Journal of Counseling Psychology Copyright 1985 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1985, Vol. 32, No. 4,589-696 0022-0167/85/$00.75

Observations Concerning Research Literature on

Neuro-Linguistic Programming
Eric L. Einspruch and Bruce D. Forman
Department of Psychiatry and Department of Educational and Psychological Studies
University of Miami

There is a growing body of empirical literature on Neuro-Linguistic Program-

ming (NLP). A review of this literature by Sharpley (1984) failed to consider a
number of methodological errors. In the present article the authors identify
six categories of design and methodological errors contained in the 39 empiri-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

cal studies of NLP documented through April 1984. These categories include
(a) lack of understanding of the concepts of pattern recognition and inade-
quate control of context, (b) unfamiliarity with NLP as an approach to thera-
py, (e) lack of familiarity with the NLP "meta-model" of linguistic communi-
cation, (d) failure to consider the role of stimulus-response associations, (e)
inadequate interviewer training and definitions of rapport, and (f) logical
mistakes. Representative reports reflecting each category are discussed.
Suggestions are offered for improving the quality of research on NLP.

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is mathematician, and John Grinder, a lin-

a way of organizing and understanding the
structure of subjective experience and is
concerned with the ways in which people
process information but not necessarily
with the specific content of that informa-
tion. Information is processed primarily in
three modes: visual, auditory, and kines-
thetic. The sensory modalities used in a
given task and their sequence are critical to
the performance of that task. Persons who
are extremely skilled at a task will have
radically different processing sequences
than those who perform poorly on that
same task. Understanding the structure
by which the skilled person processes infor-
mation, through the observation of eye
scanning patterns and linguistic patterns,
allows programs (similar to computer pro-
grams) to be codified, which can be taught
to other persons (Dilts, Grinder, Handler,
Cameron-Bandler, & DeLozier, 1980; Kins-
bourne, 1974).
Developed in 1975 by Richard Bandler, a
A note of gratitude is extended to Amber E. Gold-
stein, whose knowledge and continual support made
this.article possible. Acknowledgment is also given to
Robert H. Dolliver for his editorial assistance in the
preparation of this article.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Bruce D.
Forman, Counseling Psychology Program, P.O. Box
248065, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida
33124.
589
guist, NLP has been clinically demonstrat-
ed as a powerful technology for engender-
ing change (Bandler & Grinder, 1979;
Grinder & Bandler, 1981). From their
studies Bandler and Grinder developed
skills of modeling that allow one person to
identify in a specific fashion the structural
elements of another's behavior and to teach
that structure to yet a third person (Dilts et
al., 1980). When modeling another person
the modeler suspends his or her own beliefs
and adopts the structure of the physiology,
language, strategies, and beliefs of the per-
son being modeled. After the modeler is
capable of behaviorally reproducing the
patterns (of behavior, communication, and
behavioral outcomes) of the one being mod-
eled, a process occurs in which the modeler
modifies and readopts his or her own belief
system while also integrating the beliefs of
the one who was modeled. Because they
are extraordinarily skilled at this way of
learning, Bandler and Grinder were able to
ferret out the essential patterns used by
Milton Erickson, Virginia Satir, Fritz Perls,
and others, to codify these patterns in a
succinct, understandable way, and to trans-
fer the skills to others who are interested in
learning them.
Gregory Bateson (1972), whose work
forms a foundation for NLP theory, postu-
lated four logical levels of learning. The
 590 ERIC L. E1NSPRUCH AND BRUCE D. PORMAN
first level is the level of content, and this is
the level at which most people spend their
lives. Here one learns how to tie one's
shoes, cook a meal, drive a car, and so on.
Some people become acquainted with sec-
ond-level learning: the learning of context,
or learning how to learn. People who oper-
ate at the second logical level of learning
may rapidly learn any new content-specific
area, because they are capable of moving
through the learning process in an efficient,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
effective manner. In rare cases, persons
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
may rise to the third logical level of learn-
ing, the learning of how to learn context.
In this case one is operating at a level of
contextual pattern recognition; one is able
to easily identify and operate on the struc-
ture of any experience. It is at this level
that Bandler and Grinder operate when
they are modeling (or teaching modeling to)
some one. Bateson reserved his fourth
class of learning for those accomplished
persons like yogis and Zen masters.
With the foregoing as a conceptual
framework for understanding NLP, we may
turn to the consideration of the current re-
search literature on NLP. The only cur-
rent review of this literature was made by
Sharpley (1984). Sharpley's review is a
reasonably thorough summary of some
published articles on NLP, and he is to be
commended for his efforts. The authors of
studies he reviews make fundamental er-
rors by neglecting the NLP model of pat-
tern recognition, linguistic communication,
and therapeutic intervention. In addition,
these authors focus on the primary repre-
