by Dr Hester Bancroft, BSc (Hons) Psych, DCPsych, CPsychol, M Prac NLP 

Life is, without doubt, tough for the majority of people right now. With companies folding daily, unemployment nudging towards 2 million and little sign of economic recovery, it is not surprising that many people are struggling to feel positive about 2009. In addition, as Alistair Campbell pointed out, our media seems to embrace a ‘culture of negativity’ which results in us being bombarded daily with depressingly negative news articles and programmes which do little to lift the spirits of recession weary Brits. It is little wonder that there has been a rise in people seeking support for psychological stress, depression and anxiety from their doctors and counselling services.

As well as the more traditional counselling services, practitioners of NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) also claim to have seen a rise in people seeking support and therapeutic intervention. Interestingly, it was during the 1970’s recession that NLP was developed by Richard Bandler and John Grinder. Through analysing and coding the highly effective therapeutic methods of Virginia Satir (family therapist), Fritz Perls (Gestalt therapist) and Milton Erikson (psychiatrist and hypnotherapist) they claimed to have uncovered discernible, influential word structures which others could easily learn to apply and use as an effective and rapid form of therapy.  

30 years on, Bandler and Grinder’s model, initially dismissed as a ‘fad’ by the psychological community, is still being widely used by both the business community and in private practice. Interestingly, however, it has still made very little impact on mainstream psychology often being regarded with suspicion or even hostility. So what causes this negativity? Criticism has focused predominantly on the lack of empirical evidence into the principles that underpin NLP (Sharpley, 1987). In addition, Bandler and Grinder’s model has been criticised for merely replicating techniques that already exist in traditional counselling, albeit in a different format. In turn, Bandler and Grinder’s anti-theoretical stance has done little to encourage dialogue between those who practise NLP and the psychological community.

As both an OU Psychology graduate and a NLP Master Practitioner, I find the division between the two disciplines both interesting and perplexing. In addition, as everyone who has completed DD307 (as I did in 2008) is aware, the course provides a useful critical framework within which one can examine the relevant epistemological and methodological issues which surround this debate.

In the spirit of DD307, it is both important and useful to situate the development of NLP in the 1970’s. This was a period of major scientific breakthroughs. The first personal computers, pocket calculators and domestic microwaves appeared. Stephen Hawking developed his theories of black holes and the boundary condition of the universe. Stephen Jay Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium revolutionized evolutionary thought. In addition, Space exploration flourished with the Apollo moon missions. These breakthroughs in science, technology and space travel inevitably caught the public imagination and created an climate of general scientific fascination which was heavily reflected in popular culture (remember Space Odyssey, Ziggy Stardust and Close Encounters of the Third Kind?).

This, then, was the background against which Bandler and Grinder developed their NLP model which they so named to reflect what they saw as the connection between neurological processes, language and behavioural patterns learned through experience. In reality, the title Neuro Linguistic Programming is both confusing and misleading; NLP has nothing to do with neurolinguistics as defined by the scientific community (the field which investigates the neural mechanisms underlying language) nor programming (the writing of a computer programme or the scheduling of a programme). In addition, Bandler and Grinder promoted NLP as a ‘Science of Excellence’ which has resulted in NLP being denounced as a psycho science; a claim that is hard to refute. Despite its scientific sounding title (and the scientific sounding names of the interventions such as neurological levels and metaprogramming) it does not adhere to the scientific method nor can it claim to be supported by empirical and measurable evidence.

The question here then is: does the NLP model have to be supported by empirical evidence to be declared useful? Crucially, as a therapeutic model, NLP recognises the individual as entirely subjective; that is, socially located, relational, discursive, embodied and dynamic. In common with social psychoanalytic theory, unconscious processes (desires and motivations) are recognised as having a hugely significant influence on behaviour. What you have then is a model which uses fundamentally qualitative methodology which is purporting to be a science and, as such, creates the incorrect and misleading impression that its claims can be explored and supported through quantitative research. It is through recognition of this paradox that one can perhaps start to understand the frustration of the scientific community with regard to NLP.  

The limited research carried out during the 1980’s to supposedly examine various NLP assumptions using predominantly laboratory experimentation (Sharpley,1987) focused on, and found only weak support for, Bandler and Grinder’s claims relating to preferred representational systems (the preferred sensory processing system a person uses such as visual, auditory or kinaesthetic). However, this research has been heavily criticised for making methodological errors and using researchers who had little knowledge regarding the correct application of NLP. More importantly, however, as discussed, it can be criticised for making the assumption that this NLP principle is amenable to being researched through laboratory experimentation. It is, clearly, both misleading and incorrect to assume that every therapeutic technique has to undergo rigorous testing in a laboratory setting before it can be declared useful. Today, the existence of preferred representational systems is strongly supported by clinicians in the field regardless of supposedly weak support from the limited and methodologically flawed studies that took place over 2 decades ago. Indeed, it is widely recognised that children have preferred representational systems (i.e. learning styles) which can be identified and utilized to assist them with their learning.

Interestingly, some of the more specific models used in NLP do, indeed hold up to quantitative investigation. For example, Buckner et. al. (1987) found support for the NLP claim that specific eye accessing patterns exist and that individual trained observers can reliably observe them. The eye movement model holds that specific eye movements are indicative of specific sensory components in thought (that is whether an individual is accessing visual, auditory or kinaesthetic components). This is useful for allowing a practitioner to notice the types of cues a person is using to process information (e.g. whether they are putting together a picture, remembering sounds they heard or words that were spoken or whether they are checking that an idea feels alright). However, it is still questionable whether the fact that some of the specific NLP techniques can be supported by quantitative research means that this is the best way to explore them.

