NLP and science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is under development, and also missing citations for certain statements
One of a series of articles on
Neuro-linguistic programming
(NLP)

Main articles
NLP · Principles · Topics · History
NLP and science · Therapy · Bibliography

Concepts and methods
Modeling · Meta model · Milton model
Perceptual positions · Rapport · Reframing
Representation systems · Submodalities
Positive intention · Meta program · Neurological levels
Anchoring · Well-formed outcome

People
Richard Bandler · John Grinder
Robert Dilts · Stephen Gilligan
Judith DeLozier · David Gordon
Connirae Andreas · Steve Andreas
Frank Pucelik · Paul McKenna
Ross Jeffries · Tony Robbins
Genie Laborde · Charles Faulkner

Principal influences
Fritz Perls · Gestalt therapy
Milton Erickson · Hypnotherapy
Virginia Satir · Family therapy
Transformational linguistics
Gregory Bateson · Paul Watzlawick
Epistemology · Double Bind
Alfred Korzybski · Map-territory
Frank Farrelly · Provocative therapy

This box: view • talk • edit

Studies related to Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) and science have been undertaken virtually since NLP was first formulated in the early 1970s.

Due to its inherent preference for pragmatism over theory, its lack of formal and theoretical structure, and its lack of controls over usage, NLP doesn't always lend itself well to the scientific method. Equally (as scientific researchers have pointed out), attempts have also been greatly obfusticated by other factors, not least of which are poor scientific appreciation of the subject being researched, failure to fully consider, control and understand all key variables, unrealistic claims by some practitioners, and often, lack of high quality experimental design.

This finding was supported when, in 1988, both Heap and Druckman independently concluded that most studies to that date were "heavily flawed"[1] and that the "effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated."[2]

There is significant evidence, both in research and anecdotally, that NLP does something significantly more than a placebo,[3] but (in common with much of the psychological field as a whole) it is hard to test empirically, and lack of scientific approval or mixed findings are not uncommon. Therefore NLP has not yet been held to rigorous scientific standards, and much of the evidence is still anecdotal or debated.

Contents

[edit] Comparison of NLP and science

Science and NLP diverge in the area of how the scientific method is applied. In NLP, a "hypothesis" relates not to human processes in general, but to the inner processes of a given person at the present time, the relationship between the observable exterior and the unobservable interior, and the presence of other potential processes and inner structures which may be evidenced by deduction or suspected from prior experience. These then, form the hypotheses which NLP tests.

The methodology of NLP has therefore been compared to an engineering discipline, in that it seeks what works, rather than what is theory or true in a testable sense. It is also comparable to heuristic problem-solving methods, in that the methods of NLP are tools for the uncovering of information and for the refinement of approaches, and the information uncovered is simultaneously information about the landscape, as well as refinements to the heuristic algorithm which can help better identify what a solution might look like, and to find optimal 'next steps' to any of the many possible solutions.

A notable difference is that the subject-object or observer-observed barrier is explicitly removed in NLP, with results said to be influenced by the quality of the relational context ("rapport") achieved.

All of this sharply contrasts with many natural sciences, in which hypotheses are normally created around theories and facts of nature that are relatively static and independent of the observer. Accordingly (in common with many human-oriented fields) it is necessary to ask whether NLP is expected to act like a science, or whether it acts more like a black box in which the only effective measure is to statistically evaluate quality of output for a given input.

Many adherents argue that NLP is like a science in that NLP has a body of accepted knowledge and it has the ability to be scientifically tested. Both agree that it is virtually impossible to make inferences from human senses which actually describe what is, but by forming and testing hypotheses based on observations made in the world, both seek to form useful generalizations about the subject concerned (known in science as theories), which can be tested and used, often predictively.

However, a high degree of variability in each individual trial, the vagarities of human whim and craftsmanship, and the existence of multiple optimal solutions, are inherent in NLP's structure. So trial by means of too rigidly defined fixed process is unworkable, since the degree of rigidity could exclude that which is intended to be tested.

Overall, NLP's results are broadly at some level, metaphorical tools which are believed to have an unusual ability to indirectly manipulate neurological structures, to obtain subjectively beneficial ends (rather than natural entities that exist or do not). Used appropriately in situ they will be found effective or non-effective rather than "true" or "untrue", and this can be tested for scientifically in a number of ways. In addition, some direct testing is possible, insofar as some forms of neurological processing can be monitored or verified clinically.

