Journal of Counseling Psychology 1987. Vol. 34. No.

I, 103-107

Copyright 1987 by the American PsychologicalAssociation,Inc. 0022-0167/87/2500.75

COMMENT

Research Findings on Neurolinguistic Programming: Nonsupportive Data or an Untestable Theory?

C h r i s t o p h e r F. S h a r p l e y Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia In an earlier review of the experimental literature on neurolinguistic programming (NLP), Sharpley (1984) drew the conclusion that the effectiveness of this therapy was yet to be demonstrated. In their comment on that review, Einspruch and Forman (1985) agreed with this conclusion but suggested that it was due to the presence of methodological errors in the research on N LP to date and that the efficacy of NLP was open to debate. Unfortunately, those suggestions were based on misconceptions regarding the factors that limit the methodological worth of research. Several of the detailed criticisms from that review are refuted here, and further data from seven recent studies that further demonstrate that the research data do not support either the basic tenets of NLP or their application in counseling situations are presented. Implications from these findings for the use of NLP in counseling research or clinical practice are discussed.

Described by its founders as therapeutic magic (Bandler & Grinder, 1975), neurolinguistic programming (NLP) suggests that the process of effective communication between persons (particularly counselors and clients) can be enhanced by identifying their "preferred representational system" (PRS) and by using this particular communication modality preferred by a client as a method of effectively helping that client to make changes in behavior. This process has been referred to as predicate matching and is a basic tenet of NLP (Bandler & Grinder, 1976, p. 8). In spite of a wealth of advertising that claims a great deal of clinical success in the use of NLP, there have been few reviews of the experimental literature in this area. In an earlier article (Sharpley, 1984), the outcomes of 15 studies identified in the literature were reviewed, and it was concluded, "At present, there is no consistent support for the use of predicate-matching in either contrived counseling situations or actual clinical realities" (p. 247). In a reaction article to that review, Einspruch and Forman 0985) suggested that I had omitted criticizing the studies covered in my review on the basis of how well-informed the writers of those papers appeared to be on the various theoretical underpinnings of NLP. Einspruch and Forman then went on to gather 24 more studies and to criticize all 39 on six points relating to how well the various authors demonstrated their knowledge of certain intrinsic aspects of NLP in their articles. All 39 studies were then classified as not contributing to a reliable overall evaluation of the effectiveness of NLP, and the authors concluded, "It is not possible at this time to determine the validity o f . . . NLP" (p. 594). Einspruch and Forman (1985) should be commended for their efforts in finding these other 24 reports and for the issues l thank Allen E. lvey, University of Massachusetts, for his helpful comments and suggestions on this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christopher F. Sharpley, Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3168. Australia.

that they raised in their review. To state, as they did, that it is not possible to draw any reliable conclusions about the effectiveness of NLP at this time deserves some comment. If 44 studies (2 of those referenced by Einspruch & Forman were irrelevant because they did not directly assess a principle or procedure from NLP, a n d 7 more will be referred to below) of a particular procedure do not show any conclusive effects, then either there is great disagreement in the results that have been reported from these studies, or the procedure is not able to be adequately assessed. As I shall point out, research o n NLP has consistently shown very few significant effects that lend support to claims o f therapeutic magic (or even any degree o f eff~tiveness at all), either in research designed to evaluate the basic principles of NLP or in the treatment o f both "laboratory" and real clients. Einspruch a n d F o r m a n ' s (1985) Criticisms o f Research Several points from Einspruch and Forman's (1985) review require comment before going on to evaluate the extra literature to which they referred. First, they criticized the authors of the experimental literature for reifying the term P R S and for performing a series o f studies to determine whether PRS exists and whether matching clients' PRS assists in communication or leads to the more effective application o f a variety of therapeutic procedures (e.g., relaxation training, recall o f words, hypnotic induction, and treatment of phobias). There is little more that a researcher can do, however, to evaluate a theory than to test the veracity and strength o f those principles of behavior that are held by the proponents o f that theory. To evaluate NLP without testing for the presence of the PRS and its usefulness in communication and treatment appears to be impossible, and investigation of those aspects of NLP is to be applauded rather than condemned as reification. Bandler and Grinder (1979) claimed, "People make m o v e m e n t s with their eyes which will indicate to you which representa103

