| NLP |
|---|
| MeSH D020557 |
|
Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an approach to explaining human behaviour, thought and communication. NLP describes how people represent and communicate with the world, and which gives principles or techniques for identifying thought patterns and behaviour.[1] The founders of NLP, Richard Bandler and John Grinder, originally promoted by it in the 1970s as an extraordinarily effective and rapid form of psychological therapy,[2] capable of addressing the full range of problems which psychologists are likely to encounter, such as phobias, depression, habit disorder, psychosomatic illnesses, and learning disorders.[3] NLP also espoused the potential for self-determination through overcoming learned limitations[4] and emphasised well-being and healthy functioning. Later, it was promoted as a 'science of excellence', derived from the study or 'modelling'[5] of how successful or outstanding people in different fields obtain their results. It was claimed that these skills can be learned by anyone to improve their effectiveness both personally and professionally[6]
The majority of the empirical research into NLP was conducted by psychologists in the 1980s and 1990s. The most cited review, by Christopher Sharpley was published in the Journal of Counseling Psychology in 1984, and found little support for primary representation systems and predicate matching which was the focus of the research at the time. However, several researchers and practitioners have questioned the methodology and validity of the studies.[7] Sharpley's review marked a decline in empirical research interest,[8] though research continues.[9]
Contents |
The majority of the empirical research carried out in the 1980s and 1990s consisted of laboratory experimentation testing Bandler and Grinder's hypothesis[10] that an observer can identify a person's preferred sensory mode of thinking by observing eye-movement cues and sensory predicates in language use.[11] A research review conducted by Christopher Sharpley in 1984,[12] followed by another review in 1987 in response to criticism by Einspruch and Forman,[7] concluded that there was little evidence for the usefulness of NLP as an effective counseling tool.
Sharpley (publishing in the Journal of Counseling Psychology) undertook a literature review of 15 studies on the existence and effectiveness of preferred representational systems (PRS), an underlying principle of NLP. He found "little research evidence supporting its usefulness as an effective counseling tool" and concluded that there was no reproducible support for PRS or for predicate matching.[12]
Sharpley's conclusions have been contested [7] [13] [14] on the grounds that the studies demonstrated an incomplete understanding of the claims of NLP and that the interviewers involved in many of the studies had inadequate training/competence in NLP.[11] Eric Einspruch and Bruce Forman (1985) broadly agreed with Sharpley, although they criticised his apparent failure to address methodological errors in the research reviewed. They claimed that "NLP is far more complex than presumed by researchers, and thus, the data are not true evaluations of NLP"[12] adding that NLP is difficult to test under the traditional counseling psychology framework, and that the research lacked a necessary understanding of pattern recognition as part of advanced NLP training. There was also 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.[15]
In 1987, Sharpley published a response to Einspruch and Forman with a review of a further 7 studies on the same basic tenets (totalling 44 including those cited by Einspruch and Forman).[16] This second article included a review of Elich et al. (1985), a study that found no support for the proposed relationship between eye movements, spoken predicates, and internal imagery. Elich et al. stated that "NLP has achieved something akin to cult status when it may be nothing more than a psychological fad".[17]
Sharpley conceded that a number of NLP techniques are worthwhile or beneficial in counselling, citing predicate matching, mirroring clients behaviors, moving sensory modalities, reframing, anchoring and changing history, but argued that none of these techniques originated within NLP. "NLP may be seen as a partial compendium of rather than as an original contribution to counseling practice and, thereby, has a value distinct from the lack of research data supporting the underlying principles that Bandler and Grinder posited to present NLP as a new and magical theory". He concluded that as a counselling tool, the techniques and underlying theory unique to NLP, were both empirically unvalidated and unsupported but that "if NLP is presented as a theory-less set of procedures gathered from many approaches to counselling, then it may serve as a reference role for therapists who wish to supplement their counselling practice by what may be novel techniques to them."
A study by Buckner et al. (1987, after Sharpley), using trained NLP practitioners found support for the claim that specific eye movement patterns existed for visual and auditory components of thought, and that trained observers could reliably identify them.[18] However, the study did not address whether such patterns indicated a preferred representational system. They also made suggestions for further research.
Krugman et al. (1985) tested claims for a 'one-session' treatment of performance anxiety against another method and a control group and found no support for claims of a 'one-session' effective treatment.[19] Buckner et al. however argued for further research into NLP amongst other treatments that have "achieved popularity in the absence of data supporting their utility".
