From: Lee Lady
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy,alt.psychology.nlp
Subject: Re: NLP, revisited
Date: 18 Jul 1999 22:47:34 GMT
I've been out of town for a number of weeks during which time I could access the net only awkwardly via the San Francisco public library. In addition, some of the interactions which took place here this spring in sci.psych.psycho made me wonder whether it was a good idea for me to continue to participate in the newsgroup.
It turned out that during my absence, I missed an important article by Paul Bernhardt. I now see it thanks to SaraGale and am somewhat amazed and bewildered.
In addition to commenting on Paul's remarks, I also want to respond briefly to what SaraGale says.
In article <7mg356$rs0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, <saragale@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I think it is a tremendous advantage for Neuro Linguistic Programming to
>stay clear of academic psychology. I'm sure it will develop much more
>robustly with as little contact as possible.
I definitely disagree with this. In fact, my primary purpose in posting articles to sci.psychology rather than some other forum has been to interest academic psychologists and conventionally trained therapists in NLP. (It does seem to be a losing battle though, which is one of the reasons I wonder whether it is worth my time and effort to continue to be involved in the newsgroup. True, over the years my efforts have in fact turned out to be worthwhile, but in a way very different from what I intended, namely by providing a body of articles, archived on my web site which have proved valuable to the NLP community, despite not having been originally directed toward this audience.)
Incidentally, the articles in my web site archive, are now in html format, making them much more readable than formerly.
In my article ``The Cowboys versus the Bean-counters in Science'' I made a case for the assertion that NLP has greatly benefited by being developed outside the academic environment, proceeding with an adventurous spirit quite contrary to that encouraged by academic psychology departments. However it is definitely not my belief that NLP and academic psychology should avoid contact with each other.
In fact, there are several Ph.D. psychologists within the NLP community. (Stephen Gilligan, in particular, one of the original core group of NLP developers, has a Ph.D. from Stanford. However his interests are more strongly in Ericksonian hypnosis than in NLP. To ousiders, it is often difficult to distinguish between these two fields.)
Certainly NLPers disagree with some of the attitudes and findings of academic researchers and believe that a lot of research has been poorly done. In particular, NLPers tend to believe that researchers in clinical psychology are often addressing the wrong questions. But many of the teachers in the NLP trainings I have been through have from time to time referred to academic psychology and suggested that this research sometimes contains valuable information relevant to NLP. I believe that it would be extremely foolish for NLPers to discount in advance the vast amount of research done by academic psychologists, just as I believe it has been extremely foolish for the academics to fail to look into NLP.
>In article <pbern10-0207990356270001@pbern10.dsl.xmission.com>,
> pbern10@xmission.com (Paul Bernhardt) wrote:
>> In a message in March of 1999, Lee Lady posted:
>>
>> >Since there are almost no such published studies showing the
>effectiveness of
>> >NLP techniques (and almost none failing to show
their effectiveness
>either,
>> >Paul Bernhardt's search a couple of years ago showed), Nancy
>believes that
>> >there is no reason to take the NLP techniques seriously and that
>there is no
>> >justification for academics to do research on them.
>>
>> What follows are the posts from 1997 that Lee Lady was referring to.
>>Many
>> of them show a lack of efficacy for NLP. So, Lee's statement above is
>> somewhat a misrepresentation of my findings. There were more posts,
>>but these capture the flavor of the situation.
>>
>> Paul Bernhardt, M.S.
I am grateful to Paul Bernhardt for reposting the articles below because it gives me the opportunity to comment on them in a way I didn't when they were originally posted, both because of lack of time and because I assumed at the time that the quality (or rather lack thereof) of the research cited would be self-evident to academics and graduate students.
I have been intending for some time to go back to DejaNews to obtain these posts and include them in my NLP archive, because I think that it's important that NLPers and those interested in learning about NLP be aware of the academic research that has been done even when it has been done very poorly, as I believe is the case with most academic research on NLP.