104

COMMENT studies that have been performed on new therapies have been in laboratory situations with just such therapists as those used in the NLP research. These therapists may be seen as the yardstick for comparing a particular therapy with other therapies, and one need only cursorily read the literature on other therapies reported in the journals to discover many successful applications of therapeutic procedures by graduate students. If it is the case that NLP can be demonstrated as effective only by those who have undergone the "extensive training" that Einspruch and Forman (1985, p. 594) referred to as necessary for effective use of NLP, then NLP may well be a successful (if elusive) procedure. On the other hand, it may be an example of "E bias" in the evaluation of a specific psychotherapeutic environment, in which case it may be the conviction level of the counselor and not the specific treatment or approach to counseling used by the counselor that is the effective variable. As noted by Einspruch and Forman (1985), those practitioners who have "a wealth of clinical data indicating that [NLP] is highly effective" (p. 590) need to provide this data for the wider professional public if the previous nonsupportive conclusions (Sharpley, 1984) are to be challenged at all.

tional system they are using" (p. 18). Researchers may be excused for directing some efforts toward testing this claim. Second, Einspruch and Forman (1985) criticized Gumm, Walker, and Day (1982) for claiming that NLP applies only to right-handed persons. G u m m et al. quoted this claim from a workshop run by Bandler and Grinder, and whether it is a widely accepted principle of NLP or not, it demands examination in controlled studies. It is not a criticism of the value of such studies that other proponents of NLP have not made this suggestion in favor of right-handed persons. It is, on the contrary, to be expected that researchers will try to set up experimental situations for testing the principles that underlie NLP. To date, there is little evidence to support those principles and much to suggest that they are invalid. (In fact, Bandler and Grinder, 1979, presented a diagram for identifying PRS from eye movements. They called this diagram "visual accessing cues for a normally organized right-handed person" [p. 25]. Additionally, they referred [pp. 21-36] to their system of PRS identification as being valid for righthanded persons and [perhaps] reversed for left-handed persons. Gumm et ai. may, therefore, be seen as having followed Bandler and Grinder's (1979) guidelines by restricting themselves to right-handed subjects and thereby maximizing the likelihood of finding an outcome that was supportive of this NLP principle.) Another point for which Einspruch and Forman (1985) criticized the literature was the "failure to understand NLP as an approach to therapy" (p. 591). To demonstrate this point, Einspruch and Forman criticized Hammer (1983) for setting up an interview with questions designed to elicit the client's PRS, calling this a "distortion of the NLP approach to therapy" (p. 591). Yet, in the NLP literature (e.g., Bandler & Grinder, 1976), the presence of the PRS is accepted as a fact, and its accurate identification is a primary aspect of effective therapy in which reliable counselor-client predicate matching is assumed to enhance communication. Alternatively, Einspruch and Forman referred to Yapko's (1981) study as "the most sensible research project in the current literature" (p. 592), with findings that PRS matching for hypnotic induction was more effective in the client's preferred modality than in a nonpreferred modality. Prior to hypnotic induction, however, Yapko had determined the PRS of clients by using a verbal cuing process similar to that used by H a m m e r - identification by classification of the predominant sensory modality used in verbalizations. In the same section of their article, Einspruch and Forman quoted data from Allen (1982), who used NLP versus massed systematic desensitization (MSD) for the treatment of snake phobia, concluding, "The NLP-based treatment was just as effective as the MSD treatment" (p. 592). What was not reported by Einspruch and Forman was Allen's finding that neither treatment was significantly different from a control (no-treatment) condition. Finally, the lack of adequate training of therapists was criticized as a reason to ignore the results of another 11 studies. Although it is accepted that graduate students do not represent highly experienced and senior therapists, the use of such persons is not only traditional in the comparative psychotherapy literature but can also be a strong argument for both the ready application of a specific procedure and the robustness of that procedure. In fact, a great many of the evaluative

