Neuro Linguistic Programming

The preferred modality by which 50 right-handed female college students encoded experience was assessed by recordings of conjugate eye movements, content analysis of the subject’s verbal report, and the subject’s self-report. Contrary to the prediction of the theory of neurolinguistics programming (NLP), kappa analyses failed to reveal any agreement of the three assessment methods. In addition, each assessment method was shown to be biased toward revealing a particular representational modality. The application of certain principles of NLP in counseling settings was therefore questioned.

The increasing publicity of Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) has not been accompanied by marked research support. As a first review of the 15 studies performed so far that have investigated the use of the Preferred Representational System (PRS) in NLP, this article describes each of these studies, compiling a summary of data collected. Aspects of design, methodology, population, and dependent measures are evaluated, with comments on the outcomes obtained. Results of this review suggest that there is little supportive evidence for the use of the PRS in NLP in these 15 studies, with much data to the contrary. Questions of accountability are raised, with suggestions for future research.

Neurolinguistic programming’s hypothesized eye-movements were measured independently from videotapes of 30 subjects, aged 15 to 76 yr., who were asked to recall visual pictures, recorded audio sounds, and textural objects. Chi square analysis indicated that subjects' responses were significantly different from those predicted. When chi square comparisons were weighted by number of eye positions assigned to each modality (3 visual, 3 auditory, 1 kinesthetic), subjects' responses did not differ significantly from the expected pattern. These data indicate that the eye-movement hypothesis may represent randomly occurring rather than sensory-modality-related positions.

"Visual responses were as frequent as auditory responses which is conrrary to the current thinking that visual responses predominate. These results are not consistent with previous research (Thomason, et al., 1980), except rhat neither project supported the eye-movement hypothesis of neurolinguistic programming."

Bandler and Grinder’s proposal that eye movement direction and spoken predicates are indicative of sensory modality of imagery was tested. Subjects reported on modality, sequence, and vividness of images to questions that evoked either no images or visual, auditory, or kinesthetic images. Eyemovement direction and spoken predicates were matched with sensory modality of the questions. Subjects reported images in the three modes, but no relation between imagery and eye movements or predicates was found. The visual modality was dominant. Visual images were most vivid and often reported. Most subjects rated themselves as visual, and most spoken predicates were visual. These data are discussed within the context of an ever-growing literature that does not support Bandler and Grinder’s model and in the context of the difficulties in interpreting the model itself.

In separate experimental sessions, 34 undergraduate students experienced audiotapes of a standard hypnotic induction and a double induction similar to that described by Bandler and Grinder (1975). In the double induction, subjects heard a hand-levitation induction through the ear that is contralateral to the dominant cerebral hemisphere and, simultaneously, heard grammatically childlike messages through the other ear. Half of the subjects experienced the double induction first. There were no significant within-subject differences between the two inductions. However, subjects who experienced the double induction prior to the standard induction were significantly less responsive to suggestions following both inductions, which suggests that the double induction as a first experience of hypnosis may have a negative impact on subsequent experiences of hypnosis.

The neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) treatment for anxiety, claimed to be a single-session cure for unpleasant feelings, was compared with self-control desensitization of equal duration and a waiting-list control group in treating public speaking anxiety. Fifty-five speech-anxious undergraduates underwent pretreatment and posttreatment assessments of anxiety during 4-min speeches. The results indicate that neither treatment was more effective in reducing anxiety than merely waiting for 1 hr. These data suggest that Bandler and Grinder’s (1979) claim for a single-session cure of anxiety may be unwarranted.

One may conclude that there is little use to the field of counseling research in further replications of previous studies of the principles underlying NLP. In 44 studies of these principles, they have been shown to be without general support from the data. Future research that can contribute new data on this issue via methodological advances or consideration of different aspects of NLP may be justified, but perhaps of more relevance (and value) now would be a careful metaanalysis of the large amount of data already gathered. Elich et al. (1985) referred to NLP as a psychological fad, and they may well have been correct. 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.

The assertions and theraputic claims of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) are overviewed, as well as its impact and status in Britain. It is noted that most of the experimental investigations on NLP have concerned the assumptions relating ot the idea of representational systems, their proposed relationship to predicate usage and eye movements, and the presumed benefits of matching in any of these ideas. The limited number of studies of the efficacy of theraputic procedures described by NLP practitioners have failed to demonstrate their alleged potency. Comparisons are drawn between NLP and Ericksonian therapy and alternative medicine. It is speculated that they may be more usefully understood as cultural phenomena.

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 […​] 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.

NLP proper, as originally developed in Structure of Magic I and II (1975, 1976) has nothing to do directly with hypnotism. It is not about hypnotism, and its only relationship to it is that the Bandler/Grinder interpretation of Ericksonian hypnotism grows out of their use of the same linguistic type of analysis to elucidate the mechanism or action of communications done in the contexts of psychotherapy and hypnosis.

