Neuro-linguistic Programming - Essay Example

Running Head: NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING Neuro-linguistic Programming s Table of Content Neuro-linguistic Programming "The last frontier of man will be to understand himself." George Betts (2001, p. 101) Introduction Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is 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 information. Information is processed primarily in three modes: visual, auditory, and kinesthetic. 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 information, through the observation of eye scanning patterns and linguistic patterns, allows programs (similar to computer programs) to be codified, which can be taught to other persons (Dilts, Grinder, Bandler, Cameron-Bandler, & DeLozier, 2001; Kinsbourne, 2001). Developed in 2001 by Richard Bandler, a mathematician, and John Grinder, a linguist, NLP has been clinically demonstrated as a powerful technology for engendering change (Bandler & Grinder, 2000; Grinder & Bandler, 2000). 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., 2001). 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 person being modeled. After the modeler is capable of behaviorally reproducing the patterns (of behavior, communication, and behavioral outcomes) of the one being modeled, 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 transfer the skills to others who are interested in learning them. Gregory Bateson (2000), whose work forms a foundation for NLP theory, postulated four logical levels of learning. The 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 second-level learning: the learning of context, or learning how to learn. People who operate 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, effective manner. In rare cases, persons may rise to the third logical level of learning, 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 structure 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. The NLP is an approach based on cybernetics, psychology and linguistics. It was developed at the beginning of the years 70' by Richard Bandler, data processing specialist and psychologist, and by John Grinder, psychologist and linguist, both of the University of Santa Cruz in California. These researchers created a discipline having the same philosophical roots and scientists that cognitive sciences, that the movement of the human resources and that transpersonnelle psychology. As of its beginnings the NLP emerged and evolved/moved starting from work of various scientists; those of Alfred Korzybski on general semantics, of Noam Chomsky on transformationnelle grammar, of Fritz Perls father of the "Gestalt therapy", of Virginia Satir which is the mother of the family therapy, Milton Erickson who is the creator of the hypnosis ericksonienne, of Gregory Bateson author of the "Double bind therapy" which treats schizophrenia, and work of Ashby, author of the theory of the logical types, in the field of cybernetics Based on these approaches, the NLP became the study of the human behavior. It seeks to include/understand the human one in its operation and its subjective experiment. The NLP wishes to discover how one does what one does, like maximizing our potential. It especially seeks to decode our experiment of life in order to better perceive the reality which surrounds us and thus to benefit the maximum of what the life has to offer to us. The key words of the NLP are "to learn", "resources", "potential", "result" and "improved standard of living". With this intention the NLP proposes: 1. To include/understand the mechanisms of encodings of the problems in order to change our experiment it, to solve the conflicts and to reach constructive results. 2. To take part in the creation and the installation of a greater comfort and an improved standard of living by developing our resources and know-how. Through the years the NLP developed tools, techniques and a spirit which facilitates the achievement of our personal and professional objectives. It became the discipline of maximization and comprehension of the human experiment and finds applications in fields as varied as the businesses, education, the communication, the therapy and the personal growth. Discussion and Analysis With the foregoing as a conceptual framework for understanding NLP, we may turn to the consideration of the current research literature on NLP. The only current review of this literature was made by Sharpley (1999). Sharpley's review is a reasonably thorough summary of some published articles on NLP, and he is to be commended for his efforts. Neuro-linguistic programming experts of studies he reviews make fundamental errors by neglecting the NLP model of pattern recognition, linguistic communication, and therapeutic intervention. In addition, these authors focus on the primary representational 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 (Korzybski, 2002). Sharpley does not address these issues. Other limitations of his review are the statement that PRS patterns occur for right-handed people only (not mentioning the importance of calibration to the individual, i.e., recognizing individual differences in patterning) and the jump from the deep structure/surface structure of language to representational systems without indicating how and why this concept is a crucially important one (e.g., citing seminal works by Noam Chomsky). Nowhere do Bandler and Grinder suggest that matching the client's PRS is the key to effective 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 effective. Clearly these practitioners would provide a service to the field by presenting their data in the literature so they may be critically evaluated. Implementation of Neuro-linguistic Programming Schools The public school administrator of the 2000's is confronted with such issues as gang violence, large classes, less investment by faculty in the school as an institution, issues of student discipline and control in and out of the classroom, and a wavering support by parents and the community. Through effective patterns of communication, the school administrator must build a team approach composed of students, staff, and community to define the problem areas and attack said issues in a positive fashion. One of the most effective communication patterns that can be employed by school administrators to establish the needed rapport with significant others in the learning environmen to create change to alleviate the conflictive issues in today's educational arena is Neuro-Linguistic Programming. Jung once commented, "The unconscious processes that are most important to rely upon are...empathy and through empathy a therapist is able to put himself insid and feel along with his patient or experience in himself what it is like to be his patient" (Fordham, 2001). Turkat reinforced the idea of empathy when he said, "Unquestionably, one must be able to empathize with the patient if one is to be able to formulate the case" (Turkat, 2000). Arthur Combs (2003) went right to the "heart of the empathy" as he said, "Helpers who can truly understand and identify with their clients will most likely be more compassionate, concerned, and sympathetic--thus, far more inclined to foster good communication." Opening the lines of communication is a must for the schoo administrator in order to create the needed empathy in the educational environs and said empathy can be accomplished in a "masterful" manner through Neuro-Linguistic Programming. N.L.P. therapists rely on a sophisticated set of techniques for establishing rapport with patients and for scanning a patient's body language and word patterns for a quick revelation of the underlying problems. Once a problem emerges, the therapist tries to reprogram behavior, using hypnotic techniques derived from Milton Erickson, a maverick Phoenix hypnotherapist who died in 19Like Freudians, Neuro-Linguistic Programmers watch for an unconscious message to poke through. But the goal is not to ransack the past and discover a stonehearted mother or an Oedipal triangle. It is to find out what the patients are doing in terms of their thinking processes that makes them, say, remember to shake when they see an elevator. Basically, behavior is communication. Paxton (2000) commented that this is Cognitive Behavioral Communication which simply means - How we think results in how we behave; and all behaviors are the communications that lead to how we are thinking, non-verbal communication, and body language. According to the writer (Helm, 2000), the first step is for the school administrator to establish whether the conferee is communication primarily through visual, auditory, or kinesthetic means (Please note that individuals communicate in all three modalities, but that they usually stress one approach more than another.) so as to establish the "ideal communication modality for each person. This step involves observing the individual's eye movements. Assum the conferee to be observed is right handed. The following will be true in 80% of the right-handed people to be observed. When asked appropriate questions, if the individual is visual, he/she will look up to the right to create new ideas and up to the left to remember past experiences; if auditory, he/she will look towards his/her right ear to create ideas or to the left ear to recall incidents; and if the person is kinesthetic, he/she will look down and to the right if he/she is thinking in emotions and down and to the left if he/she is creating new ideas or talking to him/herself (Bandler & Grinder, 2000). One may also distinguish the arena a person is operating in by the manner "he/she stands - if visual, straight; if auditory, a telephone posture; and kinesthetic, slumped. Vocally, a visual person normally has a loud, high, fast-tempoed voice; an auditory individual has a mid-range, even-tempoed rate o speaking; and the kinesthetic person has a soft, slow-tempoed vocal quality" (Helm, 2000). Once the conferee has been determined to primarily belong to the visual, auditory, or kinesthetic communication modality, the school administrator will then adapt to the appropriate modality for effective communication - Now comes the challenge for the administrator. The session will be based around "joining" the administrator and the conferee through the appropriate linguistics. As to linguistics (Helm, 2000), the object is to match the predicates (verbs, adjectives, and adverbs) of the conferee according to what he/she says in accordance to the pattern established through his/her eye movements and other cues. For example, if visual, the administrator might say, "I see that you are upset"; if auditory, "It sounds like you need someone to listen"; and if