Further Research The experimental data presented in the 15 studies reviewed earlier was summarized in tabular form (Sharpley, 1984, pp. 240-243) and showed that of those 15 studies of the effectiveness of NLP principles and procedures, 2 were supportive, 5 were uncertain or had mixed results, and 8 included data not supportive of the principle of NLP that they investigated. Examination of the other 22 studies that were identified by Einspruch and Forman (1985) showed that the breakdown was 3 supportive, 4 uncertain, and 15 nonsupportive. Furthermore, although in l of the 3 that did support NLP (Brockman, 1980/1981), counselors who used predicate matching were perceived as more empathic than counselors who did not use predicate matching, this finding was contradicted by a number of other researchers. These included Cody (1983), who reported that counselors who matched their clients' predicates were perceived as less trustworthy than counselors who made no special effort to match predicates. Green (1979/1981) and Dorn (1983a) found that predicatematching counselors were not perceived as more trustworthy or socially attractive than other counselors, but Appel (1983) noted that opposite sex was more powerful than predicate matching in influencing client preferences for a particular counselor. Atwater (1983) and Ehrmantraut (1983) both found NLP-trained counselors to be no better than "Carkuff-" or "general-'trained counselors, and Haynie (1982/ 1983) reported that NLP procedures were less effective than no-NLP procedures in developing human relations skills. In another study in which supportive findings were reported (Radosta, 1982), eye movements were used to identify clients" PRS, but this finding was contradicted by Dorn (1983b), Lange ( 1980/198 l), Talone (1983), Cole-Hitchcock (1980), Fromme and Daniell (1984), and Johannsen (1982). Finally, the outcome reviewed earlier from Yapko's (1981) study on the effectiveness of PRS matching for hypnotic induction

COMMENT

105

should be considered in the light of Krafi's (1982) results wherein PRS matching had no beneficial effects on the process of relaxation training. Seven studies were not reviewed previously by either Einspruch and Forman (1985) or me. Of these, Shobin (1980) found that counselor predicate matching increased rapport with clients. Alternatively, Elich, Thompson, and Miller (1985) and Dorn, Atwater, Jereb, and Russell (1983) found no significant data to support the NLP suggestion that eye movements and spoken predicates are indicative of a PRS. Graunke and Roberts (1985) and Ridings (1986) similarly noted no significant support for the accurate identification of a stable and "overriding preference for one sensory modality" (Ridings, 1986, p. 529). Rebstock (1980) found no significant relation between predicate matching and positive evaluation of counselors by clients, but partial support came from Schmedlen (1981), who concluded that predicate matching positively effected clients' evaluations of counselors on one of the three measures used in that study.

Table 1 Source and Outcomes of NLP Research Data Supportive Nonsupportive

Source DA! (29) Journals (15) Total (44)

Partial No.
8 3 11

No.
4 2 6

%
13.8 13.3 13.6

No.
t7 10 27

%
58.6 66.6 61.4

%
27.6 20 25

Note. DAI = Dissertation Abstracls Internalional.

Overview o f Research Studies It was suggested earlier in this article that the number of studies evaluating NLP to date (at least 44) ought to give some indication of support for or rejection of the effectiveness of NLP predicate identification and matching. Of the 44 experimental reports, in only 6 were outcomes reported that vindicate the "uncritical acceptance of NLP, PRS, eye movements, and predicate-matching" referred to by Elich et al. (1985, p. 625). As pointed out by many authors and well stated by Dorn (1983b), "In order for counselors to respond effectively to clients in their PRS, it is important that the PRS be accurately assessed" (p. 154). Data collected in 44 studies clearly indicate an overwhelming finding that (a) the PRS cannot be reliably assessed; (b) when it is assessed, the PRS is not consistent over time; therefore, (c) it is not even certain that the PRS exists; and (d) matching clients' or other persons' PRS does not appear to assist counselors reliably in any clearly demonstrated manner. Finally, the sources of the 44 reports should be considered. Table 1 shows that the majority (65.9%) of the studies were reported as graduate theses in Dissertation Abstracts International with a ratio of nonsupportive (of NLP) results to supportive results of 4.25:1. Studies reported in the journals showed a nonsupportive/supportive ratio of 5:1, with the overall ratio at 4.5:1 against NLP, a fairly consistent finding across the two sources, even considering the 11 studies (mostly dissertations) showing partially supportive or mixed data. It is very difficult to accept (as Einspruch & Forman, 1985, suggested) that all these researchers were guilty of the "methodological errors" (p. 590) that they claimed leave the total research on NLP to date inconclusive and "trivial" (p. 594). Criticism of research on methodological grounds is valuable only when the grounds are well established in the experimental literature (e.g., Campbell & Stanley, 1966; Cook & Campbell, 1979). Einspruch and Forman disputed the results of 39 studies on the basis that those researchers did not understand the principles of NLP. Although the present article does not constitute the sort of in-depth summary analysis of outcomes

