Roan Mee
Elphinstone Secondary School
Gibsons, BC, Canada
Glen MacPherson, PhD (Supervisor)
ABSTRACT
The premise of this study was to determine the validity of the Neurolinguistic programing model as it related to eye movements and cognition modes. Participants were 30 high school students of ages 14-18 of both sexes and varied handedness. The study methods were informed by those used in previous research. Results of the study were largely inconclusive, with the exception of responses to visual stimulus questions. This study serves to add to the argument that this claim from NLP is not supported by the evidence.
BACKGROUND
Neurolinguistic Programming, or NLP (e.g., Bandler & Grinder, 1979) gained attention during the 1970s and was promoted as a novel approach – almost a panacea – for such things as understanding and changing behaviour and emotions vis-à-vis specific cognitive and linguistic patterns, improved overall health and wellness (Heap, 2008; Witkowski, 2010), increased learning and memory retention (Bandler & Grinder, 1975; Roderique-Davies, 2009), and personal development and self-improvement (Bandler & Grinder, 1975; Heap, 2008). The antecedents of NLP include Korzybski’s General Semantics (1933), who claimed that the calculated use of language could clarify and cleanse the mind. Linder-Pelz and Hall (2007) state that the Human Potential Movement, which included the highly influential psychologists Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers They also describe the influence of behaviorist interpretations of Gestalt Therapy. Further influences included the psychiatrist Milton Erickson and linguist/cyberneticist Gregory Bateson.
The purpose of the present study was to test a classic and well known artifact of NLP; specifically, drawing inferences between eye movement and cognition modes. Adherents of NLP claim that eye movements in specific directions correlate well with specific types of mental activity (imagining, deception, recall, and so on). As widespread as those connections may be in common knowledge, the research literature reveals multiple and sharp criticisms of the eye movement hypothesis in particular (e.g. Thomason et al, 1980), and many aspects of NLP in general (e.g. Sharpley, 1987). The present study aims to test the eye movement hypothesis – that is, the claim that we can correlate eye movements with certain cognitive processes as described in NLP literature (O’Connor & Seymour, 1990).
Neuroscientists, psychologists, and other keen observers have reported or inferred linkages between eye movement and cognition states. In some cases, such as Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) Therapy for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a direct and reciprocal relation has been claimed (van der Kolk et al., 2007). The efficacy of EMDR has been seriously questioned (Parker, 1985), and there have no been no convincing explanations of any mechanisms that may be operating. The phenomenon of a person “looking off into space” while being given a cognitive task has been noticed by parents, teachers, and others for centuries. Regardless of what cognitive activity may be occurring in such states, the question germain to the present study is, are there predictable patterns in eye movement and direction when participants are directed to engage in specific types of mental activity?
RELATED RESEARCH LITERATURE
Buckner and Meara et al. (1987) studied the Neurolinguistic Programing Model as it relates to determination of thought patterns through particular eye placement while participants were then given cognitively specific questions. Participants were taken into interviewing rooms one at a time and seated approximately one meter from the interviewer where they were given a brief summary of what would be required of them during the study. Participants were then given cognitive specific questions to prompt the use of the NLP model, some examples of such are quoted from the literature here: “(a) a visual component in thinking, such as seeing an image of a place where one has been, (b) an auditory component in thinking, such as hearing the sound of a friend’s voice, and (c) a kinesthetic component in thinking, such as feeling again the temperature of a warm day or re-experiencing an emotional feeling.” Participants were videotaped over the duration of the questions they were asked which were later reviewed by a board of two registered NLP observers having the audio component of the video removed to eliminate bias. The study’s findings did not support the NLP model. Buckner and Meara concluded that there was no significant relationship between eye movement direction and the sensory modality of thought processes. This lack of empirical support suggested that the NLP eye movement model might not be a reliable indicator of cognitive activity.