I have to say, Paul, that I am amazed that you think these posts show a lack of efficacy for NLP. I'm glad that you have stated your position so bluntly. If you had said, ``These studies failed to find evidence for the efficacy of NLP,'' I would have to agree, but only in the sense that, for instance, an investigation throughout the countryside of southern France would probably fail to find evidence of suppression of dissent within Tibet by the Chinese government.
Efficacy, as I understand the word, would refer to the effectiveness of NLP when used as a part of psychotherapy or used to help clients to make changes in their behavior, thoughts, or emotions even when such changes fall outside the clinical realm. (For instance, helping a teacher remember to keep her voice at an audible level when lecturing, or helping a salesperson in a store be more confident in approaching new customers. These are both examples of ways in which I personally have used NLP to help friends and acquaintances.) While the studies you have cited do address important aspects of NLP, very few of them make an attempt to ascertain the efficacy of NLP.
I have always found you an honest and intelligent person, Paul. I can only conclude that the assessment you have made of these articles lends support to my contention that although graduate students in clinical psychology are fairly well educated in statistics and experimental design, there is very little effort to teach them even the rudiments of scientific thinking.
It takes more than a literature search to make an assessment of something like NLP. In order to make any judgement on the articles in the literature on NLP, you have to start out by learning at least a little bit about what NLP is. In other words, to return to my metaphor, if you want to make a judgement on the Chinese government's treatment of Tibet, you need to start out by learning the basic geography so that you realize that the results of an investigation made in southern France are not going to be very meaningful. (Oh dear! My analogy is starting to sound like Bill Goodrich or Gene Douglas. :-)
Your synopses of the articles you found most significant follow.
>>
>> ***
>> Subject: Re: What is NLP?
>> Date: 1997/01/11
>> Author: Paul Bernhardt <Paul.Bernhardt@utah.edu>
>> Posting History
>>
>> In summary of my psychlit surf for abstracts of
>NLP
>> studies. (The previous postings were
a sampling of the findings of my
>> surfing.)
>>
>> It appeared to me that the vast majority of
>studies
>> supporting NLP are case studies. Nothing wrong with case studies per
>se,
>> just there are clear limitations in generalizability and in
>establishing
>> causality.
Agreed. But what appalls me is that academics simply shrug off even very strong case studies instead of realizing that they indicate a clear need for further, more systematic investigation. In the case of NLP, such systematic investigation has been conspicuously lacking.
The articles you cite below, however, are not in any reports of case studies, unless I misunderstand that word. They are either reports of experiments or of systematic clinical trials, although not always with the use of control groups.
> It appeared to me that experimental, quasiexperimental and
>> other more formal comparisons of groups both within the NLP domain and
>> between NLP and various controls tended to not show support for NLP
>> theories.
Such as it is, this is mostly true. Often this is a result of looking for Chinese repression in southern France, but there is indeed some reason to believe that at least some of the theoretical assertions made by NLPers are incorrect. This is not surprising, given that NLP has never had a theory-oriented orientation. The attitude has always been, ``Let's make this hypothesis, develop techniques on the basis of it, and if the techniques work we're satisfied.''
It's probably a fair statement to say that to the extent that NLP techniques work, NLPers don't have a very good scientific explanation of why they work. The effectiveness of NLP techniques seems to indicate that there is a lot of value to the underlying ideas, but that further, more scientific, investigation will undoubtedly show that some of these ideas are only rough approximations to the proof.
> Some articles suggest the failure to find support in
>> (quasi)experimental research is that the therapists who conduct the
>NLP
>> methods are not properly trained. However, some of the articles I
>found
>> did purport to use ``NLP-trained'' practitioners. From the abstracts it
>is
>> difficult to assess what is meant by that term, therefore this may be
>a
>> legitimate concern. But if the NLP proponents really believe in thier
>> 'technology' they should collaborate with researchers and serve as
>the
>> NLP practitioners for the study. Then there would be no question about
>the
>> quality of implementation of the NLP procedures. Bill? Lee? Are you
>> willing?
I fully agree with what you say here, and one of my primary objects in posting to sci.psychology.psychotherapy has been to try and foster some cooperation between NLPers and academic psychologists that would result in honest, convincing (convincingly positive or convincingly negative) studies. Many people within the NLP community are very interested in having such studies done and would eagerly participate if it were financially feasible.