As part of a study that investigated various psychological techniques for learning, improving motor skills, altering mental states, stress management and social influence at the request of the US Army Research Institute, the Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of Human Performance (United States National Research Council) selected several heavily marketed human performance enhancement techniques that made strong claims for their efficacy. Many of the techniques evaluated happened to have origins in the human potential movement. NLP was selected as a strategy for social influence and was evaluated by the psychological techniques committee directed by social psychologist Daniel Druckman.[20] The committee was already aware of the weak support for preferred representation systems (PRS) in the literature and noted that the body of research had largely not tested NLP beyond the assumptions related to PRS (consistent with the Sharpley's literature review in Journal of Counseling Psychology). However, the effect of matching predicates on all representations showed strong effect on perceptions.[21]
The NRC came to two conclusions. First, the committee "found little if any" evidence to support NLP’s assumptions or to indicate that it is effective as a strategy for social influence. "It assumes that by tracking another’s eye movements and language, an NLP trainer can shape the person’s thoughts, feelings, and opinions (Dilts, 1983[22]). There is no scientific support for these assumptions."[23] Secondly, the committee "were impressed with the modeling approach used to develop the technique. The technique was developed from careful observations of the way three master psychotherapists conducted their sessions, emphasizing imitation of verbal and nonverbal behaviors. This then led the committee to take up the topic of expert modeling in the second phase of its work."[23] These studies marked a decline in research interest in NLP generally, and particularly in matching sensory predicates and its use in counsellor-client relationship in counseling psychology.[24]
Michael Heap (1988) conducted a systematic review of the research literature on NLP and found that it was lacking in evidence.
Adding,
Heap (1988) remarks [26] that if the assertions made by proponents of NLP about representational systems and their behavioural manifestations are correct, then its founders have made remarkable discoveries about the human mind and brain, which would have important implications for human psychology, particularly cognitive science and neuropsychology. Yet there is no mention of them in learned textbooks or journals devoted to these disciplines. Neither is this material taught in psychology courses at the pre-degree and degree level. When Heap spoke to academic colleagues who spend much time researching and teaching in these fields, they showed little awareness, if any, of NLP.[26][27]
Heap (1988) argued that to arrive at such important generalisations about the human mind and behaviour would certainly require prolonged, systematic, and meticulous investigation of human subjects using robust procedures for observing, recording, and analysing the phenomena under investigation. "There is just no other way of doing this". Yet the founders of NLP never revealed any such research or investigation, and there is no evidence of its existence.[26] Indeed, Bandler himself claimed it was not his job to prove any of his claims about the workings of the human mind, "The truth is, when we know how something is done, it becomes easy to change" (ibid).[28]
According to Grant Devily, at the time it was introduced, NLP was heralded as a breakthrough in therapy, and advertisements for training workshops, videos and books began to appear 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.[8]
Skeptics argue that NLP's claims for scientific respectability are fake, and it is really a pseudoscience, since it is not based on the scientific method. Its very name is a pretense to a legitimate discipline like neuroscience, neurolinguistics, and psychology. It has a large collection of scientific sounding terms, like eye accessing cues, metamodeling, micromodeling, metaprogramming, neurological levels, presuppositions, primary representational systems, modalities and submodalities. Psychologist Barry L. Beyerstein stated 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."[29]
Several researchers and practitioners have argued that while the body of empirical research that exists to date is not supportive of NLP it was not sufficient to dismiss it.[11] Watkins stated that "Neurolinguistic Programming studies attempted to match eye movements and representational patterns. These are appropriate tests of the validity of the proponents' claims. However, one can only speculate what might have been learned with a wider range of outcome variables. Since this is a review of empirical research it may seem unfair to focus on limitations of the studies reported, but at a minimum the authors could have critiqued the methodological rigor and conceptual soundness of the variables tested."[30]
Proponents of NLP often deny that it is based on theory. Tosey and Mathison state that: "A question often asked of NLP is that of whether it has a theory. As noted above, authors in the field emphasize pragmatism, and have seldom shown interest in articulating NLP as a theory. Because NLP has always aimed to model "what works", one can find evidence within its practices of an eclectic approach that draws from (among other things) cognitive-behavioural approaches, Gestalt therapy, hypnotherapy, family therapy, and brief therapy.[31]
Tosey and Mathison state that "the pragmatic and often anti-theoretical stance by the founders has left a legacy of little engagement between practitioner and academic communities".[11][32]
Several practitioner have expressed interest in investigating NLP further using multiple methodologies, not just empirical. The first, vendor neutral, NLP Research Conference was held in 2008 sponsored by University of Surrey with the aim of encouraging improved research collaboration.[33]