sentational system (PRS) and reify the
term, another major mistake. The danger
of reifying terms is that one may be easily
led to mistake a construct for reality (Kor-
zybski, 1941). Sharpley does not address
these issues. Other limitations of his re-
view are the statement that PRS patterns
occur for right-handed people only (not
mentioning the importance of calibration
to the individual, i.e., recognizing individ-
ual differences in patterning) and the jump
from the deep structure/surface structure
of language to representational systems
without indicating how and why this con-
cept is a crucially important one (e.g., citing
seminal works by Noam Chomsky). No-
where do Bandler and Grinder suggest that
matching the client's PRS is the key to ef-
fective counseling, as Sharpley states, but
rather they indicate that it is an important
element in effective communication and
should be used in conjunction with other
techniques. Sharpley reports that the
amount of published data supporting NLP
as a viable model for therapeutic change is
minimal. Nevertheless, many skilled NLP
practitioners have a wealth of clinical data
indicating that this model is highly effec-
tive. Clearly these practitioners would
provide a service to the field by presenting
their data in the literature so they may be
critically evaluated.
In preparing this article the authors
identified 39 reports of empirical studies by
searching journal citations and several
automated data bases of publications from
1975 to April 1984. Twenty-four of these
articles were not reviewed by Sharpley.
Almost all of the research articles concern
either the identification of primary repre-
sentational systems or the effects of match-
ing or mismatching primary representa-
tional systems. The following discussion
considers these categories of design errors:
(a) lack of understanding of concepts of
pattern recognition and inadequate ac-
counting of context, (b) unfamiliarity with
NLP as an approach to therapy, (c) unfa-
miliarity with the NLP "meta-model" of
linguistic communication, (d) failure to
consider the role of stimulus-response as-
sociations, (e) inadequate interviewer
training and definitions of rapport, and (f)
logical mistakes. Representative studies
that include these errors will be discussed.
The studies selected appeared in the jour-
nal literature and clearly represent the
problems discussed.
Design and Methodological Errors
Lack of Understanding of the Concepts of
Pattern Recognition and Inadequate
Control of Context
Neuro-Linguistic Programming is based
on the identification and interruption of
limiting behavioral and cognitive patterns
and the generation of more useful and ap-
 OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING NLP
propriate ones. Gumm, Walker, and Day's
(1982) study demonstrates limited under-
standing of these concepts (in addition,
they misspell the name of the topic, consis-
tently referring to "neurolinguistics" pro-
gramming). In this project 50 undergradu-
ate women were interviewed for 45 min
each. Responses to a set of questions were
categorized by frequency of each represen-
tational system. Subjects were also asked
to complete a self-report questionnaire of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
what they thought were their primary rep-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
resentational systems. After the interview,
subjects were led into a room surrounded
by curtains and were placed in a chair
where they had their heads secured in a
restraining device. They were then asked
questions and were rated on eye scanning
patterns. An analysis was made between
each of the three methods of determining
primary representational systems, and no
agreement was found, although each meth-
od appeared to be biased toward one of the
sensory modalities.
Gumm et al. (1982) selected only right-
handed people, stating that Bandler and
Grinder claim that their model does not
work for left-handed people. Bandler and
Grinder make no such claim; rather they
state that most people follow a standard
pattern of eye accessing cues. In every
case, they emphasize the importance of cal-
ibrating to the individual being inter-
viewed, understanding that there is no sub-
stitute for paying sufficient attention to
gathering sensory-based data. Calibration
is the process by which one tunes himself or
herself to the nonverbal signals that indi-
cate a particular state in a particular per-
son, presupposing that the meaning of a
communication is the response it elicits
(Grinder & Bandler, 1981). Right-handed
people will occasionally violate the usual
pattern, and many people have partial or
full reversals of this pattern. The salient
feature of the concept of patterning is that
whatever pattern a person may have, he or
she will follow that pattern consistently. It
is a major failure for the authors not to
perform individual calibrations.
Patterns of cognition may occur at either
a conscious or an unconscious level. In nei-
ther this study nor any of the others do the
591
authors make a distinction between what is
in awareness and what is outside of it
(Erickson's "conscious" and "unconscious"
minds). It is quite common for a person to
spend most of his or her time accessing (by
eye movements) in one representational
system and speaking (representing in lin-
guistic form) in another representational
system. This is simply a statement about
what is and what is not in the speaker's
awareness. All information not considered
in a verbal communication, unless other-
wise investigated, may be considered to be
outside of the person's awareness. Under-
standing this concept and what to do with
the information obtained is an important
skill in NLP practice. Finally, it is neces-
sary to understand that the representation-
al system in which information will be