[edit] Particular factors of difficulty in studying NLP

  • Lack of definition
  • Strong basis in client feedback and individualized (and potentially multiple approaches)
  • Lack of paradigm belief in "works/doesn't work", or "solution A solves problem B"; rather, NLP believes in a willingness to explore problem spaces.
  • Strong reliance upon metaphorical process: it is not clear what is intended to be taken literally, and what is merely a convenient metaphor to be interpreted by the brain.

Actual clinical studies have been more productive, but many are merely suggestive or lack formal academic rigor. Equally (as researchers have pointed out), attempts have also been greatly obfusticated by many other factors, not least of which are unrealistic claims by some practitioners, poor scientific understanding of the subject being researched, failure to fully consider, control and understand all key variables, and often, lack of high quality experimental design. Key issues expected or highlighted include:

  1. NLP is intended to be used to a goal, and contains redundancy. That is, no single strategy or approach is expected to be 100% consistent (since people vary so much), but NLP's approach overall is believed to have a better chance of producing notably more valuable information, and better potentiate change, in a more systematic manner, and in a wider range of circumstances, than previous alternatives. Much of NLP is approach-guiding principles rather than beliefs. Metastudies highlight that it is often important to measure its in situ effectiveness rather than its assumptions, many of which are metaphorical.
  2. People can misunderstand themselves, and therefore their goals are moving goals. NLP allows for this. The measure of "success" is very often subjective to the client, or may change during working, and this is an expected aspect of working with people.
  3. NLP relies on micro-observation and virtuosity (i.e., smoothness of a wide range of skill use). It is important that skilled NLP practitioners are involved in planning, and (where appropriate) as elements within experimental design, to take account of this.
  4. Not all NLP training is equal. It is important when studying "NLP" to study excellence in the field, rather than niche or exaggerating practitioners.

[edit] Known weaknesses or outdated material in NLP

[edit] How NLP practitioners test NLP in practice

Integrating the NLP skills and concepts into your BEHAVIOUR (what you do...how you act) is the evidence procedure as to how NLP practitioners test the theory in a practical environment. NLP is a broad field that continues to develop at a rapid rate as key experts in the field continue to push the boundaries of personal development using the core tools developed from the intial studies of Bandler & Grinder.

Testing the theory is the basis for NLP, an NLP proficient person is tested and when they have proven their ability are usually termed a "Practitioner", one who practices ongoing is the ideal theory behind this.

So how can we test NLP in practice? This is two fold, it is about how it impacts others and more importantly how it impacts the individual. The key areas most training in NLP focuses on are as follows:

1.Knowledge - The principle and techniques that surround the practical application of NLP (e.g. States, Anchoring, Meta and Milton Models, Well formed outcomes, Rapport, Representational Systems, presuppositions, calibration, submodalaties, predicates, pattern interupts, reframing, metaphors & sensory accuity to name the more common ones.) 2.Attitude - Integration of point 1 and point 3

3.Behaviuor - Demonstarting in practicality the ability to apply the knwoledge. For example managing your own states, ability to chunk up and down as necessary, practical application of frames and re-framing. calibrsation of non verbal ques, identifucation of own and others key representational systems and being able to modify these to achieve rapport and demonstarte this by using skills and techniques such as pacing and leading.

Having a knowledge of the core areas of NLP is one thing, actively being able to use them is something different entirely. There are numerous exercises that can be requested and performed to demonstarte the eficiency of that technique. As with all therapies they fit different people differently.

An example anyone can try without mcuh if any assumed knwoledge of NLP is:

Identify how you are feling right now. You may be relaxed, inquisitive, curious, bored, tired... the list is endless just think about you now, what word would you use to dientfy how you feel right now? (NLP refers to this as your current state.)

Now, once you know what your current state if lets have a look at how your mind works and how it can influence you.

Think about someone who means a lot to you, a friend, a parent, a partner... someone whom you feel that emotion, that depth of sensation love. The most important individual for you who is on this earth.