So what exactly does NLP offer the therapeutic community? In contrast to mainstream psychology, NLP does not concentrate on diagnosis and assessment of mental and behavioural disorders. Instead, it claims to facilitate personal change through transforming a person’s way of thinking, increasing their self-awareness and thus providing them with the opportunity to adopt new, positive and empowering ways of managing themselves. Bandler and Grinder’s focus on positive change together with their interest in positive language patterns and effective communication skills has meant their model is now widely used in sales and management training.

Within the business community, NLP is now a lucrative industry; its techniques and strategies are used and taught in seminars, workshops and books on management training, business communication, leadership skills, sales training, sports coaching, self help, life coaching and, more recently, parenting. Those who practise NLP see the results achieved from the successful application of the model as validation enough that the techniques and strategies work and have great value. However, although it is used as a therapeutic model by private psychotherapists, counsellors and hypnotherapists, the negaitivity of many Psychologists towards NLP remains.

Bandler and Grinder’s methods of close observation and imitation of successful and effective behaviours have come to be known as NLP Modelling. Bandler and Grinder claim modelling can be applied to all human learning including to understand the patterns of one's own behaviours in order recognise and replicate the more successful parts of oneself. Through modelling Satir, Perls and Erikson, Bandler and Grinder claimed to have identified key behaviour patterns underlying successful communication with which they developed their therapeutic model.

It is strange then that the other major criticism levelled at NLP has been that some of the techniques used already exist in counselling, albeit in a different format. Given that Bandler and Grinder openly disclosed how their therapeutic interventions were developed through the modelling of three outstanding psychotherapists, the fact that some of the techniques are replicated in other therapies should hardly come as a surprise. The rapport building skills, reframing and anchoring techniques taught in NLP are, indeed, all used in other types of therapy. However, rather than being a source of criticism, it could be argued that Bandler and Grinder’s inclusion of them in a concise and easily applicable format serves to confirm the usefulness of their model.

Another NLP technique which focuses on assisting clients in moving from one modality to another (for example helping the client to recognise not only what they see, but also what they hear and what they feel when discussing an issue) has long been used by Gestalt therapists as a highly effective way of facilitating a deeper understanding of an issue. Again, given that Fritz Perls was one of the psychotherapists modelled by Bandler and Grinder, it is not hard to see where this influence came from, nor does it render the technique irrelevant.

Finally, a hugely important aspect of NLP comes from the Eriksonian modelling; that is its use of positive, highly suggestive language patterns similar to those commonly used in hypnosis. A large number of clinical studies have now shown that hypnosis can help with anxiety, addictions, weight loss, pain control and phobias. It is now also recognised as a viable alternative to chemical anaesthesia. Consequently, it is now widely used by medical doctors, dentists, psychologists and other mental health professionals. Indeed, the vast majority of the academic community now has little difficulty in acknowledging the powerful effect hypnotic language patterns can have on an individual. There is, in my opinion, little doubt that these language patterns also play a huge part in the impressive results obtained through using NLP techniques and strategies.

It is interesting to ponder on whether, had Bandler and Grinder promoted NLP as ‘Therapeutic and Communication Excellence’, it would have been more readily welcomed by the psychological community. Rather than setting itself up as a science and consequently a discipline that could and should be supported by empirical evidence, it would have allowed NLP to be understood as the succinct, scripted and highly effective therapeutic and communication model it is. Although one must also wonder if that description would have appealed quite as much to the more lucrative business community and perhaps, ultimately, that was of greater importance to Bandler and Grinder than recognition of their model within the psychological community.

Curiously, after decades of very little psychological interest, 2007 and 2008 witnessed a small number new articles and papers being written about NLP and its application. One of the articles states ‘the way forward for people with NLP certification, is to make the needed research happen’ (Linder-Pelz and Hall, 2007). I guess the most important question now is what type of research that should be. Interestingly, of the new research papers I found all, without exception, used qualitative (case study) methodology.

To summarise then, far from being criticised for its lack of empirical research, or its replication of existing therapies, NLP should be thought of bringing together excellent counselling skills, therapeutic interventions and positive language patterns. What Bandler and Grinder developed with their NLP model is a concisely scripted, effective and highly applicable form of therapy and communication. Whilst Bandler and Grinder can be fairly criticised for incorrectly portraying NLP as a science, it should still be recognised as providing a powerful and successful model that facilitates personal change through transforming a person’s perception and increasing their self-awareness thus providing them with the opportunity to adopt new, positive and empowering ways of managing themselves. Doesn’t that sounds like something most of us could benefit from right now?

Sharpley. C (1987) ‘Research Finding on Neurolinguistic Programming: Non supportive data or an untestable theory?’ in Journal of Counselling Psychology Vol 34(1), Jan 1987, pp103-107.

Buckner. M., Meara. N., Reese. E. and Reese. M. (1987) ‘Eye Movement as an indicator of sensory components in thought’ in Journal of Counselling Psychology Vol 34(3), July 1987, pp283-287.

Linder-Pelz and Hall (2007) ‘Let the research begin’ in The Coaching Psychologist Vol 3(3), Dec 2007, pp145-148.