stored or from which it will be retrieved is
highly contextualized (i.e., varies with the
situation), and this context will directly in-
fluence the system used. Locking a per-
son's head in a restraint while asking ques-
tions that are non sequiturs cannot not af-
fect how the subject will respond. Context
plays an important role in determining the
meaning as well as the structure of any
communication. Thus, the results of this
project must be called into question.
These mistakes are also found in Beale
(1980/1981), Birholtz (1981), Cole-Hitch-
cock (1980), Fromme and Daniell (1984),
Hernandez (1981), Johannsen (1982), Kraft
(1982), Lange (1980/1981), Mattar
(1980/1981), Owens (1977/1978), Radosta
(1982), Shaw (1977/1978), Talone (1983),
and Thomason, Arbuckle, and Cady (1980).
Failure to Understand NLP as an
Approach to Therapy
Neuro-Linguistic Programming theory
presupposes a particular approach to ther-
apy that was not followed by the research-
ers in the works that have been reviewed.
For example, Hammer's (1983) interview
was supposed to represent a counseling sit-
uation with interviewer questions designed
to elicit representations of past experi-
ences. This is a distortion of the NLP ap-
proach to therapy, which is generative by
nature and makes use of questions designed
 592 ERIC L. EINSPRUCH AND BRUCE D. FORMAN
to build a future that is appropriate for the
client to move toward.
Yapko (1981a, 1981b) has probably pro-
duced the most sensible NLP research pro-
ject in the current literature, if only because
he used an operational, physiological indi-
cator of rapport. However, he does not
control for contextual influences. Thirty
graduate students in counseling were in-
ducted into hypnotic trance three times.
Each time the trance was induced with a
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
different representational system empha-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
sized. The inductions were taped for stan-
dardization. Depth of trance was mea-
sured physiologically by electromyographic
recordings of muscle relaxation. Between
inductions participants were asked to rate
their subjective feelings of relaxation. The
main variable not controlled was the effect
of moving into and out of trance states.
Milton Erickson frequently used alternate
entry into and out of trance as a means for
deepening the trance state (Grinder,
Handler, & DeLozier, 1977). Yapko's re-
sults support Bandler and Grinder's (1979)
contention that matching primary repre-
sentational systems enhances rapport.
Subjects achieved greater states of relax-
ation, both subjectively and as measured
physiologically, when the induction was.
presented in a matched system versus a
mismatched system. Unfortunately, the
uncontrolled influence of context limits the
interpretation of the results.
Allen (1982) performed the only study
that used behavioral observation, although
he incorporated other design errors.
Neuro-Linguistic Propamming is noted
for its rapid treatment of simple phobias
(as distinct from social phobias or agora-
phobia), and Allen studied NLP versus
Massed Systematic Desensitization (MSD)
versus no treatment with 36 undergradu-
ates with snake phobias. No differences
between the NLP and MSD groups were
found on posttreatment behavioral ap-
proach tests. In other words, the NLP-
based treatment was just as effective as the
MSD treatment. Despite the equivalence
of findings, those in the NLP group report-
ed more frequently that they thought that
they were over their fear of snakes. The
study at least follows the NLP model in
that it uses observable outcomes as depen-
dent variables. Other studies that failed to
understand the NLP approach to therapy
include Atwater (1983), Ellickson (1983),
Hagstrom (1981/1982), Haynie
(1982/1983), and Wilimek (1979/1980).
Failure to Understand the Meta-Model of
Linguistic Communication
Ellickson (1983) selected 72 college stu-
dents and determined each student's pri-
mary representational system by observa-
tion of eye scanning patterns. Subjects
were then randomly assigned to one of two
interview conditions in which the inter-
viewer either deliberately matched or mis-
matched predicates presented by the sub-
ject. After a 15- to 20-min interview, sub-
jects rated their interviewer on perceived
qualities of empathy, ease, anxiety, and
hostility on three self-report instruments.
Hypotheses related to the effects interac-
tions of sex of interviewer, sex of subject,
and interview condition were tested. Only
sex interactions produced significant dif-
ferences, and little evidence was generated
to support Bandler and Grinder's (1979)
claim that matching representational sys-
tems enhances rapport.
EUickson's failure to consider the NLP
meta-model of linguistic communication
(Bandler & Grinder, 1975) is a major flaw in
this study. The meta-model is a tool used
to understand how a person transforms the
reference structure of experience into the
surface structure of language by classifying
the syntactical components of language.
This is a primary NLP tool because it is
essential for eliciting the structure of how a
person constructs his or her reality and its
limits and it provides a way to engage a
person in conversation that accesses infor-
mation and resources and directs them to-
ward a therapeutic outcome. In the NLP
model, words like empathy, ease, anxiety,
and hostility are all nominalizations (i.e.,
nouns that are generated by the reification
of verbs). As such, they do not represent
any tangible thing but are instead the prod-
ucts of the constructs of each individual,
predicated on the individual's strategy for
constructing reality. Helping the client to
turn nominalizations back into action
words is an important NLP technique per-
 OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING NLP 593