When you firmly have the person that means so much to you in mind please go ahead and picture them, close your eyes if it helps, see them in that great memory or maybe the last time you saw them and you felt that rush of love emotion. Hear them now as they say your name....

Thank you, I'm hoping most people are smiling and feeling good even if momentarily. Check your state... how did it differ from when I asked you a few momeents ago?

Most people will experience a distinct change, if you have not, dont worry, this is a small experiement and it is much mpore effective explianing it to another and watching their reaction. That way they dont get any idea of what the outcome possible should be and they will just follwo directions and re-act.

Our mind creates our emotive state, our physioloigy is linked to that. You can change your mind whenevere you want to and that in turn can change your feelings (state).

Dr H Phoenix

[edit] Research findings

[edit] Scientific approaches to studying NLP

[edit] Comments and criticisms of research assumptions and methods

  • "There appear to be some significant methodological problems with the existing research evidence, together with the dangers referred to of concentrating on specific techniques while taking insufficient account of context. These problems may hinge around the phenomenological nature of NLP and the attitude of its practitioners to research, as well as some of the inherent contradictions that arise from the theoretical bases on which NLP draws."[4]
  • "Sharpley's [1984] review is a reasonably thorough summary of some published articles on NLP, and he is to be commended for his efforts. The authors of studies he reviews make fundamental errors by neglecting the NLP model of pattern recognition, linguistic communication, and therapeutic intervention. In addition, these authors focus on the primary representational system (PRS) and reify the term, another major mistake"[5]

[edit] Published studies on NLP or its principles

Main article: List of studies on Neuro-linguistic programming#Published studies on NLP or its principles

It is important to recognize, that research -- both scientific and within NLP -- is susceptible to a variety of experimental errors. Readers should be aware of this if relying upon any given report, and confirm for themselves whether those concerned have taken adequate measures to control for known sources of error.

[edit] Findings within neuroscience and cognitive science

Main article: List of studies on Neuro-linguistic programming#Findings within neuroscience and cognitive science

[edit] User evaluation of NLP

A further source of views is anecdotal evidence. This is not the same as scientific evidence. If it is widely regarded, or comes from reputable stable bodies with a reputation for credibility, and especially if it appears they have tested it themselves and use it out of the benefits they have found, it can be suggestive that there are benefits to be realized. Scientists consider anecdotal evidence by its nature to be suggestive only - this is since anecdotal evidence is usually of variable quality, may be susceptible to placebo effects and other confounds, and not usually tested to formal scientific standards.

A large number of reputable bodies use NLP, including clinical, psychiatric, non-profit health, law enforcement, government, and education, giving rise to a significant number of sustained strongly positive reports. (See: List of users of Neuro-linguistic programming)

A number of reports suggest that (also anecdotally) other users have encountered charlatans and low quality or charismatic trainers who place reliance upon emotional contagion rather than methodical formal practice. (See: History of NLP -- NLP buzz)

The Irish National Center for Guidance in Education's "Guidance Counsellor's Handbook"[6] sums up NLP's user evaluation, stating that:

"NLP has been successfully applied in fields such as business, sport, teaching, the performing arts, counselling, therapy, conflict resolution, stress management and learning [...] In recent years, particularly in the USA and France, NLP has been applied with increasing success in primary and secondary education. NLP is used to great effect in maximising the effectiveness of our group teaching, in communicating more resourcefully with individual students and with our colleagues, in understanding individual learning and motivation strategies, in developing our 1:1 counselling skills and in our own personal development. NLP has been able to break down, in a similar way, the series of behaviours that consistently lead to high levels of motivation, to successful stress management, to overcoming fears and phobias and to planning for the future..."

but also that:

"Unfortunately, NLP has a history of so-called Practitioners overstating... their training... It is probably necessary to go [overseas] to be sure of training with highly qualified trainers."

This view is supported by several researchers, including Dowlen (1996),[7] and Platt (2001).[8]

However, in 1996, a US survey of clinical psychologists, measuring their opinions about different treatments, showed NLP to be one of the psychological therapies perceived by clinicians as being most pseudoscientific and questionable. [9][dubious — see talk page]

[edit] Analysis of research

[edit] Summary of research

Sharpley (1987) stated, in the positivist psychological tradition,[10][dubious — see talk page] that the techniques and underlying theory of NLP, as a counseling tool, were both empirically unvalidated and unsupported.[11] A literature review by Sharpley (1984) found "little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool"[12] and no reproducible support for preferred representational systems (PRS) and predicate matching.[13] Sharpley (1987) states "there are conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by those data".