Unfortunately, after more than ten years of posting to sci.psychology, my efforts to get academics to seriously and scientifically study NLP have been a dismal failure. Only once have I been contacted by a person with appropriate qualifications who was seriously interested in doing a study. Unfortunately, although she was confident of being able to find funding and getting the results of the study published, her interest was in obsessive-compulsive disorder, and despite the fact that I have heard a number of anecdotal reports from NLPers who have claimed to have cured clients with OCD, an inquiry posted to alt.psychology.nlp and sent to some of the leading NLP training organizations failed to turn up any practitioner who could claim a systematic record of curing OCD. (My academic correspondant looked at the NLP Comprehensive videotape on breaking compulsions and found it interesting, but was not convinced, even on heuristic grounds, that the NLP ``Compulsion Blow-out,'' which is a refinement of flooding, would be successful in treating clients with true obsessive-compulsive disorder.)
As to myself, I would find it very exciting to participate in such a study. But I'm much more of a theorist than a practitioner of NLP.
>>
>> I didn't find a more recent review article on
>NLP
>> than the 1988 article. It may be time for some industrious person to
>pull
>> that together (Larry?).
>>
>> It seems to me that the proponents of NLP have a
>> lot of work to do to substantiate their claims of efficacy. If I were
>> despirate for help on something that had not responded to other
>> treatments, I'd try it, but I wouldn't expect much
(being pessimistic
>>from
>> previous failure...)
Yeah, well the world is full of walking wounded who have learned through bitter experience to be extremely cynical about psychotherapy of all form. Ask SaraGale about conventional approaches to therapy. I agree that not everyone who goes to an NLP practitioner gets the help they're looking for. In fact, my guess would be that although many clients who see NLP practitioners obtain substantial help, nowhere close to a majority find their problems completely solved.
But the advantage of extremely brief therapy is that at least one finds out fairly quickly whether one will be helped or not.
I think that I am correct in stating that there is no evidence that those who choose therapy based on the academic support for the particular modality get better results than those who rely on more informal means of judgement such as their own personal assessment of the therapist, anecdotal reports from friends, etc.
I repeat: There is no evidence that consumers will get the best results by choosing therapeutic approaches on the basis of published research.
(This is a very sweeping statement. To discuss it intelligently, we should narrow it down in terms of the type of psychological problem and the type of therapy.)
>>
>> ***
>>
>> Subject:What is NLP?
>> Date: 1997/01/11
>> Author: Paul Bernhardt <Paul.Bernhardt@utah.edu>
>> Posting History
>>
>> I certainly don't know. But I did a Psychlit
>search
>> to find articles, hopefully some on efficacy, and came across an
>> interesting abstract. Quoting it directly would be a violation of the
>> Psychlit copyright, so here is the cite and a synopsis:
>>
>> Barnett, E. A. (1990) The contribution and
>> influence of neurolinguistic programming on analytical hypnotherapy.
>> Australian Journal of Clinical Hypnotherapy and Hypnosis, 11(1), 1-14.
>>
>> The author finds that some aspects of NLP,
>> particularly the communication strategy used for anchoring and
>reframing
>> are essentially similar to hypnosis, even though hypnosis is never
>> formally induced in NLP procedures. He says that both the therapist
>and
>> the client are probably unaware of this similarity.
This is something that has been emphasized in every NLP training I've ever taken. On one of the videotapes I watched, Richard Bandler says something like, ``Hypnosis doesn't begin when you, quote, Put the Client Into a Trance. Hypnosis begins the moment the client walks into your office. If you're not using the language patterns and other tools of hypnosis starting with you very first conversation with the client, then you're not being as effective as you could be.''
If anything, NLP can be criticized for overstressing, exaggerating the point that Barnett makes in the article you cite. It certainly doesn't ignore it.
>>
>> I don't know the quality of the journal, or of
>this
>> author's argument, therefore, I can't defend it. I am simply posting
>the
>> results of my search for information on the subject. I hope that
>further
>> posts will follow.