formed by appropriate use of the meta-
model. Consequently, there is no way that
any of these words can be measured, either
for a group or particularly by a paper-and-
pencil self-report inventory. These mis-
takes are also found in Frieden (1981) and
Pantin (1982).
Failure to Consider Stimulus-Response
Associations
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
example, in Dowd and Hingst's (1983)
study, master's level students who had no
experience as therapists were trained in
four 90-min sessions. This may allow
enough time for a person to learn to identify
eye accessing cues, but it does not provide
enough time to develop mastery of the NLP
framework for establishing rapport. Rap-
port is not just a function of matching or
mismatching representational systems. It
is a complex matter involving matching at

Dorn (1983a), who was concerned with many levels, including the pacing of the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

accurately assessing a client's primary rep- client's breathing and many elements of
resentational system, designed a study at- linguistic structure. Rapport may be de-
tempting to determine the best method for fined operationally as occurring when the
doing so. Unfortunately, he did not con- client is willing to follow the lead of the
sider the nature of stimulus-response asso- therapist. An interviewer may match rep-
ciations. Three methods were used. First, resentational systems and still mismatch in
subjects were introduced to a relaxation ex- enough other ways that rapport is not es-
ercise and then were asked to verbally de- tablished. Similar errors are also found in
scribe three different scenes. Already con- Appel (1983), Brockman (1980/1981), Cody
text is specified and not generalizable. (1983), Ellickson (1983), Dorn (1983b),
Next, subjects were presented with a word Dowd and Pety (1982), Ehrmantraut
list containing 18 triads, each triad contain- (1983), Falzett (1981), Green (1979/1981),
ing one visual, one auditory, and one kines- Hammer (1983), and Paxton (1980/1981).
thetic word. The subjects were instructed
to pick the preferred word in each triad.
The one example provided in the text con- Logical Mistakes
tained a nonspecified predicate, so one
must question the choice of words in the
other triads. Also, Dorn disregarded the Mercier and Johnson (1984) conducted a
NLP concept that words are simply an- study based on an interesting idea: taking
chors and the subject was likely to respond classic counselor training films and analyz-
to the most positive anchor rather than re- ing them from part of an NLP perspective.
spond to a word because it represented a However, the authors made some inappro-
particular sensory modality. In this case, priate logical jumps: They predicted how
the positive anchors were words with which the therapists in the film would use predi-
the individuals had positive associations. cation patterns in their own language and
Finally, subjects were given an explanation predicted whether the therapists would
of the concept of primary representational match or mismatch client predication on
systems and were asked to self-report the basis of the system that the therapist
which one they thought was theirs. This followed. The system that the therapist
presupposed a conscious awareness of how subscribes to will be in part determined by
one represents and maps one's world, a pro- his or her way of understanding the world,
cess that is necessarily unconscious (Bate- and predication patterns partially reflect
son, 1972). Predictably, analysis of the the structure of that understanding. Mer-
data revealed no significant results. cier and Johnson's predictions were in the
wrong direction; the model may or may not
Inadequate Interviewer Training and the be predictable from the predication pat-
terns, but certainly the reverse cannot hold
Nature of Rapport in the Counseling true. Once again, the investigators have
Relationship failed to calibrate to the individuals being
All of the reviewed studies failed to pro- studied. These mistakes are also included
vide adequate investigator training. For in Ellis (1980/1981) and Frye (1980).
 594 ERIC L. EINSPRUCH AND BRUCE D. FORMAN

