What is NLP?
Paul Bernhardt
Melvin,K. B. & Miller, H. L. (1988) Anchoring: Panacea or placebo? Phobia
Practice and Research Journal, 1(2), 153-158;
These authors similarly find that there is litle research to support NLP
and uncritical acceptance is not warranted.
Of course, I wonder what has happened in NLP research since 1988.
+=============================================================+
Paul C. Bernhardt, M.S. in Social Psychology (non-clinical)
+=============================================================+
Paul Bernhardt
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.
Paul Bernhardt
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.
Paul Bernhardt
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.
Paul Bernhardt
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. 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. 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 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...)
Paul Bernhardt
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.
BogiesFriend
Dear Paul,
While I too am skeptical of NLP, I do not believe it tells us much to
just present synopses of abstracts. Read one or more BIG things and then
report back. Thank you.
P.S. Regarding one of your many posts:
The question about whether a certain journal was a "vanity journal" seems
quite insulting and inappropriate unless justified.
In article <Paul.Bernhardt-...@news.cc.utah.edu>,
Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu (Paul Bernhardt) wrote:
> 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. 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. 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 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...)
>
Paul Bernhardt
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.
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.
Paul Bernhardt
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.
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!
Paul Bernhardt
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.
Paul Bernhardt
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.
Paul Bernhardt
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.
Margaret Tarbet
Paul, i have to disagree with Brad that the clips you've posted
aren't helpful. I appreciate seeing them, and your summary
of them.
Brad, your comment about the "vanity" label is well-taken, but
i thought Paul was being clear about the label being something
that he had heard, rather than something he himself was applying.
=margaret
dlrogers
Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu (Paul Bernhardt) wrote:
>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.
>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.
>+=============================================================+
> Paul C. Bernhardt, M.S. in Social Psychology (non-clinical)
>+=============================================================+
This is a good observation. NLP developed from an interest a couple
of people had in Milton Erickson's hypnotic and other talking therapy.
Erickson found, years and years ago, that formal trance induction was
not necessary in very many cases.
However, Erickson was incredibly ethical, and did not believe that it
was proper to influence people for your own gain. Thus, it was
inevitable that there would be a parting of ways from the two schools
of thought.
Lee Lady
In article <Paul.Bernhardt-...@news.cc.utah.edu>,
Paul Bernhardt <Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu> wrote:
>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 has already been discussed here to some extent. Many of my
trainings have emphasized the fact that many NLP techniques are
essentially a form of hypnosis. I was a bit astonished when the
therapists here in sci.psych.psycho expressed surprise when I said this
and suggested that maybe I was using some non-standard definition of
hypnosis.
Six-step Reframing, in particular, was frequently referred to by my
teachers as an especially deep trance induction. This is because
six-step reframing involves refraction. The subject needs to go into
trance to find the answers for the questions asked by the
practitioner. Then the subject comes back up from deep trance to
report the answer and listen to the next question, then goes back down
into trance again. I can't imagine any therapist who has done much
reframing not realizing that it's a form of hypnosis.
--
Universities are nurseries of orthodoxy. The university, while offering
a nurturing environment, is not a creative one. It can't be. That isn't
the function of higher education. --- Rita Mae Brown
Lee Lady <http://www2.Hawaii.Edu/~lady/>
Paul Bernhardt
Larry Lyons emailed this reply to the What is NLP thread for me to post in
his stead. His server was not accepting postings today.
Paul
***** Begin Larry's Post *****
In article <Paul.Bernhardt-...@news.cc.utah.edu> Paul
Bernhardt, Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu writes:
>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. 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. 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 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?).
Paul:
I did a similar sweep of the Silver Platter PsychLit CD-ROM about two years
ago and came up with a similar set of conclusions. I'd be quite willing to
do a meta-analysis of the therapeutic efficacy of NLP using approaches
based on my previous work, (e.g., see Lyons, L. and Woods, P. (1991). The
Efficacy of rational emotive therapy: A quantitative review of the outcome
research. Clinical Psychology Review, 11, 357-369.) However I have some
additional criteria that would have to be followed first:
1. The studies have to be genuine research (experimental or
quasiexperimental designs) not case studies.
2. The studies have to a quantitiative approach, not a qualitative one.
this rules out discussions of therapeutic techniques, and uncontrolled case
studies.
3. The studies have to report enough information to allow for coding of
sample size, type of statistic used, as well as a number of subject,
therapist, and other criteria. Most importantly I would need enough detail
to rate the study in terms of quality - e.g., randomization assignments of
therapist and subjects, dropout rates, degree of blinding, type of
controls, amount of training of the therapists, publication status, the
theoretical and institutional affiliation of the experimenters, type of
subjects (volunteer, nonvolunteer, therapists in training) etc.
4. Multiple coders would be needed. This project would be quite intensive
in terms of coding, and as such would need more than one to do it.
There are a number of other factors involved which would help to determine
my involvement. On the other hand done properly this study could serve to
answer quite a few questions about NLP. It could also be done over the
Internet fairly effectively, and could possibly serve as a collaborative
model for other meta-analyses. Finally given a large enough research sample
it would also serve as a good test for some new meta-analysis software I'm
developing.
Regards,
Larry C. Lyons | email: sol...@mnsinc.com
| Home Page: www.mnsinc.com/solomon/MetaAnalysis.html
My opinions alone, no one else will take responsibility for them!
=================================================================
Life is Complex. It has both real and imaginary parts.
=================================================================
****** End Larry's Post ********