recommended by Glass, McGaw, and Smith (1981), it appears that with 44 experimental reports on the effectiveness of NLP, a conclusion can indeed be drawn regardless of the degree to which the various researchers were experts on NLP. The basic tenets of NLP have failed to be reliably verified in almost 86% of the controlled studies, and it is difficult to accept that none of these 38 studies (i.e., those with nonsupportive, partial, or mixed results) were performed by persons with a satisfactory understanding of NLP (or at least enough of an understanding to perform the various procedures that were evaluated). If it is true that there are data in the clinical files of proponents of NLP that support it in a way different from the experimental data reviewed, then these need to be published and examined according to the traditional methodological yardsticks of experimental and evaluative literature. Until that time, the inquirer in this field may be forgiven for accepting the conclusion of Elich et al. (1985), "NLP has achieved something akin to a cult status when it may be nothing more than another psychological fad" (19.625). Value o f NLP: Implications F r o m Research Findings for Counseling Practice In the opening section of this article, it was suggested that the outcome data on NLP might show (a) a lack of conclusive effects or (b) the essential untestableness of NLP. Because only 13.6% of the 44 studies reviewed supported NLP, one may exclude the first alternative. There are conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures suggested by NLP have failed to be supported by those data. On the other hand, Einspruch and Forman (1985) implied that NLP is far more complex than presumed by researchers, and thus, the data are not true evaluations of NLP. Perhaps this is so, and 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 psycboanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but, nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field. Not every therapy has to undergo the rigorous testing that is characteristic of the more behavioral approaches to counseling to be of use to the therapeutic community, but failure to produce data that support a particular theory from controlled studies does relegate that theory to questionable status in terms of professional accountability. What is it then that NLP can offer the practitioner? First, the process of predicate matching to enhance support is worthwhile, and there is a great deal of literature on counselor

106

COMMENT Appel, P. (1983). Matching of representational systems and interpersonal attraction (Doctoral dissertation, United States International University, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 3021B. (University Microfilms No. 83-018, 35) Atwater, J. M. (1983). Differential effects of intervention from the neurolinguistic programming meta-model and general systems in early psychotherapy (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2887B-2888B. (University Microfilms No. 83-298, 95) Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1975). The structure of magic (Vol. l). Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books. Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. 0976). The structure of magic (Vol. 2). Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books. Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1979). Frogs into princes. Moab, UT: Real People Press. Brockman, W. ( 1981). Empathy revisited: The effect of representational system matching on certain counseling process and outcome variables (Doctoral dissertation, College of William and Mary, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 342 IA. (University Microfilms No. 81-035, 91) Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. 0966). Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally. Cody, S. G. (1983). The stability and impact of the primary representational system in neuro-linguistic programming: A critical examination (Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 1232B. (University Microfilms No. 83-191, 87) Cole-Hitchcock, S. (1980). A determination of the extent to which a predominant representational system can be identified through written and verbal communication and eye scanning patterns (Doctoral dissertation, Baylor University, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 1907B-1908B. (University Microfilms No. 80252, 27) Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally. Dora, F. (1983a). The effect of counselor-client predicate preference similarity on counselor attractiveness. American Mental Health Counselors Association Journal, 5, 22-30. Dorn, F. (1983b). Assessing primary representational system (PRS) preference for neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) using three methods Counselor Education and Supervision, 23, 149-156. Dorn. F., Atwater, M., Jereb, R., & Russell, R. (1983). Determining the reliability of the NLP eye movement procedure. American Mental Health Counselors Association Journal, 5, 105-110. Ehrmantraut, J. E. (1983). A comparison of the therapeutic relationship of counseling students trained in neurolinguistic programming vs. students trained in the Carkuff model (Dt~oral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 3191B. (University Microfilms No. 83-284, 9 i) Einspruch, E. L., & Forman, B. D. (1985). Observations concerning research literature on neuro-linguistic programming. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32. 589-596. Elich, M., Thompson, R. W., & Miller, L. (1985). Mental images as revealed by eye movements and spoken predicates: A test of neurolinguistic programming. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 622-625. Frankl, V. E. (1962). Man's search for meaning. Boston: Beacon Press. Fromme, D. K., & Daniell, J. (1984). Neuro-linguistic programming examined: Imagery, sensory mode, and communication. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 387-390. Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta.analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Graunke. B., & Roberts, T. K. (1985). Neuro-linguistic programming: The impact of imagery tasks on sensory predicate usage. Journal