kinesthetic, "I feel that we should share feelings." It is important to note that with 20% of the right-handed people and some left-handed people, the patterns are reversed and the administrator must react accordingly. When meeting the conferee on a one-to-one basis, the administrator can enhance the "rapport" needed to open the communication channel through the process of approximation - the pacing of the conferee's posture, head positioning, shoulders, gestures, breathing, and vocal expression (Helm, 2000). As the conferee sits, so should the administrator "approximate" a similar sitting position (same with positioning of the head, etc.). The conferee observes through this approximation that the administrator is very much like him/her so the "joining" occurs and the empathy is established - We like people who remind us of ourselves. Through Neuro-Linguistic Programming, new lines of communication can develop between the school administrator and the conferee which make it possible for th development of trust and mutuality of effective communication. Today's school administrator needs every communication technique at his/her disposal in order to create an empathy with the school community to overcome the problems that plague education - Neuro-Linguistic Programming is one such technique. NLP Tools NLP's central premise is that people are programmed to think, act and feel by their thoughts, beliefs, feelings, language and behavior. The idea is that identifying and changing these influences can make us more effective both personally and professionally. NLP teaches trainees to recognize and understand body language, including eye movements, nonverbal communication such as vocal rhythm and tone, and key words that carry extra meaning. These skills are used to identify trainees' or others' changes in emotional state or mood. NLP uses a grab bag of techniques to accomplish this. Mirroring is the practice of duplicating words and postures exhibited by others as a way to build rapport. Anchoring is the skill of using a word, gesture or even touch to elicit a particular thought, feeling or visual image. And there are numerous other NLP tools, ranging from tricks to induce light hypnotic trances in listeners to methods for deciphering moods by studying eye position. NLP students learn to apply their skills in a variety of contexts, including hiring interviews, sales calls, meeting presentations, teleconferences and even e-mail messages and faxes. NLP is clearly a complex topic; its trainers have produced numerous books, videotapes and audiotapes explaining it. Most of these products, however, are of limited use, experts say. The best way to learn about NLP is through personal training, which can be expensive and time-consuming. NLP also has image problems. It isn't widely accepted by psychologists, partly because of the controversial professional and personal style of co-founder Richard Bandler. 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 appropriate ones. Gumm, Walker, and Day's (2000) study demonstrates limited understanding of these concepts (in addition, they misspell the name of the topic, consistently referring to "neurolinguistics" programming). In this project 50 undergraduate women were interviewed for 45 min each. Responses to a set of questions were categorized by frequency of each representational system. Subjects were also asked to complete a self-report questionnaire of what they thought were their primary representational 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 method appeared to be biased toward one of the sensory modalities. Gumm et al. (2000) 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 calibrating to the individual being interviewed, understanding that there is no substitute 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 indicate a particular state in a particular person, presupposing that the meaning of a communication is the response it elicits (Grinder & Bandler, 2000). 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 Neuro-linguistic programming experts not to perform individual calibrations. Patterns of cognition may occur at either a conscious or an unconscious level. In neither this study nor any of the others do Neuro-linguistic programming experts 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 linguistic 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 otherwise investigated, may be considered to be outside of the person's awareness. Understanding this concept and what to do with the information obtained is an important skill in NLP practice. Finally, it is necessary to understand that the representational 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 influence the system used. Locking a person's head in a restraint while asking questions that are non sequiturs cannot not affect 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 (2001/2000), Birholtz (2000), Cole-Hitchcock (2001), Fromme and Daniell (1999), Hernandez (2000), Johannsen (2000), Kraft (2000), Lange (2001/2000), Mattar (2001/2000), Owens (2002/2001), Radosta (2000), Shaw (2002/2001), Talone (2002), and Thomason, Arbuckle, and Cady (2001). Failure to Understand NLP as an Approach to Therapy Neuro-Linguistic Programming theory presupposes a particular approach to therapy that was not followed by the researchers in the works that have been reviewed. For