Thomason et al. (1980) studied the validity of the neurolinguistic programing model by first stating the hypothesis set out by Bandler and Grinder between 1975 and 1979 and then using that model they conducted their own experiments. They worked with 40 introductory psychology students from a state university (the majority of which were caucasian females ranging between the ages of 18 and 25 years of age) and had them answer cognitive specific questions that (as was hypothesized) should have matched the NLP model. Their findings were relatively contradictory to the model showing that the questions being asked did not match up with the expected eye movement reaction, thus discrediting the validity of the model
Gur (1975) examined the relationship between lateral eye movements and brain hemisphere activation during cognitive tasks. He drew upon neurological observations that each brain hemisphere specializes in different cognitive tasks. For example, the right side of the brain is more effective at performing tasks that relate to creativity while the left side is more responsible for logic based cognitive processes. When asked to perform tasks that required more creativity there was a significant spike in EEG readings on the right side of the brain and when asked to perform a task that required logic the opposite was apparent whereas the EEG showed significant spikes in the left side of the brain. Given that the structure of the nervous system dictates that the brain is contralateral to the side of the body it controls, when a participant is using a particular side of the brain at one given time it is observed that the eyes will shift in the direction opposite that of the hemisphere that is currently being used, thus creating a strong relation between the movements of the eyes and the type of cognition that is taking place.
These three studies reflect the broader academic consensus that NLP’s eye movement theory lacks empirical support and requires substantial evidence before gaining acceptance in experimental psychology
METHODS
Participants comprised student volunteers from a mid-sized high school near the Lower Mainland of Vancouver, British Columbia Canada. They were asked questions that aimed to cause the participants to engage in the types of mental activity that have been claimed to correlate with specific eye movements (Refer to Figure 1.0). Specifically, I asked questions that were aimed to stimulate either a visual, auditory, or kinesthetic based eye movement. The resulting eye movements of the participants were recorded on marking sheets (Figure 2.0) . It was critical that during the study the participants were not allowed to converse with each other until the study was complete, otherwise this could introduce bias into the results. Therefore, the participants were taken directly from the interviewing space and excused from the section of the building containing all participants once they had completed their participation in the study.
(Figure 1 credits: Thomason et al. 1980)
*Figure 1 is shown in the perspective of an interviewer facing a participant directly ie. the sides of the face are reversed (The left side, where it would regularly be as it appears, is instead the right and vice versa).*
Figure 2.
DATA
DISCUSSION
Preliminary results of the study show weak correlations between eye movements and cognitive modes as predicted by the NLP model. The strongest correlation was found when participants engaged in mental activity that required visual recall or imagining. In questions such as “Can I get you to imagine the look of your room,” 75.5% of the respondents had eye movements that corresponded to the NLP model. In contrast, questions such as, “Can I get you to describe to me the sensation of falling”, which should have prompted a kinesthetic movement, prompted a variety of inconsistent results. The eye movement portion of the NLP model is not supported given these results. Results from the other two categories (auditory and kinesthetic) appear to have sporadic and almost random responses to the stimulus questions.
CONCLUSION
In closing, the results of this pilot study gravitate towards the growing consensus that the NLP eye movement model is not supported by formal research. Further studies, particularly those conducted by researchers not connected with NLP organizations, will no doubt add to what we know about this topic.
REFERENCES
Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1975). The structure of magic: A book about language and therapy. Science and Behavior Books.
Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1976). Patterns of the hypnotic techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D. Meta Publications.
Grinder, J., Bandler, R., & Andreas, S. (1979). Frogs into princes: Neuro linguistic programming.
Heap, M. (2008). Neuro-linguistic programming: An interim verdict. In S. Della Sala (Ed.), Tall tales about the mind and brain: Separating fact from fiction (pp. 259–275). Oxford University Press.
Korzybski, A. (1933). Science and sanity. An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics. International Non-Aristotelian Libr.
O’Connor, J., & Seymour, J. (1990). Introducing NLP: Psychological skills for understanding and influencing people. HarperCollins.
Roderique-Davies, G. (2009). Neuro-linguistic programming: Cargo cult psychology? Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 1(2), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1108/17581184200900013
Sharpley C.F. (1987). “Research Findings on Neuro-linguistic Programming: Non supportive Data or an Untestable Theory”. Communication and Cognition Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1987, 34(1), 103-107.
van der Kolk, B. A., Spinazzola, J., Blaustein, M. E., Hopper, J. W., Hopper, E. K., Korn, D. L., & Simpson, W. B. (2007). A randomized clinical trial of EMDR, fluoxetine, and pill placebo in PTSD treatment. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 68(1), 37-46.
Witkowski, T. (2010). Thirty-five years of research on neuro-linguistic programming: NLP research data base. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 41(2), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10059-010-0008-0