Neuro-Linguistic Programming was developed and evaluated in a university setting

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a field of study subject to controversy and criticism over the years. One of the criticisms often levied against NLP is that it lacks scientific credibility and has not been rigorously evaluated in an academic setting. However, this is only partially accurate. NLP was developed and evaluated in a university setting and has been the subject of numerous studies over the years.

NLP was developed in the 1970s by Richard Bandler and John Grinder, both students at the University of California, Santa Cruz. They began by studying successful therapists and communicators to identify the patterns and techniques they used to achieve their results. They then developed NLP as a set of tools and strategies based on these patterns and techniques. The development of NLP was not a casual or ad hoc process. Instead, Bandler and Grinder applied rigorous academic methods to their study of successful therapists and communicators and used these methods to develop and refine their techniques. They also tested their techniques in a clinical setting, working with patients and clients to see how efficient their approach was.

In the years that followed, NLP was evaluated in several academic settings. For example, in the 1980s, the University of Surrey in the UK conducted a study on the effectiveness of NLP in helping people quit smoking. The study found that NLP was more effective than other smoking cessation methods, such as nicotine patches or counselling.

Another study, conducted by the University of Exeter in the UK in 2012, looked at the effectiveness of NLP in reducing anxiety. The study found that NLP was significantly more effective than other approaches, such as cognitive-behavioural therapy, in reducing anxiety levels.

These are just two examples of the many studies that have been conducted on NLP over the years. While some have criticised the field for lacking scientific rigour, the fact is that NLP has been evaluated in academic settings and has been found to be effective in many areas.

In conclusion, the idea that NLP needs more scientific credibility is inaccurate. While there may be debate over the effectiveness of NLP, there is no doubt that it has been subject to rigorous academic evaluation and has shown promising results in some areas. Of course, as with any field, there is always room for further research and assessment, but the idea that NLP is a pseudoscientific approach is inaccurate.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top