Research on NLP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article summarizes the current state and findings of research into neuro-linguistic programming, a field stated by its founders to provide a way to examine and decompose human subjective experience and communication into component parts, generate models from these, and work with them.

At present, research is conflictive, with some reporting positive results, some finding no evidence whatsoever, a large number of major bodies including NLP on the basis of field experience of its effectiveness, and a large number claiming it to be pseudoscience and a cult. Thus the research is quite varied.

Four consistent factors appear to be:- (a) That the results of scientific testing depend greatly upon whether the testing is of one item in isolation, or of full contextual use; (b) whether skilled NLP practitioners are used or not; (c) whether experimenters understand what they are testing and design their tests accordingly; and that (d) NLP has developed in an undisciplined manner and although often anecdotally effective, is often exaggerated, used to boster unlikely claims, or not described to scientific standards.

This article is in draft, and awaiting the insertion of material. Please leave section heading as they stand.

Contents 1 Overview of researching NLP 1.1 Design factors 1.2 Proponents views on researching NLP 1.3 Critics views on researching NLP 2 Summary of research 3 Research 3.1 Primary research concluding NLP is ineffective or unproven 3.2 Primary research concluding NLP is unfounded or pseudoscience 3.3 Primary research concluding NLP is (or might be in some ways) effective 3.4 Research performed by reviews of literature 3.5 Other empirical evidence and reported case studies 3.6 Adoption: other fields using NLP approaches 3.7 Anecdotal evidence 4 Criticisms and rebuttals of research 5 External links

[edit] Overview of researching NLP

Although NLP, like many other subjects such as engineering and evolution cannot be "proven" in the way that logic can, it is a field that claims to produce insight and models, and effect positive changes for subjects in some way "better" than might be expected on average, and is therefore accessible to at least five major types of testing:

• Efficacy - does it seem to work, or show signs of a positive effect? Do test subjects report improvement? Note that most techniques will show a placebo effect and good testing must take account of and exclude this possibility.
• Prediction and explanation - considered an acid test in science, a good theory should allow for a higher than expected degree of prediction and validation of theoretical results against observed reality, and agreement between stated practice and neutral observation. Ideally it should also where possible provide some form of formulation of an explanation that provides additional insight into certain classes of observed phenomenae.
• Replicability - are the results obtained consistently replicable by others, or at other times?
• Scientific plausibility - does science know of a reason it does not appear to be possible, or alternatively, does it fit in with existing knowledge?
• Consistency and fit with everyday human experience - since NLP is the study of human subjective experience, human beings can – in theory – inquire internally to validate if its conclusions "make sense" or seem to fit their internal and external perception)

Further, suggestive, evidence can be found by examining the degree and nature of adoption and acceptance of NLP-based material into other fields.

[edit] Design factors

Complicating factors in researching NLP are:

• NLP's subject matter is subjective, rather than objective, and comprises generalizations and subjective perception (like psychotherapy) not predictions (like physics)
• NLP does not have the same model of "problem" and "solution" as classical psychotherapy, instead its model is based upon helping clients to overcome their own self-perceived problems, in such a way as respects their own individuality and their own wisdom to choose such goals as they may need as they learn more about their problems, and to modify and specify those goals further as a result of the extended interaction. So in a sense its efficacy is in many ways considered a client judgement, rather than a clinical judgement, insofar as it is usually the client who had the perception of a problem initially and had approached a therapist because of this. Also because of this, terms like "cure" or "benefit" in NLP is defined differently in NLP than in classical psychiatry, because NLP does not necessarily see presenting symptoms in terms of "illness", per se.
• Whilst NLP can often be made separable for testing purposes, however the methods of NLP are intended to be used within a context, and strongly depend upon the context and practitioner, for their efficacy. Likewise NLP regards observations of single patterns as useful but not definitive, since communication takes place with many different body languages in parallel and no one alone can be relied upon. So formally isolating one claimed observation is not "testing NLP" as such, nor likely to provide insightful results.
• NLP is an experiential practice requiring specialized observation skills and skilled management of the practitioner's range of responses. Whilst observations are demonstrable to third parties, the actual observation process requires significant experience. Good NLP, and good NLP testing, usually requires experienced practitioners with integral involvement from beginning to end, rather than conceptual understanding.
• Some proponents believe NLP is non-testable, or are strongly opposed to testing
• Some proponents have made highly exaggerated or unlikely claims for NLP which are hard to distinguish from more balanced claims.
• The uses of NLP itself, as opposed to in its classical form, have become cult-like, and such practitioners as follow this path seem to be more usually prone to "hype" and again less willing to be tested.
• There is no one definitive NLP, nor is there a worldwide professional standard. (Although there is broad agreement on "core classical NLP", and highly reputed practitioners). Additionally, classic books on NLP are instructive, but insufficient, as a guide for experimental design.