The quality of the journal is not what's at issue. The point is that Barnett has not done the basic first step in scientific research: finding out what the phenomenon to be investigated is. He does not understand that doing a scientific investigation is more than merely doing a study. Carrying out a study (or experiment) is merely the final stage in scientific investigation.
This is my biggest criticism of much of academic psychology, especially on the clinical side: the rampant use of mere empiricism, merely doing studies, not guided by any sort of scientific thinking.
>> ***
>> Subject: Re: What is NLP?
>> Date: 1997/01/11
>> Author: Paul Bernhardt <Paul.Bernhardt@utah.edu>
>> Posting History
>>
>> Melvin,K. B. & Miller, H. L. (1988) Anchoring:
>> Panacea or placebo? Phobia Practice and Research Journal, 1(2),
>153-158;
At least this study actually does address the efficacy of a specific NLP technique. Your synopsis, though, makes it sound like they did little more than come out in support of motherhood and apple pie. (I thought I had a more complete abstract, in my archive, but I don't find it. However for some additional studies with rather mixed results, see the article research-2.html in my archive.
>> These authors similarly find that there is
>>litle
>> research to support NLP and uncritical acceptance is not warranted.
It would be completely astonishing if the study came to any other conclusion. ``The finding of the authors, as a result of this study, is that NLP should be accepted uncritically and no further investigation is required.'' I don't think so! Only if the study were published in a special April Fools edition of the journal.
>> Of course, I wonder what has happened in NLP
>> research since 1988.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> Subject: Re: What is NLP?
>> Date: 1997/01/11
>> Author: Paul Bernhardt <Paul.Bernhardt@utah.edu>
>> Posting History
>>
>> Bliemeister,J. (1988). Empirische Uberprufung
>> zentraler theoretischer Konstrukte des Neurolinguistischen
>Programmierens
>> (NLP). (Empirical verification of central theoretical constructs of
>> neurolinguistic programming (NLP).) Zeitschrift fur Klinische
>Psychologie.
>> Forschung und Praxis, 17(1), 21-30;
>>
>> German language publication, English abstract.
>>
>> This author reports a study that examined some
>of
>> the central theories of NLP as applied by German psychologists Bandler
>and
>> Grinder. Subjects' eye movements were videotaped as subjects answered
>> questions designed to activate tihe subjects' representational
>systems.
>> Other questions were apparently controls. The results did not support
>NLP
>> theoretical predictions.
>>
>> Hmmm... a potentially critical failure, but
>without
>> reading the paper in detail it is hard to evaluate just how critical
>this
>> failure is. I'm sure the NLP supporters will find there are numerous
>> ecological and methodological flaws to examining NLP this way.
Eye accessing cues are certainly an important aspect of NLP. The earlier NLP books (such as Principles, by Leslie Cameron Bandler) emphasized them a whole lot, and many NLP trainers still do.
However eye accessing cues (lateral eye movements) are not a technique. They are a tool for information gathering. If in fact the NLP hypotheses about the meaning of eye accessing cues are incorrect, this does not show that NLP techniques are ineffective. However it would suggest that whatever success NLP may achieve may be attributable to reasons different from those NLPers believe.
In fact, though, academic research on NLP eye accessing cues has been mixed. Mostly it seems to lend support for some of the NLP hypotheses, but fail to support others. (See another article below.)
My own opinion, based on my own experience and what others have told me, is that the NLP assertions about eye accessing cues are true in the sense that every individual does have a consistent pattern of lateral eye movements, however there is a certain amount of variation between individuals. The patterns shown in books are roughly true for most individuals, in my opinion.
However I also believe that the importance of eye accessing cues has been greatly exaggerated. In any case, I can say that I myself never became very good at using them, except to be aware that if a subject's eyes move up, down, or to the side during a conversation, this suggests that something is happening internally and it might be useful to stop and ask them about it. This didn't prevent me from doing a lot of effective NLP with a large number of friends and acquaintances.
>> ***
>> Subject: Re: What is NLP?