example, Hammer's (2002) interview was supposed to represent a counseling situation with interviewer questions designed to elicit representations of past experiences. This is a distortion of the NLP approach to therapy, which is generative by nature and makes use of questions designed to build a future that is appropriate for the client to move toward. Yapko (2000a, 2000b) has probably produced the most sensible NLP research project in the current literature, if only because he used an operational, physiological indicator of rapport. However, he does not control for contextual influences. Thirty graduate students in counseling were inducted into hypnotic trance three times. Each time the trance was induced with a different representational system emphasized. The inductions were taped for standardization. Depth of trance was measured 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, Bandler, & DeLozier, 2002). Yapko's results support Bandler and Grinder's (2000) contention that matching primary representational systems enhances rapport. Subjects achieved greater states of relaxation, 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 (2000) performed the only study that used behavioral observation, although he incorporated other design errors. Neuro-Linguistic Programming is noted for its rapid treatment of simple phobias (as distinct from social phobias or agoraphobia), and Allen studied NLP versus Massed Systematic Desensitization (MSD) versus no treatment with 36 undergraduates with snake phobias. No differences between the NLP and MSD groups were found on posttreatment behavioral approach 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 reported 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 dependent variables. Other studies that failed to understand the NLP approach to therapy include Atwater (2002), Ellickson (2002), Hagstrom (2000/2000), Haynie (2000/2002), and Wilimek (2000/2001). Failure to Understand the Meta-Model of Linguistic Communication Ellickson (2002) selected 72 college students and determined each student's primary representational system by observation of eye scanning patterns. Subjects were then randomly assigned to one of two interview conditions in which the interviewer either deliberately matched or mismatched predicates presented by the subject. After a 15- to 20-min interview, subjects rated their interviewer on perceived qualities of empathy, ease, anxiety, and hostility on three self-report instruments. Hypotheses related to the effects interactions of sex of interviewer, sex of subject, and interview condition were tested. Only sex interactions produced significant differences, and little evidence was generated to support Bandler and Grinder's (2000) claim that matching representational systems enhances rapport. Ellickson's failure to consider the NLP meta-model of linguistic communication (Bandler & Grinder, 2001) 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 information and resources and directs them toward 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 products 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 performed 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 mistakes are also found in Frieden (2000) and Pantin (2000). Failure to Consider Stimulus-Response Associations Dorn (2002a), who was concerned with accurately assessing a client's primary representational system, designed a study attempting to determine the best method for doing so. Unfortunately, he did not consider the nature of stimulus-response associations. Three methods were used. First, subjects were introduced to a relaxation exercise and then were asked to verbally describe three different scenes. Already context is specified and not generalizable. Next, subjects were presented with a word list containing 18 triads, each triad containing one visual, one auditory, and one kinesthetic word. The subjects were instructed to pick the preferred word in each triad. The one example provided in the text contained a nonspecified predicate, so one must question the choice of words in the other triads. Also, Dorn disregarded the NLP concept that words are simply anchors and the subject was likely to respond to the most positive anchor rather than respond to a word because it represented a particular sensory modality. In this case, the positive anchors were words with which the individuals had positive associations. Finally, subjects were given an explanation of the concept of primary representational systems and were asked to self-report which one they thought was theirs. This presupposed a conscious awareness of how one represents and maps one's world, a process that is necessarily unconscious (Bateson, 2000). Predictably, analysis of the data revealed no significant results. Conclusion and Recommendations Neuro-Linguistic Programming is an extraordinarily complex model of human cognition and behavior and of how to identify behavioral and communication patterns and interrupt these patterns in a deliberate way so as to achieve predictable outcomes. Eye scanning patterns and representational systems are an important, but small, part of NLP. It is difficult to understand the NLP framework from the perspective of traditional counseling models; it is much more appropriate to approach it from the framework of mathematics, biology, or cybernetics. Neuro-Linguistic Programming