These are not fatal to research, nor does NLP itself appear to present any fundamental reason why it would not be susceptible to validation under the scientific method. Much research has been undertaken. That said, the significance of these factors is that research must be undertaken with a good knowledge of the subject being researched, and probably would involve discussion with capable practitioners who can identify design flaws and problematic goals or methods.

Einspruch & Forman (1985) believe that Sharpley (1984) failed to consider numerous methodological errors in his review of NLP research (which Sharpley rebutted in a paper in 1987). The categories of errors claimed to include:

• Researcher’s lack of full understanding of pattern recognition in an experienced NLP context.
• Inadequate control of context
• Unfamiliarity with NLP as an approach to therapy
• Inadequate definitions of rapport
• "Logical mistakes"

A further cause, namely scientific disinterest, is speculated by some NLP proponents, who allege that formal journals are reluctant to accept formal papers on NLP sample user's comment

[edit] Proponents views on researching NLP

Robbins (1995) notes four primary problems with attempting to experimentally test neuro-linguistic programming.

• Experimenters are rarely sufficiently trained in NLP skills and techniques. Their objectivity is also often in doubt
• There is no quality control in NLP. There is no one governing body which is recognized by all training institutes, and can speak for the subject, and therefore the credibility of NLP as a scientific practice has been marred by incompetent trainers. (Nearly all other scientific fields have either nationally or internationally recognized certification processes and guidelines)
• NLP is untestable when specific techniques are isolated from the entire methodology. ("Much of NLP research tries to "prove" diagnostics, like the eye movement or predicate accessing cues. NLP does not [formally] say there is an [objective] underlying relationship between these cues and the type of cognitive processing. NLP says if you [subjectively work on the basis there may be], you will get certain results by using the pretended relationship to guide the intervention. The distinction is critical") (p. 1-2)
• Certain previous research has attempted to use DSM-III diagnostics with NLP techniques. Neuro-linguistic programming is a model of diagnosis, and the diagnostic aspect is intrinsic to and intertwined with the treatment. The NLP diagnosis determines the NLP intervention, and every interaction in the treatment might modify the approach and diagnosis. Neuro-linguistic programming interventions have not shown to be effective (in previous research) with DSM-III diagnosis, but research would need to be conducted to determine the effectiveness of NLP interventions with NLP diagnosis. An NLP intervention cannot be tested in isolation, with a traditional psychological diagnosis (or vice versa).

Many proponents of neuro-linguistic programming (e.g., Einspruch & Forman, 1985; Robbins, 1995; Dilts, 1983) state that the procedures and interventions generated from the NLP model must be used within the presuppositions contained in the model. Previous research has attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of NLP techniques by isolating one piece or portion of the model and examine it as an independent pattern. Dilts states, "The various techniques that make up the body of NLP were isolated and made explicit, as separate pieces, in order to make them easily learnable. In order to make them useful, however, they must be applied simultaneously, as a whole" (1983, p.65-66).