>> Date: 1997/01/11
>> Author Paul Bernhardt <Paul.Bernhardt@utah.edu>
>> Posting History
>>
>> Einspruch, E. L. & Forman, B. D. (1988)
>> Neuro-linguistic programming in the treatment of phobias.
>> Psychotherapy-in-Private-Practice, 6(1), 91-100
>>
>> This study used NLP and Ericksonian methods to
>> treat phobias. 48 patients were in the study. They report support for
>> NLP. However, the abstract was terribly vague about the design of the
>> study, if there was any control group and if the NLP improvements were
>> different from any other group. The abstract simply said, ``Results
>> indicate marked improvement by those who were treated.'' Since all
subjects
>> recived treatment of some kind, it is unclear what this might mean in
>> terms of supporting NLP.
Right. The study did report support. (However in my judgement it was not extremely strong support, since the treatment extended over a period of eight weeks, making it not a whole lot faster than the classic desensitization approach.) But from the abstract we don't know exactly what hypothesis was supported. It's scarcely fair to count this study as a negative result showing lack of efficacy, however.
>>
>> **
>> Subject: Re: What is NLP?
>> Date: 1997/01/11
>> Author: Paul Bernhardt <Paul.Bernhardt@utah.edu>
>> Posting History
>>
>> And I still don't know, but the second
interesting
>> article (of the 48 hits I had on the search term ``NLP'') was:
>>
>> Rosa, N .M. (1988). Anchoring as a treatment
for
>> simple phobias. Phobia Practice and Research Journal, 1(2), 141-152.
>>
>> The key statement in this abstract was that the
>> research at that time (note the year...) was limited and mixed about
>> efficacy. Se also noted that NLP research has been in general
>criticized on methodology.
So they found that NLP has some value. Their results didn't support NLP as strongly as I would have liked, but they also didn't find that it's worthless.
However my biggest criticism is that anchoring is not considered by NLPers to be a very effective treatment for phobias. So Rosa studied a weak treatment and found that the results were mixed.
N. M. Rosa actually did a number of studies on the efficacy of NLP techniques. The one listed above is one of only two that journals were willing to publish. Of course we can't know the reasons his other studies were rejected, but he claims that they were of comparable quality to studies by him on cognitive-behavioral psychology that were published. See the article research-3 in my archive.
>>
>> While the year is 1988, I haven't yet found
>> anything more recent to support the claims made by NLP practitioners.
>If I
>> do, I'll post it here!
>>
>> ***
>>
>> Subject: Re: What is NLP?
>> Date: 1997/01/11
>> Author: Paul Bernhardt <Paul.Bernhardt@utah.edu>
>> Posting History
>>
>> Buckner, M.; Meara, N. M.; Reese, E. J. &
>Reese, M.
>> (1987) Eye movement as an indicator of sensory components in thought.
>> Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(3), 283-287.
>>
>> This study examined the NLP claim that specific
>eye
>> movements are correlated with specific sensory components of thought.
>They
>> found fairly substantial support for this NLP claim.
> NLP trained
>observers
>> of the videotapes of the subjects' eyes showed high coeficients of
>> agreements (Cohen's K) with the subject's self reports for the
>auditory
>> and the visual portions of the model.
> The kinesthetic portion did not have support.
>> Very interesting, seems well controlled,
>judging
>> from the fairly clear abstract.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> Subject: Re: What is NLP?
>> Date: 1997/01/11
>> Author: Paul Bernhardt <Paul.Bernhardt@utah.edu>
>> Posting History
>>
>> Baddeley,M. & Predebon, J. (1991). ``Do the eyes
>> have it?": A test of neurolinguistic programming's eye-movement
>> hypothesis. Australian Journal of Clinical Hypnotherapy and Hypnosis,
>> 12(1), 1-23;
>>
>> This paper describes two studies of 62 women.
>The
>> results failed to support NLP though some post-hoc analyses were
>> consistant with NLP predictions. Auditory remembered questions were
>more
>> likely than expected by chance to be associated with a greater number
>of
>> predicted eye movements.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> Subject: Re: An Ethical Dilemma
>> Date: 1997/02/08
>> Author Paul Bernhardt <Paul.Bernhardt@utah.edu>
>> Posting History
>>
>> > In article <32f7cd16.6330380@news.tiac.net>,
>> > Margaret Tarbet <tarbet@swaa.com> wrote:
>> > >On 4 Feb 1997 14:21:16 -0700,
>> > >bgoodric@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Bill Goodrich)
>wrote:
>> >
>> > >>Peter Who?