More than 10 years after its birth, NLP does not appear to have made an appreciable impact upon the behavioral. sciences, and its success seems to have been primarily that of a theraputic fad. Despite its creators' constant direct and indirect infantile references and allusions to magic, wizards, enchantments, and and so on (possibly in a metaphorical way), there is little evidence that it has lived up to the many promises it has made of providing magical solutions for ailing mankind.

[…​] The major weakness of Bandler and Grinder’s linguistic analysis is that so much of it is built upon untested hypotheses and is supported by totally inadequate data.

[…​] Has NLP really abstracted and explicated the essence of successful therapy and provided everyone with the means to be another Whittaker, Virginia Satir, or Erickson? Quite apart from the above remarks, its failure to do this is evident because today there is no multitude of their equals, not even another Wittaker, Virginia Satir, or Erickson. Ten years should have been enough time for this to happen. In this light, I cannot take NLP very seriously. […​]. Patterns I and II are poorly written works that were an overambitious, pretentious effort to reduce hypnotism to a magic of words. This clearly has not paid off.

[O]riginal interest in NLP turned to disillusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy.

The most telling commentary on NLP may be that in the latest revision of his text on enhancing human performance, Druckman omitted all references to Neurolinguistic Programming.

NLP is a scientifically unsubstantiated therapeutic method that purports to “program” brain functioning using a variety of techniques, including mirroring the postures and nonverbal behaviors of clients.

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.

I believe that the following impressions are also likely to be reliable.

1. NLP continues to make no impact on mainstream academic psychology.

2. NLP has made only limited impact on mainstream psychotherapy and counselling.

3. NLP remains influential amongst private psychotherapists, including hypnotherapists, to the extent that they claim to be trained in NLP and ‘use NLP’ in their work.

4. NLP training courses abound and NLP now seems to be most influential in management training, lifestyle coaching, and so on. Particularly with reference to this, the term ‘growth industry’ appears to be apposite.

I know little about this last-mentioned area of work but I am intrigued by this gradual extension of NLP beyond psychotherapy. This may have something to do with the fact that the supply side of the market for psychological therapies looks pretty much saturated and the major potential customer in the UK at least, namely the National Health Service, tends to favour a limited range of products, notably those that are labelled ‘evidence based’. The same appears to be true for medical insurance arrangements in the USA. When I say ‘customer’ I mean not just clients and patients wanting help, but also people wanting to train as therapists (or develop their existing repertoire of skills). My impression is that the extension of NLP into management training, etc. is all to do with finding wider markets for its products (and packaging and repackaging its products to suit those markets).

Like most of what we do, much of it comes down to money in the end.

NEURO-LINGUISTIC programming (NLP) is a popular form of inter-personal skill and communication training. Originating in the 1970s, the technique made specific claims about the ways in which individuals processed the world about them, and quickly established itself, not only as an aid to communication, but as a form of psychotherapy in its own right. Today, NLP is big business with large numbers of training courses, personal development programmes, therapeutic and educational interventions purporting to be based on the principles of NLP. This paper explores what NLP is, the evidence for it, and issues related to its use. It concludes that after three decades, there is still no credible theoretical basis for NLP, researchers having failed to establish any evidence for its efficacy that is not anecdotal.

The huge popularity of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) therapies and training has not been accompanied by knowledge of the empirical underpinnings of the concept. The article presents the concept of NLP in the light of empirical research in the Neuro-Linguistic Programming Research Data Base. From among 315 articles the author selected 63 studies published in journals from the Master Journal List of ISI. Out of 33 studies, 18.2% show results supporting the tenets of NLP, 54.5% - results non-supportive of the NLP tenets and 27.3% brings uncertain results. The qualitative analysis indicates the greater weight of the non-supportive studies and their greater methodological worth against the ones supporting the tenets. Results contradict the claim of an empirical basis of NLP.

While conducting my analysis I noted a certain historical aspect of NLP supportive research. As I realized, most of the research was carried out in the 1980s and partially in the 1990s. In the subsequent years, the number of such research studies decreased and they concerned secondary aspects of the concept or were performed based on the assumption that the fundamental principles of NLP are true. The world of science was apparently losing its interest in the concept of Bandler and Grinder, having confronted it with the research findings. The concept’s proponents lacked motivation to undertake any type of research into, for instance, the effectiveness of its methods.

The number of theoretical studies in the base, such as polemics, dissertations, and discussions is so high that referring to it as to the Research Data Base is considerable misinterpretation as well. What is even stranger is the fact that works completely unrelated to NLP are added to the base. While reading such articles I strengthened my belief that it was only due to some single key words that the NLP related status of those papers was approved. This gives rise to the suspicion that even the database administrators do not read articles, not to mention the abstracts.

All of this leaves me with an overwhelming impression that the analyzed base of scientific articles is treated just as theater decoration, being the background for the pseudoscientific farce, which NLP appears to be. Using “scientific” attributes, which is so characteristic of pseudoscience, is manifested also in other aspects of NLP activities. It is primarily revealed in the language – full of borrowings from science or expressions referring to it, devoid of any scientific meaning. It is seen already in the very name neuro-linguistic programming - which is a cruel deception. At the neuronal level it provides no explanation and it has nothing in common with academic linguistics or programming. Similarly impressive sounding and similarly empty are expressions used for formulation of tenets of the concept, such as sub-modalities, pragmagraphics, surface structure, deep structure, accessing cue, and non accessing movement.