mirroring that supports the practice of counselors' using verbal (and nonverbal) behaviors similar to their clients'. This procedure induces empathy, and although this is of great value for effective counseling, this can hardly be claimed as a discovery first made in NLP. Second, assisting clients in moving from one sensory morality to another (e.g., visualauditory-kinesthetic) to aid in understanding an issue has long been used by Gestalt therapists; this is not an NLP invention either. Further, the process of reframing, or "positive asset search," has been noted in at least five major therapies besides NLP (Ivey, Ivey, & Simek-Downing, in press) and was most deafly presented by Frankl (1962) in focusing on the positive during his period as a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp. (For none of these three procedures is the existence of the PRS a prerequisite for application. Even predicate matching itself can be very effectively accomplished by using ongoing counselor responses to client statements [e.g., Hammer, 1983] without invoking the concept of the PRS or its identification). There are other procedures that NLP suggests are beneficial to counseling (e.g., anchoring, changing history) but that are not in any way specific to NLP. Rather, they may be gleaned from a wide reading of the many counseling theories that abound. As such, 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 (1975, 1976, 1979) posited to present NLP as a new and magical theory. That is, although the proponents of NLP claim its underlying principles (e,g., existence of the PRS, methods of identifying the PRS, and predicate matching as a necessary condition for effective therapy) to be true, they have little to support them and much to answer to in the research literature. If, however, NLP is presented as a "theory-less" set of procedures gathered from many other approaches to counseling, then it may serve a reference role for therapists who wish to supplement their counseling practice by what may be novel techniques for them. 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 at. (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. References Allen, K. (1982). An investigation of the effectiveness of neurolinguistic programming procedures in treating snake phobics (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Kansas City, 1982). Dissertation Ahstracts International, 43, 86lB. (University Microfilms No. 82-169, 56)

COMMENT t~fCounseling Ps.vchology, 32. 525-530. Green, M. ( 1981 ). Trust as affected by representational system predicates (Doctoral dissertation, Ball State University, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International 41, 2764A. (University Microfilms No. 80-271 ) Gumm, W., Walker, M.. & Day, H. (1982). Neuro-linguistic programming: Method or myth? Journal of Counseling Ps.vchology, 29, 327-330. Hammer, A. (1983). Matching perceptual predicates: Effect on perceived empathy in a counseling analog. Journal of Counseling Ps)z'hoh~gy, 30. 172-179. Haynie, N. (I 983). Systematic human relations training with neurolinguistic programming (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43. 2286A. (University Microfilms No. 82-286, 94) Ivey. A. E., lvey, M., & Simek-Downing, L. (in press). Counseling and ps)z'hotherap)': Integrating skills, theory and practice (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Johannsen. C. (1982). Predicates, mental imagery in discrete sense modes, and levels of stress: The neuro-linguistic programming typologies (Doctoral dissertation, United States International University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 2709B. (University Microfilms No. 82-296, 38) Kraft. W. (1982). The effects of primary representational system congruence on relaxation in a neuro-linguisticprogramming model (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International 43, 2372B. (University Microfilms No. 82261,01) Lange, D. (1981). A validity study of the construct "most highly valued representational system" in human auditory and visual perceptions (Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 4266B. (University Microfilms No. 81-104, 20)

107

Radosta, R. (1982). An investigation of eye accessing cues (Doctoral dissertation, East Texas State University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 883B. (University Microfilms No. 82-194, 81) Rebstock, M. (1980). The effects of training in matching technique: The development of rapport between client and counselor during initial counseling interview (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41. 946A. (University Microfilms No. 80-191, 48) Ridings, D. (1986). Neurolinguistic programming's primary representational system: Dot,s it exist? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts--Amherst. Schmedlen, G. (1981). The impact of sensory modality matching on the establishment of rapport in psychotherapy (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International 42, 2080B. (University Microfilms No. 81-235, 77) Sharpley, C. (1984). Predicate matching in NLP: A review of research on the preferred representational system. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 238-248. Shobin, M. (1980). An investigation of the effect of verbal pacing on initial therapeutic rapport (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 1960A. (University Microfilms No. 80-241, 58) Talone, J. M. (1983). The use of sensory predicates to predict responses to sensory suggestions (Doctoral dissertation, Utah State University, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44. 618B619B. (University Microfilms No. 83-135, 68) Yapko, M. ( 1981). The effect of matching primary representational system predicates on hypnotic relaxation. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 23. 169-175. Received April 3, 1986 Revision received May 16, 1986 9