Einspruch and Forman (1985) broadly agreed with Sharpley but disputed the conclusions identifying a failure to address methodological errors in the research reviewed. They argued that the researchers lacked a full understanding of pattern recognition as part of advanced NLP training and furthermore, that there was inadequate control of context, an unfamiliarity with NLP as an approach to therapy, inadequate definitions of rapport and numerous logical mistakes in the research methodology.[14]

However, Sharpley (1987) replied with more experiments stating "certainly research data do not support the rather extreme claims that proponents of NLP have made as to the validity of its principles or the novelty of its procedures." and also that NLP may be untestable stating "perhaps NLP principles are not amenable to research evaluation. This does not necessarily reduce NLP to worthlessness for counseling practice. Rather, it puts NLP in the same category as psychoanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but, nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field."[11]

In 1988 a report by Druckman and Swets from the United States National Research Council, found that "individually, and as a group, these studies fail to provide an empirical base of support for NLP assumptions...or NLP effectiveness. The committee cannot recommend the employment of such an unvalidated technique". They also concluded influence techniques of NLP were unsupported (including matching representational systems to gain rapport). Moreover "instead of being grounded in contemporary, scientifically derived neurological theory, NLP is based on outdated metaphors of brain functioning and is laced with numerous factual errors". They conceeded that the idea of modeling of expert performance "merits further consideration" [15] but NLP itself was not included in a follow up study on modeling (amongst other matters) by Swets and Bjork (1991) except by way of acknowledgment for the idea which has been pursued through other disciplines.[16]

Efran and Lukens (1990) stated that the "original interest in NLP turned to disillusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy".[17]

An editor has expressed concern that this article or section is unbalanced.
Please help improve the article by adding information and sources on neglected viewpoints.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Barry Beyerstein (1990) asserts that "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies."[18] With reference to all the 'neuromythologies' covered in his article, including NLP, he states "In the long run perhaps the heaviest cost extracted by neuromythologists is the one common to all pseudosciences—deterioration in the already low levels of scientific literacy and critical thinking in society. "[18]

According to Von Bergen et al (1997) NLP was dropped from the experimental psychology research stream. They stated that "in relation to current understanding of neurology and perception, NLP is in error" and that "NLP does not stand up to scientific scrutiny" [19].

Carbonell and Figley of Florida State University Traumatology published an exploratory study (1999) on Visual/Kinesthetic Disassociation a component of NLP and three other novel treatments or power therapies for trauma (Thought Field Therapy or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing and Traumatic Incident Reduction), which was not designed to be a comparison study and the methodology used was the "systematic clinical demonstration (SCD) methodology.[20][21] This methodology guides the examination, but does not test the effectiveness of clinical approaches".[22] With reference to Brief Treatments for the Traumatized (including NLP) John Wilson states that while it is "adequately descriptive of the clinical procedures, there is little, if any, empirically validated dated outcome studies to substantiate a theory driven and research informed brief treatment (p. 173–207)."[23][21]

Donald Eisner (2000) in 'The Death of Psychotherapy', states that not "one iota of clinical research supports their (NLP proponents) claims. Apparently, no peer-reviewed researched has been published in over a decade. Moreover, there has been virtually no comparative research recently that assesses NLP's effectiveness." Eisner (2000) believes that with no clinical support, NLP proponents make grossly misleading claims about its effectiveness.[24]

Evidence-based psychologist Lilienfield et al (2002)), describe NLP as "a scientifically unsubstantiated therapeutic method that purports to "program" brain functioning through a variety of techniques, including mirroring the postures and nonverbal behaviors of clients" and include it in their description "(Quick Fix + Pseudoscientific Gloss) x Credulous Public = High Income".[25]

Grant Devilly (2005) states that "at the time of its introduction, NLP was heralded as a breakthrough in therapy and advertisements for training workshops, videos and books began to appears in trade magazines. The workshops provided certification... However, controlled studies shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further and even suggested that NLP was an untestable theory"..."NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 1970s or 1980s, but is still practiced in small pockets of the human resource community. The science has come and gone, yet the belief still remains".[26]