Conclusion and Recommendations gramming is a complex model requiring ex-

tensive training before a practitioner may
Neuro-Linguistic Programming is an ex- legitimately undertake a study of this na-
traordinarily complex model of human cog- ture. One cannot simply attend one or two
nition and behavior and of how to identify workshops or read a book and assume that
behavioral and communication patterns he or she can effectively perform NLP ther-
and interrupt these patterns in a deliberate apy any more than this could be assumed
way so as to achieve predictable outcomes. for any other model of therapy. Given the
Eye scanning patterns and representation- current state of research on NLP, a more
al systems are an important, but small, part appropriate strategy would be to pose ques-
of NLP. It is difficult to understand the tions concerning the sensory-observable
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

NLP framework from the perspective of outcomes of therapy rather than investi-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

traditional counseling models; it is much gate pieces of the model and their relations
more appropriate to approach it from the to reified concepts.
framework of mathematics, biology, or cy- In conclusion, on the basis of the research
bernetics. Neuro-Linguistic Programming that has appeared in the literature, it is not
deals with patterns of interactions, and to possible at this time to determine the valid-
ignore this basic premise is to miss an es- ity of either NLP concepts or whether
sential feature of NLP as a model of under- NLP-based therapeutic procedures are ef-
standing and altering human behavior. fective for achieving therapeutic outcomes.
A number of modifications could be Procedures generated from the NLP model
made to improve designs of research con- must be used within the presuppositions of
ducted on NLP. First, and perhaps most the model, and research on reified concepts
important, researchers should be trained is trivial in nature and is a distraction from
by competent NLP practitioners for an ap- the serious issues relating to testing the
propriate duration of time. Training NLP model. Only when well-designed em-
should include pattern recognition skills pirical investigations are carried out may
and a foundation in the presuppositions of we be assured of NLP's validity as a model
NLP to provide an adequate framework for of therapy.
understanding NLP as an approach to
therapy. Second, any investigators wish- References
ing to study rapport should rely on objec- Allen, K. (1982). An investigation of the effective-
tive, sensory-observable measures of their ness of Neurolinguistic Programming procedures in
procedures. Third, except in gathering in- treating snake phobics (Doctoral dissertation, Uni-
formation about sensory-observable out- versity of Missouri—Kansas City, 1982). Disserta-
comes of therapy, procedures should not be tion Abstracts International, 43,861B. (Universi-
ty Microfilms No. 82-169, 56)
applied at the group level, but rather at the Appel, P. (1983). Matching of representational sys-
individual level, and calibrated to each per- tems and interpersonal attraction (Doctoral disser-
son's personal characteristics. Data on in- tation, United States International University,
dividual observations may then be summed 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43,
to arrive at group data. Fourth, any treat- 3021B. (University Microfilms No. 83-018, 35)
ment studies should be performed only by Atwater, J. M. (1983). Differential effects of inter-
vention from the Neurolinguistic Programming
therapists with demonstrated mastery of meta-model and general systems in early psycho-
the model and its techniques, and outcome therapy (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M Uni-
measures should be behavioral in nature. versity, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
If comparisons are to be made with other tional, 44, 2887B-2888B. (University Microfilms
No. 83-298, 95)
treatment approaches, the therapists using Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1975). The structure of
the comparative model should be equally magic (Vol. 1). Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior
proficient. For example, the treatment of Books.
phobias with NLP is a specialized opera- Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1979). Frogs into
princes. Moab, UT: Real People Press.
tion, because not every phobia is to be Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind.
treated with the same techniques or for the New York: Ballantine Books.
same duration. Neuro-Linguistic Pro- Beale, R. P. (1981). The testing of a model for the
 OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING NLP
representation of consciousness (Doctoral disserta-
