magazine dedicated to counseling that is not very influential in the academic field, particularly not in my Champions League. Heap reached the same devastating conclusions that same year:
“Therefore, in view of the absence of any objective evidence provided by the original proponents of the PRS hypothesis, and the failure of subsequent empirical investigations to adequately support it, it may well be appropriate now to conclude that there is not, and never has been, any substance to the conjecture that people represent their world internally in a preferred mode which may be inferred from their choice of predicates and from their eye movements.” (1988, p. 275)
Heap reported that one study (Cody, 1983) even found that “therapists who matched their client’s language were rated as less trustworthy and less effective” (Heap, 1988, p. 273, bold emphasis my own) . James Jupp (1989) studied 190 psychology and counseling students and found no link between eye movements and ‘sensory-specific questioning.’
A 2010 systematic review of NLP on health outcomes found ‘little’ evidence for the effectiveness of NLP, especially as the quantity and quality of NLP research was limited (Sturt et al., 2010). Indeed, 4 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) found no effect, and only one found an effect of reduced self-reported need for anesthesia in claustrophobic patients undergoing MRI. Consequently, researchers recommended not allocating resources to NLP activities for medical purposes.
Tomasz Witkowski (2012) reviewed the literature published after 1988. He relied on the NLP database and added studies from the PsycInfo database for his review. His article search resulted in 401 publications, though he excluded 121 articles as they were published before 1986 and thus had already been reviewed. 199 non-empirical articles were excluded, as well as 50 articles that didn’t examine the basic tenets of NLP-effectiveness. Another 10 were excluded due to poor internal validity, meaning as few as 11 articles examining the
215 Dimensions of matching include predicate (verbs, adverbs and adjectives) matching and nonverbal mirroring.
basic tenets of N LP and 10 articles examining the effectiveness of N LP remained. 8 studies focused on the link between preferred sensory systems and eye movements. Only one study found some evidence for visual and auditory components with predicted eyemovements, but the other 7 studies found no such effects. Three other studies examined matching, mirroring, and pacing. Only one study from Turan and Stemberger (2000) found that “representational language enhances perceived empathy.” However, we must be cautious, as (1) empathy says nothing about effective treatment and, (2) the study design consisted of only 20 participants and one female interviewer who either matched her language with that of 10 participants or mismatched with the other 10 participants . What a waste to try to draw conclusions from such an underpowered sample and shabby methodology! The findings of this single, underpowered study starkly contradicted the findings from Michael Heap’s 1988 review.
The other two studies included in the Witkowski review didn’t find any other convincing support, resulting in 8 studies that were non-supportive, 2 studies that were partially supportive and 1 study that was supportive. Of these 11 articles, 10 studies reported on outcomes related to effectiveness. The only study (Lund, 1995) that showed some support for the effectiveness, however, couldn’t demonstrate that the effectiveness was linked to NLP, as the study design did not allow for such a conclusion to be made. The other studies either showed no support at all (7 studies) or had problems (e.g. no control conditions beyond treatment), or investigated self-reported satisfaction with treatment and thus are not valid for effectiveness assessment. From this review, again only one possible conclusion can be reached: the empirical data do not support NLP effectiveness. This study thus confirmed the two earlier reviews by Heap (1988) and Druckman and Swets (1988) , so I rest my case. Witkowski righteously concluded that the verdict was now final: “NLP is ineffective both as a model explaining human cognition and communication and as a set of techniques of influence and persuasion” (Witkowski, 2012, p. 37). 216
Let me briefly address the idea of predicate matching a bit more: NLP says it is only useful with right-handed individuals, as this reflects their brain dominance. I guess by now you will expect that no evidence could be found for this claim, nor for the effectiveness of predicate matching. And indeed, you are right. No evidence could be found. Christopher Sharpley reached the same conclusion back in 1984—28 years apart, yet the exact same conclusion.
Unsurprisingly, no evidence for anchoring has been found either (e.g. two dissertations: Hill, 1983; Brandis, 1986), nor for VKD, or Visual-Kinesthetic Dissociation (Devilly, 2005).
Let me end with some encouraging words for the critical reader: in 2006, Norcross and his colleagues conducted a 2-stage survey, obtaining responses from 101 U.S. experts (93% had trained as psychologists). There was substantial consensus among these experts, and NLP ranked 13th in a list of discredited treatments. This gives me some hope that at least psychologists are starting to realize how problematic NLP is.