deals with patterns of interactions, and to ignore this basic premise is to miss an essential feature of NLP as a model of understanding and altering human behavior. A number of modifications could be made to improve designs of research conducted on NLP. First, and perhaps most important, researchers should be trained by competent NLP practitioners for an appropriate duration of time. Training should include pattern recognition skills and a foundation in the presuppositions of NLP to provide an adequate framework for understanding NLP as an approach to therapy. Second, any investigators wishing to study rapport should rely on objective, sensory-observable measures of their procedures. Third, except in gathering information about sensory-observable outcomes of therapy, procedures should not be applied at the group level, but rather at the individual level, and calibrated to each person's personal characteristics. Data on individual observations may then be summed to arrive at group data. Fourth, any treatment studies should be performed only by therapists with demonstrated mastery of the model and its techniques, and outcome measures should be behavioral in nature. If comparisons are to be made with other treatment approaches, the therapists using the comparative model should be equally proficient. For example, the treatment of phobias with NLP is a specialized operation, because not every phobia is to be treated with the same techniques or for the same duration. Neuro-Linguistic Programming is a complex model requiring extensive training before a practitioner may legitimately undertake a study of this nature. One cannot simply attend one or two workshops or read a book and assume that he or she can effectively perform NLP therapy any more than this could be assumed for any other model of therapy. Given the current state of research on NLP, a more appropriate strategy would be to pose questions concerning the sensory-observable outcomes of therapy rather than investigate pieces of the model and their relations to reified concepts. In conclusion, on the basis of the research that has appeared in the literature, it is not possible at this time to determine the validity of either NLP concepts or whether NLP-based therapeutic procedures are effective for achieving therapeutic outcomes. Procedures generated from the NLP model must be used within the presuppositions of the model, and research on reified concepts is trivial in nature and is a distraction from the serious issues relating to testing the NLP model. Only when well-designed empirical investigations are carried out may we be assured of NLP's validity as a model of therapy. References Allen, K. (2000). An investigation of the effectiveness of Neuro-linguistic Programming procedures in treating snake phobias; University of Missouri-Kansas City. Appel, P. (2002). Matching of representational systems and interpersonal attraction; United States International University; Atwater, J. M. (2002). Differential effects of intervention from the Neuro-linguistic Programming meta-model and general systems in early psychotherapy; Texas A & M University. Bandler, R. & Grinder, J. (2000). Frogs into princes. Moab, UT: Real People Press. Bandler, R. & Grinder, J. (2001). The structure of magic (Vol. 1). Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books. Bandler, R. and Grinder, J. (2000). Frogs into Princes, Moab, Utah: Real People Press. Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books. Beale, R. P. (2000). The testing of a model for the representation of consciousness; Fielding Institute. Betts, G. (2001). Visions of You. Millbrae, CA: Celestial Arts. Birholtz, L. S. (2000). Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Testing some basic assumptions; Fielding Institute, 2000), Brockman, W. (2000). Empathy revisited: The effect of representational system matching on certain counseling process and outcome variables; College of William and Mary, 2001). Cody, S. G. (2002). The stability and impact of the primary representational system in Neuro-linguistic Programming: A critical examination; University of Connecticut Cole-Hitchcock, S. (2001). A determination of the extent to which a predominant representational system can be identified through written and verbal communication and eye scanning patterns; Baylor University. Combs, A.W., et al. (2003). Helping Relationships: Basic Concepts for the Helping Professions. Boston: Allen and Bacon. Dilts, R., Grinder, J., Bandler, R., Cameron-Bandler, L. & DeLozier, J. (2001). Neuro-Linguistic Programming (Vol. 1). Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications. Dorn, F. (2002a). Assessing primary representational system (PRS) preference for Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) using three methods. Counselor Education and Supervision, 23, 149-156. Dorn, F. J. (2002b). The effects of counselor-client predicate use in counselor attractiveness. American Mental Health Counselor's Association Journal, 5, 22-30. Dowd, E. & Hingst, A. (2002). Matching therapists' predicates: An in vivo test of effectiveness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 207-210. Dowd, E. & Pety, J. (2000). Effect of counselor predicate matching on perceived social influence and client satisfaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 206-209. Ehrmantraut, J. E. (2002). A comparison of the therapeutic relationship of counseling students trained in neurolinguistic programming vs. students trained in the Carkuff model, University of Northern Colorado. Ellickson, J. (2002). Representational systems and eye movements in an interview. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 339-345. Ellis, J. (2000). Representation systems: An investigation of sensory predicate use in a self-disclosure interview; University of Minnesota. Falzett, W. (2000). Matched versus unmatched primary representational systems and their relationship to perceived trustworthiness in a counseling analog. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 305-308. Fordham, M. (2001). Jungian Psychotherapy. New York: John Wiley and Sons. p. 91 Frieden, F. (2000). Speaking the client's language: The effects of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (predicate matching) on verbal and nonverbal behaviors in psychotherapy; Virginia Commonwealth University. Fromme, D. K. & Daniell, J. (1999). Neuro-linguistic programming examined: Imagery, sensory mode, and communication. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 387-390. Frye, M. (2001). An analysis of the relationship between leisure interests and representational systems among college freshman students with implications for leisure counseling; Oklahoma State University. Green, M. (2000). Trust as affected by representational system predicates; Ball State University. Grinder, J. & Bandler, R. (2000). Trance-formations. Moab, UT: Real People Press. Grinder, J., Bandler, R. & DeLozier, J. (2002). Patterns of the hypnotic techniques of Milton H. Erickson, MD (Vol. 2). Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications. Gumm, W., Walker, M. & Day, H. (2000). Neuro-linguistic programming: Method or myth Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 327-330. Hagstrom, G. (2000). A microanalysis of direct confrontation psychotherapy with schizophrenics: Using Neuro-Linguistic Programming and Delsarte's system of expression; California School of Professional Psychology, 2000). Hammer, A. (2002). Matching perceptual predicates: Effect on perceived empathy in a counseling analog. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 172-179. Haynie, N. (2002). Systematic human relations training with Neuro-Linguistic Programming; University of Georgia, 2000). Helm, D.J. (2000, Winter). Education: The Wagontrain to the Stars/It's Time to "Jump Start" Learning Through N.L.P. Education, 110, 2, 254-256. Hernandez, V. (2000). A study of eye movement patterns in the Neuro-Linguistic Programming model; Ball State University; Johannsen, C. (2000). Predicates, mental imagery in discrete sense modes, and levels of stress: The Neuro-Linguistic Programming typologies; United States International University. Kinsbourne, M. (2001). Direction of gaze and distribution of cerebral thought processes. Neuropsychologia, 12, 279-281. Korzybski, A. (2002). Science and sanity. New York: Science Press. Kraft, W. (2000). The effects of primary representational system congruence on relaxation in a Neuro-Linguistic Programming model; Texas A & M University. Lange, D. (2000). A validity study of the construct "most highly valued representational system" in human auditory and visual perceptions; Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 2001). Mattar, A. (2000). Primary representational systems as a basis for improved comprehension and communication; Utah State University. Mercier, M. & Johnson, M. (1999). Representational system predicate use and convergence in counseling: Gloria revisited. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 161-169. Owens, L. (2001). An investigation of eye movements and representational systems; Ball State University. Pantin, H. (2000). The relationship between subjects' predominant sensory predicate use, their preferred representational system and self-reported attitudes towards similar versus different therapist-patient dyads; University of Miami,. Paxton, L. (2000). Representational systems and client perception of the counseling relationship; Indiana University. Radosta, R. (2000). An investigation of eye accessing cues(Doctoral dissertation, East Texas State University. Sharpley, C. (1999). Predicate matching in NLP: A review of research on the preferred representational system. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 238-248. Shaw, D. (2001). Recall as effected by the interaction of presentation representational system and primary representational system; Ball State University. Talone, J. M. (2002). The use of sensory predicates to predict responses to sensory suggestions; Utah State University. Thomason, T. C., Arbuckle, T. & Cady, D. (2001). Test of the eye movement hypothesis of Neuro-linguistic Programming. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 230 Turkat, I.D. (2000) Behavioral Case Formulation. New York: Plenum. P.9 Wilimek, J. (2001). The use of language representational systems by high and low marital adjustment couples; University of Utah, 2000). Yapko, M. (2000a). The effect of matching primary representational system predicates on hypnotic relaxation. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 23, 169-175. Yapko, M. (2000b). Neuro-Linguistic Programming, hypnosis, and interpersonal influence; United States International University. Read More