tion, Fielding Institute, 1980). Dissertation Ab-
stracts International, 41, 3565B-3566B. (Univer-
sity Microfilms No. 81-067,99)
Birholtz, L. S. (1981). Neuro-Linguistic Program-
ming: Testing some basic assumptions (Doctoral
dissertation, Fielding Institute, 1981). Disserta-
tion Abstracts International, 42, 2042B. (Univer-
sity Microfilms No. 81-183,24)
Brockman, W. (1981). Empathy revisited: The ef-
fect of representational system matching on certain
counseling process and outcome variables (Doctoral
dissertation, College of William and Mary, 1980).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 3421A.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(University Microfilms No. 81-035,91)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Cody, S. G. (1983). The stability and impact of the
primary representational system in Neurolinguistic
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 (Doctor-
al dissertation, Baylor University, 1980). Disserta-
tion Abstracts International, 41, 1907B-1908B.
(University Microfilms No. 80-252, 27)
Dilts, R., Grinder, J., Bandler, R., Cameron-Bandler,
L., & DeLozier, J. (1980). Neuro-Linguistic Pro-
gramming (Vol. 1). Cupertino, CA: Meta Publica-
tions.
Dorn, F. (1983a). Assessing primary representation-
al system (PRS) preference for Neuro-Linguistic
Programming (NLP) using three methods. Coun-
selor Education and Supervision, 23,149-156.
Dorn, F. J. (1983b). The effects of counselor-client
predicate use in counselor attractiveness. Ameri-
can Mental Health Counselor's Association Jour-
nal, 5,22-30.
Dowd, E., & Hingst, A. (1983). Matching therapists'
predicates: An in vivo test of effectiveness. Per-
ceptual and Motor Skills, 57,207-210.
Dowd, E., & Pety, J. (1982). Effect of counselor
predicate matching on perceived social influence
and client satisfaction. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 29, 206-209.
Ehrmantraut, J. E. (1983). A comparison of the
therapeutic relationship of counseling students
trained in neurolinguistic programming vs. students
trained in the Carkuff model (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Northern Colorado, 1983). Disserta-
tion Abstracts International, 44, 3191B. (Univer-
sity Microfilms No. 83-284, 91)
Ellickson, J. (1983). Representational systems and
eye movements in an interview. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 30,339-345.
Ellis, J. (1981). Representation systems: An inves-
tigation of sensory predicate use in a self-disclosure
interview (Doctoral dissertation, University of Min-
nesota, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts Internation-
al, 41, 4244B-4255B. (University Microfilms No.
81-094,21)
Falzett, W. (1981). Matched versus unmatched pri-
mary representational systems and their relation-
595
ship to perceived trustworthiness in a counseling
analog. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28,
305-308.
Frieden, F. (1981). Speaking the client's language:
The effects of Neuro-Linguistic Programming
(predicate matching) on verbal and nonverbal beha-
viors in psychotherapy (Doctoral dissertation, Vir-
ginia Commonwealth University, 1981). Disserta-
tion Abstracts International, 42, 1171B. (Univer-
sity Microfilms No. 81-189,60)
Fromme.D. K.,&Daniell,J. (1984). Neurolinguistic
programming examined: Imagery, sensory mode,
and communication. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 31,387-390.
Frye, M. (1980). An analysis of the relationship be-
tween leisure interests and representational sys-
tems among college freshman students with impli-
cations for leisure counseling (Doctoral dissertation,
Oklahoma State University, 1980). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 41, 2764A. (University
Microfilms No. 80-271,78)
Green, M. (1981). Trust as affected by representa-
tional system predicates (Doctoral dissertation, Ball
State University, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 41, 3159B-3160B. (University Mi-
crofilms No. 81-046,51)
Grinder, J., & Bandler, R. (1981). Trance-forma-
tions. Moab, UT: Real People Press.
Grinder, J., Bandler, R., & DeLozier, J. (1977), Pat-
terns of the hypnotic techniques of Milton H.
Eriekson,MD(Vol,2). Cupertino, CA: Meta Pub-
lications.
Gumm,W., Walker, M.,& Day, H. (1982). Neurolin-
guistic programming: Method or myth? Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 29,327-330.
Hagstrom, G. (1982). A microanalysis of direct con-
frontation psychotherapy with schizophrenics: Us-
ing Neuro-Linguistic Programming and Delsarte's
system of expression (Doctoral dissertation, Cali-
fornia School of Professional Psychology, 1981).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 4192B.
(University Microfilms No. 82-075,48)
Hammer, A. (1983). Matching perceptual predi-
cates: Effect on perceived empathy in a counseling
analog. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30,