The empirical score: -4. Because systematic reviews have refuted both the central theoretical tenets of NLP and its effectiveness.
216 There was one famous attempt to review the effectiveness of NLP in Learning, but this report not only lacked peer-review, but also didn’t adhere to the ‘rules of the game’: the reviewers mentioned no inclusion criteria, search strings, multiple databases, included essays, etc. I refer to this ‘scam’ review in the reference list (Carey et al., 2010)
Why do people still believe NLP can ofer them valuable insights?
NLP offers the tempting promise that you will learn how to turn Frogs into Princes. Yes, you read that correctly, this was the title of a book written by Bandler and Grinder in 1979. Who wouldn’t want to improve him/herself? I am sure the Platonic Idealists are interested.
It has also been suggested that NLP is a powerful form of therapy (remember, there is no evidence for that claim), and thus is a bona fide kind of therapy. Lay people who are interested in ‘helping’ other people might be lured into attending a multi-day, or up to 12-day, training course to become a certified practitioner. Such trainings, however, can never replace a proper education such as a master’s in psychology, which requires many years of academic study. Moreover, in many countries, a master’s degree must be followed up by three to four years of training before you can become an accredited therapist. NLP offers trainers and consultants an unqualified shortcut, which is truly dangerous and immoral when dealing with gullible and maybe even desperate people.
NLP proponents have suggested that a number of proven interventions are typical of NLP. The problem for a layperson is that proven techniques (such as gradual exposure) are often mixed with other techniques and theories that are entirely false, if not dangerous. The layperson may see techniques demonstrated in video footage on Bandler’s website, such as the proven method of gradual exposure to fear (stemming from exposure therapy and CBT), and believe that the feelings-thoughts-behavior triptych model is valid. The latter is considered a typical NLP concept, which it isn’t. It stems from behavioral biology and learning theory—the foundation of CBT. But of course, NLP promoters make no effort to explain the true origins of this interaction model of thoughts, feelings, and behavior.
Once you have enrolled in an expensive certification program, both the consistency principle and sunk cost bias pop up: if you want to be a trustworthy person, you must show some consistency in your actions and words. This prevents people from admitting they were wrong and, in this case, abandoning their NLP certification. Moreover, if you have already invested so much money and energy, it is common to want to follow up on your initial decision. It then becomes easy to rationalize your choice and ignore all of the contradictory evidence.
How likely is it that this theory will ever prove to be valid? Seriously? Three extensive reviews should be plenty to convince us that the theory, the tools, and the techniques are invalid. We have much better models, tools, and interventions.
■ Original sources consulted
Carrol, R. T. The skeptic’s Dictionary: Neuro-Linguistic Programming.www.skepdic.com
Carey, J., Churches, R., Hutchinson, G., Jones, J., and Tosey, P. (2010). Neuro-Linguistic Programming and Learning: Teacher Case Studies on the Impact of NLP in Education. Full Report, Reading: CFBT.
Della Salla, S., & Beyerstein, B. (2007). Introduction: The myth of 10% and other Tall Tales about the mind and the brain. In Della Sala, S. (2007). Tall tales about the mind and brain: Separating fact from fiction. Oxford University Press.
Devilly, G. J. (2005). Power therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 39(6), 437–445.
Druckman, D., & Swets, J. A. (Eds.). (1988). Enhancing human performance: Issues, theories, and techniques National Academies Press. (This book describes the research carried out by the National Research Council’s Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, ordered by the U.S. Congress).
Ellickson, J. L. (1983). Representational systems and eye movements in an interview. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30(3), 339–346.
Falzett, W. C. (1981). Matched versus unmatched primary representational systems and their relationship to perceived trustworthiness in a counseling analogue. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28(4), 305–308.
Fromme, D. K., & Daniell, J. (1984). Neurolinguistic programming examined: Imagery, sensory mode, and communication. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(3), 387–390.
Graunke, B., & Roberts, T. K. (1985). Neurolinguistic programming: The impact of imagery tasks on sensory predicate usage. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(4), 525–530.
Gumm, W. B., Walker, M. K., & Day, H. D. (1982). Neurolinguistics programming: Method or myth? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29(3), 327–330.