>> >
>> > >>Paul pointed out that there are a number of
>> Case Studies in the
>> > >>mainstream literature which tend to support
>> specific NLP
>> > >techniques.
>> >
>>
>> Just so it is clear what I found in my
>> investigation: practically the only supportive literature for NLP
>> techniques were case studies. All but a very few studies that compared
>NLP
>> techniques or indicators with controls or other techniques did not
>find
>> support for NLP.
This is not what the abstracts above seem to show, although certainly they cannot be cited as conclusive support for NLP.
As I understand the term ``case study,'' it refers to a report of some particularly significant work that a psychologist or psychiatrist did with a client (or possibly a few clients) during the course of his usual practice. As contrasted with ``clinical trials,'' which would refer to a situation were subjects were systematically recruited for the purpose of testing a particular method.
I can certainly believe that your literature search turned up a lot of case studies, but the abstracts you give don't reflect this.
[ Some arguments by Bill Goodrich deleted at this point. Not because I disagree with them, but simply for reasons of space. ]
>> ***
>> Subject: Re: What is NLP?
>> Date: 1997/01/11
>> Author: Paul Bernhardt
><Paul.Bernhardt@m.cc.utah.edu>
>> Posting History
>>
>> Wertheim, E. H.; Habib, C. ; Cumming, G. (1986)
>> Test of the neurolinguistic programming hypothesis that eye-movements
>> relate to processing imagery. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62(2),
>523-529
>>
>> NLP supporters would doubtless be very happy
>about
>> this report except that it is published in Perceptual and Motor
>Skills. I
>> believe it is generally considered a vanity journal, could someone
>confirm
>> that? The study supports, via planned comparisons, that visual,
>auditory,
>> and kinesthetic stimuli resulted in eye positions consistant with NLP
>> theories. But some of the results were not quite what was expected so
>it
>> was unclear to me where the support really was.
So it's hard to know what conclusion to draw, but this one certainly cannot be counted as a negative.
>> ***
>> Subject: Re: What is NLP?
>> Date: 1997/01/11
>> Author: Paul Bernhardt <Paul.Bernhardt@utah.edu>
>> Posting History
>>
>> Jupp, J. J. (1989) Neurolinguistic programming:
>An
>> experimental test of the effectiveness of ``leading'' in hypnotic
>> inductions. British Journal of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis,
>6(2),
>> 91-97;
>>
>> Preassessment of 60 subjects divided them into
>3
>> groups based on primary representational system (visual, kinesthetic,
>or
>> auditory). They were also tested for hypnotic susceptibility. The
>results
>> failed to suport NLP propositions that subject's susceptibility to
>> hypnosis can be improved.
Interesting, but not a key NLP hypothesis. If the results of this study are in fact valid, it indicates that NLP is not always completely right in every assertion ever made.
Such a conclusion would not surprise me.
>> ***
>> Subject: Re: What is NLP?
>> Date: 1997/01/11
>> Author: Paul Bernhardt <Paul.Bernhardt@utah.edu>
>> Posting History
>>
>> Salas, J. A.; de-Groot, H ; Spanos, N. P.
(1989)
>> Neuro-linguistic programming and hypnotic responding: An empirical
>> evaluation. Journal of Mental Imagery, 13(1), 79-89
>>
>>
This study failed to find any support for NLP. 80 subjects
>> were asked questions designed to elicit imagery of various
forms
>> (auditory, visual, and kinesthetic) as well as apparent controls (open
>> ended questions). Direction of gaze did not depend on the types of
>>imagery elicited.
Another study on eye accessing cues, this one failing to find any support at all. My comments on eye accessing cues appear above.
--
He who can keep his head when all those around him are losing theirs
is likely to wind up getting his head chopped off.
--- Bogus quote