Dilts (1983) defends neuro-linguistic programming on several fronts. Two directions may be taken when researching a particular model or theory. Research may be designed to evaluate the truthfulness of the model’s claims, or may be designed to evaluate the usefulness of the model’s claims. Neuro-linguistic programming as a field of study is not concerned with researching the truthfulness of the model, only the usefulness. NLP is an outcome-oriented model, and according to Dilts, usefulness is determined by the effectiveness of an intervention.

Source: Determining the Effectiveness of Neuro-Linguistic Programming Training for Professionals, Robert W. Norris (1997) (with minor edits for clarity)

[edit] Critics views on researching NLP

[edit] Summary of research

[edit] Research

Research can broadly (for the sake of this article) be divided into various types:

• Primary research, where a scientific approach is taken and NLP evaluated as any other field would be
• Reviews of literature, which are more a collation and view on existing research, (which should be cited above) than additional research. (In other words, the fact that A has researched NLP and B has reviewed that research, is one research with two views, and not two researches)
• Other empirical evidence and reported case studies, in that NLP by its own claim is "what works", so studies that test whether it appears those claims are ultimately met are relevant
• Adoption into other fields
• Anecdotal evidence, usually the weakest form since it is often mere personal opinion. However a large body of anecdotal evidence may be at least relevant to note and consider.

[edit] Primary research concluding NLP is ineffective or unproven

[edit] Primary research concluding NLP is unfounded or pseudoscience

[edit] Primary research concluding NLP is (or might be in some ways) effective

[edit] Research performed by reviews of literature

[edit] Other empirical evidence and reported case studies

[edit] Adoption: other fields using NLP approaches

• NLP has been adopted into political campaigning, where it has been credited by George Lakoff (professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley and one of America's foremost linguists) as being responsible for significant Republican voter influence and perception modification in the 1990's. Three examples are given in the article Persuasion uses of NLP: Political campaigns
• NLP developed various models regarding the work of Milton Erickson, a wide range of models of which the linguistic Milton Model is one part often cited. These models, covering linguistics, regression, observation, metaphor, non-verbal communication, utilization and many other techniques, form the backbone for modern clinical hypnotherapy. When they were published, Milton Erickson wrote in the preface in respect of Grinder and bandler's modelling methodology and its results: "Although this book by Richard Bandler and John Grinder is far from being a complete description of my methodologies, as they so clearly state, it is a much better explanation of how I work than I, myself, can give. I know what I do, but to explain how I do it is much too difficult for me." (The Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson M.D., preface)

[edit] Anecdotal evidence

[edit] Criticisms and rebuttals of research

(this is both

• Criticisms by practitioners or other reviewers of the scientific research

and

• Criticisms by scientists of poor quality or dubious NLP-positive research)

• JobEQ states: "The main focus of the persons involved in NLP became training "NLP practitioners", rather than doing new research. Also, NLP's research methods may be seen as "outdated" when compared to modern research standards in psychology, which put more stress on statistics. While some NLPers are working hard to prove the scientific validity of their methods (e.g. see the NLP Research Data Base), some other NLPers, including John Grinder, now even dismiss that psychological research methods would apply to NLP modeling or NLP research in general (Grinder, 2002). As a result, a valid criticism has been that "NLP modeling" projects (of patterns of excellence, based on high-performance models) are often not verified through statistical methods (e.g. see the Entry for Neurolinguistic Programming in the Skeptic's Dictionary (Robert Todd Carroll, 2003)). If one wants to be taken seriously in science, one needs to use statistical/psychological methods to prove that the techniques developed from patterns indeed relate to the patterns of the source models. Thus it is not surprising to find NLP mentioned in the "Encyclopedia of pseudoscience" (2000, edited by Dr. William F. Williams)"

[edit] External links

• Research Database
• Database and review of academic literature on NLP
• Summary of NLP research by Richard Bolstad
• a comprehensive referenced page by JobEQ on NLP foundations, research and scientific views
• List and Abstracts of European NLP research (DOC)
• Putting the 'neuro' back into neuro-linguistic programming (Dr R. Bolstad, 2003), a long paper going through NLP and connecting its various ideas back to reported neurological research.]
• Neural networks and NLP strategies