My analysis leads undeniably to the statement that NLP represents pseudoscientific rubbish, which should be mothballed forever. One may even come to believe that my analysis was a vain effort after all. It yielded the same conclusions as the ones arrived at by Sharpley (1984, 1987), Heap (1988) and others. Without doubt, NLP represents big business offering and tempting people with amazing changes, personal development and, what is worst, therapy. In this respect the analysis is an update of the state of knowledge on the subject by reviews published in the period after the latest analyses. Furthermore, is also provides arguments sufficient to answer the following ethical question: Is using and selling something nonexistent and ineffective ethical?

The analysis of the NLP Research Data Base (state of the art) by all measures was like peeling an onion. To reach its core, first I had to remove some useless layers, and once I arrived, I was close to tears. Today, after 35 years of research devoted to the concept, NLP reminds one more of an unstable house built on the sand rather than an edifice founded on the empirical rock. In 1988 Heap passed a verdict on NLP. As the title of his article indicated, it was an interim one. In the conclusions he wrote: If it turns out to be the case that these therapeutic procedures are indeed as rapid and powerful as is claimed, no one will rejoice more than the present author. If however these claims fare no better than the ones already investigated then the final verdict on NLP will be a harsh one indeed (p. 276). I am fully convinced that we have gathered enough evidence to announce this harsh verdict already now.

Today, after 35 years of research into the model, NLP reminds one more of an unstable house built on sand rather than an edifice founded on a solid empirical foundation. In the title of his 1987 review of NLP, Sharpley posed a question: "nonsupportive data or untestable theory?" A year later Heap passed an "interim" verdict on NLP, as did Baddeley the following year. Given the amount of research that has been conducted on NLP in the subsequent decades, perhaps the time has come to render a more definitive conclusion.

A virtue of science is the ability to test all hypotheses, even the most implausible ones. If, however, scientists focused their interest ad infinitum on those hypotheses that continually failed to find support, the enterprise would soon lose its raison d’être. The present review suggests that enough evidence has been collected to announce a final verdict now: NLP is ineffective both as a model explaining human cognition and communication, and as a set of techniques of influence and persuasion

Proponents of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) claim that certain eye-movements are reliable indicators of lying. According to this notion, a person looking up to their right suggests a lie whereas looking up to their left is indicative of truth telling. Despite widespread belief in this claim, no previous research has examined its validity. In Study 1 the eye movements of participants who were lying or telling the truth were coded, but did not match the NLP patterning. In Study 2 one group of participants were told about the NLP eye-movement hypothesis whilst a second control group were not. Both groups then undertook a lie detection test. No significant differences emerged between the two groups. Study 3 involved coding the eye movements of both liars and truth tellers taking part in high profile press conferences. Once again, no significant differences were discovered. Taken together the results of the three studies fail to support the claims of NLP. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

NLP’s position outside mainstream academia has meant that while the evidence base for psychological intervention in both physical and mental health has strengthened, parallel evidence in relation to NLP has been less evident and has attracted academic criticism. No systematic review of the NLP literature has been undertaken applying Cochrane methods. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review and appraise the available evidence for effectiveness of NLP on health-related outcomes.

There is little evidence that NLP interventions improve health-related outcomes. This conclusion reflects the limited quantity and quality of NLP research, rather than robust evidence of no effect. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the allocation of NHS resources to NLP activities outside of research purposes.

1. What is the clinical effectiveness of NLP for the treatment of adults with PTSD, GAD, or depression?

The literature search did not find clinical evidence on NLP for the treatment of adults with PTSD, GAD, or depression

1. What are the guidelines associated with the use of NLP for the treatment of adults with PTSD, GAD, or depression?

Despite strong recommendations on the use of psychosocial therapies such as behavioural activation, cognitive behavioural therapy, interpersonal therapy, the guideline reported that no evidence on the use of NLP specific to depression and meeting guideline inclusion criteria was identified.

As NLP became more popular, some research was conducted and reviews of such research have concluded that there is no scientific basis for its theories about representational systems and eye movements.

The huge popularity of neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) over the past three decades has in some ways mirrored the growth in coaching psychology. This paper is part of a series of four papers in a special issue within ICPR that aims to explore NLP coaching from diverse perspectives, offering personal insights or reviews of evidence. As part of this process a pair of authors were invited to advance the case for and the case against NLP. This paper aims to adopt a critical stance; reviewing the concept of NLP, exploring the claims made by advocates and critically reviewing the evidence from a psychological perspective. In undertaking this review we completed a series of literature searches using a range of discovery tools to identify research papers, based on pre-determined search criteria. This review led us to the conclusion that unique NLP practices are poorly supported by research evidence.