NLP is often associated with the work of the influential hypnotherapist Milton Erickson, upon whose techniques it was originally modelled to a large extent. However, other hypnotherapists have criticised the NLP interpretation of Erickson's work. Andre Weitzenhoffer, an influential Stanford researcher and former colleague of Erickson was an important critic of NLP. He rejects the NLP version of Ericksonian hypnosis, concluding that in terms of their evidence-base, “the neurolinguistic programming notions of Bandler and Grinder […] have very little substance and no empirical foundations.” (Weitzenhoffer, The Practice of Hypnotism, 2000: 108).

Albert Ellis, the founder of REBT, recently dismissed NLP as one of the “techniques that are avoided” in his approach, picking it out as his key example of a therapy rejected from evidence-based treatment because of its “dubious validity” (Dryden & Ellis, in Dobson, 2001: 331).

Michael Heap one of the UK's leading researchers on hypnotism, conducted a systematic review of the research literature on NLP and found, after analysis of over 60 research studies, that it was lacking in evidence,

The present author is satisfied that the assertions of NLP writers concerning the representational systems have been objectively and fairly investigated and found to be lacking. These assertions are stated in unequivocal terms by the originators of NLP and it is clear from their writings that phenomena such as representational systems, predicate preferences and eye-movement patterns are claimed to be potent psychological processes, easily and convincingly demonstrable on training courses by tutors and trainees following simple instructions, and, indeed, in interactions in everyday life.

Adding,

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. […] These conclusions, and the failure of investigators to convincingly demonstrate the alleged benefits of predicate matching, seriously question the role of such a procedure in counselling. (Michael Heap, Hypnosis: Current Clinical, Experimental & Forensic Practices, 1988)

[edit] NLP as protoscience?

Protoscience is a term sometimes used to describe a hypothesis or model that has not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method, but which is otherwise consistent with existing science, or – where inconsistent – offers reasonable account of the inconsistency. It may also describe the transition from a non-rigorous body of practical knowledge into a scientific field.

In Whispering in the Wind Grinder & Bostic St Clair (2001) make suggestions about what needs to be done next to "improve the practice [of NLP] and take its rightful place as a scientifically based endeavor with its precise focus on one of the extremes of human bahavior: excellence and the high performers who actually do it."[27] So at least one of the co-founders think that NLP can organise itself as a legitimate scientifically based discipline.

[edit] NLP as pseudoscience?

[edit] Quotes

"Neuro-Linguistic Programming is an extraordinarily complex model of human cognition and behavior and of how to identify behavioral and communication patterns and interrupt these patterns in a deliberate way so as to achieve predictable outcomes. Eye scanning patterns and representational systems are an important, but small, part of NLP. It is difficult to understand the NLP framework from the perspective of traditional counseling models; it is much more appropriate to approach it from the framework of mathematics, biology, or cybernetics. Neuro-Linguistic Programming deals with patterns of interactions, and to ignore this basic premise is to miss an essential feature of NLP as a model of understanding and altering human behavior... A number of modifications could be made to improve designs of research conducted on NLP."..."In conclusion, on the basis of the research that has appeared in the literature, it is not possible at this time to determine the validity of either NLP concepts or whether NLP-based therapeutic procedures are effective for achieving therapeutic outcomes. Procedures generated from the NLP model must be used within the presuppositions of the model, and research on reified concepts is trivial in nature and is a distraction from the serious issues relating to testing the NLP model. Only when well-designed empirical investigations are carried out may we be assured of NLP's validity as a model of therapy." [5]