Heap, M. (1988). Neuro-linguistic programming. Hypnosis: current clinical, experimental and forensic practices. London: Croom Helm, 268–280.
Lilienfeld, S.O., Lynn, S. J. & Lohr, J.M. Lohr (Eds.) (2003). Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
Lilienfeld, S.O., Lynn, s. J, Ruscio, J., Beyerstein, B.L. (2010). 50 Great Myths of popular psychology. WileyBlackwell.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1996). Hoedt u voor NLP, Skepter, 9(3).
Norcross, J. C., Koocher, G. P., & Garofalo, A. (2006). Discredited psychological treatments and tests: A Delphi poll. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37(5), 515–522.
Roderique-Davies, G. (2009). Neuro_Linguistic Programming: Cargo Cult Psychology? Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 1(2), 57–63.
Sharpley, C. F. (1984). Predicate matching in NLP: A review of research on the preferred representational system. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(2), 238–248.
Sharpley, C. F. (1987). Research findings on neurolinguistic programming: nonsupportive data or an untestable theory? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(1)103–107.
Sturt, J., Ali, S., Robertson, W., Metcalfe, D., Grove, A., Bourne, C., & Bridle, C. (2012). Neurolinguistic programming: a systematic review of the effects on health outcomes. Br J Gen Pract, 62(604), e757–e764.
Tardif, E., Doudin, P. A., & Meylan, N. (2015). Neuromyths Among Teachers and Student Teachers. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(1), 50–59.
Von Bergen, C. W., Gary, B. S., Rosenthal, T., & Wilkinson, L. V. (1997). Selected alternative training techniques in HRD. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8(4), 281–294.
Witkowski, T. (2010). Thirty-five years of research on Neuro-Linguistic Programming. NLP research data base. State of the art or pseudoscientific decoration? Polish Psychological Bulletin, 41(2), 58–66.
Witkowski, T. (2012). A Review of Research Findings on Neuro-Linguistic Programming. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 9(1), 29–40.
■ Other References (abstracts, summaries, excerpts, or reviews)
Biswal, R., & Prusty, B. (2011). Trends in neuro-linguistic programming (NLP): a critical review. Social Science International, 27(1), 41–56.
Brandis, A. (1986). A neurolinguistic treatment for reducing parental anger responses and creating more resourceful behavioral options. Dissertation Abstracts International 47(11), 4642-B California School of Professional Psychology, 161 pages.
Coe, W. C., & Schahcoff, J. A. (1985). An empirical evaluation of the neurolinguistic programming model. The International journal of clinical and experimental hypnosis, 33(4), 310–318.
Corballis, M.C. (1999). Are we in our right minds? In Sala, S. (Ed.) Mind Myths: Exploring Popular Assumptions About the Mind and Brain. Wiley, John & Sons. pp. 25–41.
Dorn, F. J., Brunson, B. I., & Atwater, M. (1983). Assessment of primary representational systems with neurolinguistic programming: Examination of preliminary literature. American Mental Health Counselors Association Journal, 5(4), 161–168.
Hill, E. (1983). An empirical test of the Neurolinguistic Programming concept of anchoring. Dissertation Abstracts International 44(7), 2246-B Washington State University, 126 pages.
Jupp, J. J. (1989). A further empirical evaluation of neurolinguistic primary representational systems (PRS). Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 2(4), 441–450.
Owens, L. F. (1977). An investigation of eye movements and representational systems. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Stollznow, K. (2010). “Not-so Linguistic Programming.” Skeptic, 15(4), 7.
Tye, M. J. C. T. (1994). Neurolinguistic programming: Magic or myth? Journal of Accelerative Learning & Teaching, 19(3-4), 309–342.
Turan, B., & Stemberger, R. M. (2000). The effectiveness of matching language to enhance perceived empathy. Communication & Cognition, 33(3-4), 2000, 287–300.
Yapko, M. D. (1981). The effect of matching primary representational system predicates on hypnotic relaxation. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 23(3), 169–175.
Weitzenhoffer, A. M. (2000). The practice of hypnotism (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Wertheim, E. H., Habib, C., & Gumming, G. (1986). Test of the neurolinguistic programming hypothesis that eye-movements relate to processing imagery. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62(2), 523–529.