172-179.
Haynie, N. (1983). Systematic human relations
training with Neuro-Linguistic Programming (Doc-
toral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1982).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 2286A.
(University Microfilms No. 82-286,94)
Hernandez, V. (1981). A study of eye movement
patterns in the Neuro-Linguistic Programming
model (Doctoral dissertation, Ball State University,
1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42,
1587B, (University Microfilms No. 81-105,05)
Johannsen, C. (1982). Predicates, mental imagery in
discrete sense modes, and levels of stress: The
Neuro-Linguistic Programming typologies (Doctor-
al dissertation, United States International Univer-
sity, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International,
43,2709B. (University Microfilms No. 82-296,38)
Kinsbourne, M. (1974). Direction of gaze and distri-
bution of cerebral thought processes. Neuropsy-
chologia, 12, 279-281.
 596 ERIC L. EINSPRUCH AND BRUCE D. FORMAN
Korzybski, A. (1941). Science and sanity. New
York: Science Press.
Kraft, W. (1982). The effects of primary representa-
tional system congruence on relaxation in a Neuro-
Linguistic Programming model (Doctoral disserta-
tion, Texas A & M University, 1982). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 43, 2372B. (University
Microfilms No. 82-261,01)
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 Agri-
cultural and Mechanical College, 1980). Disserta-
tion Abstracts International, 41, 4266B. (Univer-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
sity Microfilms No. 81-104,20)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Matter, A. (1981). Primary representational sys-
tems as a basis for improved comprehension and
communication (Doctoral dissertation, Utah State
University, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 41, 3162B. (University Microfilms No.
81-041,13)
Mercier, M.,& Johnson, M. (1984). Representation-
al system predicate use and convergence in counsel-
ing: Gloria revisited. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 31,161-169.
Owens, L. (1978). An investigation of eye move-
ments and representational systems (Doctoral dis-
sertation, Ball State University, 1977). Disserta-
tion Abstracts International, 38, 4992B. (Univer-
sity Microfilms No. 78-038,28)
Pantin, H. (1982). The relationship between sub-
jects' predominant sensory predicate use, their pre-
ferred representational system and self-reported at-
titudes towards similar versus different thera;
pist-patient dyads (Doctoral dissertation, Universi-
ty of Miami, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts Inter-
national, 43, 2350B. (University Microfilms No.,
82-292,08)
Paxton, L. (1981). Representational systems and
client perception of the counseling relationship
(Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1980).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 3888A.
(University Microfilms No. 81-059,41)
Radosta,R. (1982). An investigation of eye accessing
cues (Doctoral dissertation, East Texas State Uni-
versity, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 43, 883B. (University Microfilms No.
82-194,81)
Sharpley.C. (1984). Predicate matching in NLP: A
review of research on the preferred representational
system. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31,
238-248.
Shaw, D. (1978). Recall as effected by the interaction
of presentation representational system and prima-
ry representational system (Doctoral dissertation,
Ball State University, 1977). Dissertation Ab-
stracts International, 38, 5931A. (University Mi-
crofilms No. 78-038, 30)
Talone, J. M. (1983). The use of sensory predicates
to predict responses to sensory suggestions (Doctor-
al dissertation, Utah State University, 1983). Dis-
sertation Abstracts International, 44, 618B-619B.
(University Microfilms No. 83-135,68)
Thomason, T. C., Arbuckle, T., & Cady, D. (1980).
Test of the eye movement hypothesis of Neurolin-
guistic Programming. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 51, 230.
Wilimek,J. (1980). The use of language representa-
tional systems by high and low marital adjustment
couples (Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah,
1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40,
3914A. (University Microfilms No. 80-009,71)
Yapko, M. (1981a). The effect of matching primary
representational system predicates on hypnotic re-
laxation. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis,
23,169-175.
Yapko, M. (1981b). Neuro-Linguistic Program-
ming, hypnosis, and interpersonal influence (Doc-
toral dissertation, United States International Uni-
versity, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 41, 3204B. (University Microfilms No.
81-033,93)
Received October 5,1984
Revision received May 21,1985