"There appear to be some significant methodological problems with the existing research evidence, together with the dangers referred to of concentrating on specific techniques while taking insufficient account of context. These problems may hinge around the phenomenological nature of NLP and the attitude of its practitioners to research, as well as some of the inherent contradictions that arise from the theoretical bases on which NLP draws."[28]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Druckman (1988) states that anecdotal evidence on NLP is broadly credible and positive, but that most attempted studies are heavily flawed, such as (a) equating subjective empathy with clinical effectiveness, (b) studying NLP as a theory, rather than as an influencing technique pitted against existing influencing techniques, (c) Attempting to replicate findings of NLP using subjects, observers, or experimental designers who lack NLP training, and (d) lack of studies on NLP as a trainer modeling system.
  2. ^ Heap (1988):"Einsprech and Forman are probably correct in insisting that the effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated."
  3. ^ For example, the British Psychological Society awarded its prestigious Level B accreditation (widely recognised as a clear benchmark standard) to CDA for its NLP-based psychmetric tests based on meta-programs. CDA's Technical Director states: "When we explored the NLP phenomenon and the notion of metaprogrammes, we found solid ideas supported by robust psychological theory which provided a sound basis for understanding peoples’ behaviour and thinking." [1]
  4. ^ Ashley Dowlen, "NLP - help or hype?", Career Development International, Feb 1996 p.27-34
  5. ^ a b Einspruch, Eric L., Forman, Bruce D. (1985): "Observations Concerning Research Literature on Neuro-Linguistic Programming." Journal of Counseling Psychology. October, Vol. 32(4) pp. 589-596.
  6. ^ [2] section 1.4.5 [3] (DOC)
  7. ^ Ashley Dowlen, "NLP - help or hype?", published Career Development International, Feb 1996 p. 27 - 34, says "NLP is enthusiastically supported by those who practise it, and that is both its strength and potential weakness".
  8. ^ Platt (2001) states: "the research and the findings of the investigators certainly make it clear that NLP cannot help all people in all situations, which is frequently what is claimed and what practitioners assert."
  9. ^ (Starker S, Pankratz L. (1995). ‘Soundness of treatment: a survey of psychologists’ opinions.’ Psychological Reports 1996;78:288-290.
  10. ^ John E Thompson, Lisa Courtney, D Dickson. (2002) The effect of neurolinguistic programming on organizational and individual performance: A case study Journal of European Industrial Training. Bradford. Vol. 26, Iss. 6/7; p. 292 (7 pages)
  11. ^ a b Sharpley C.F. (1987). "Research Findings on Neuro-linguistic Programming: Non supportive Data or an Untestable Theory". Communication and Cognition Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1987 Vol. 34, No. 1: 103-107,105. 
  12. ^ Buckner, Meara, Reese, and Reese (1987) Journal of Counselling Psychology , Vol. 34(3), pp.283-287
  13. ^ 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.
  14. ^
  15. ^
  16. ^ John A. Swets and Robert A. Bjork (1991) Enhancing human performance: An Evaluation of "New Age" Techniques Considered by the U.S
  17. ^ Efran, J S. Lukens M.D. (1990) Language, structure, and change: frameworks of meaning in psychotherapy, Published by W.W. Norton, New York. p.122
  18. ^ a b
  19. ^ Von Bergen, C W, Barlow Soper, Gary T Rosenthal, Lamar V Wilkinson (1997). "Selected alternative training techniques in HRD". Human Resource Development Quarterly 8(4): 281-294. 
  20. ^ Charles Figley (December 1997). The active ingredients of the Power Therapies. Conference for the Integrative and Innovative Use of EMDR, TFT, EFT, Advanced NLP, and TIR, Lakewood, CO.
  21. ^ a b Bertoli (2003) The Use of Neuro-linguistic Programming and Emotionally focused therapy with Divorcing Couples in Crisis in in Charles R. Figley (Ed) Brief Treatments for the Traumatized: A Project of the Green Cross Foundation
  22. ^ Joyce L. Carbonell, Charles Figley (1999). "Promising PTSD treatment approaches: Systematic Clinical Demonstration of Promising PTSD Treatment Approaches". TRAUMATOLOGYe 5:1, Article 4: -. 
  23. ^ Wilson, John P. (August 2004) Review of Brief Treatments for Trauma and PTSD. PsycCRITIQUES. 49(4):472-474
  24. ^
  25. ^ Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, Jeffrey M. Lohr (eds) (2004) Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology
  26. ^ Grant J. Devilly (2005) Power Therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry Vol.39 p.437
  27. ^
  28. ^ Ashley Dowlen, "NLP - help or hype?", Career Development International, Feb 1996 p.27-34
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/l/p/NLP_and_science_f1c8.html"