Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 25–31 | Cite as

Neuro-linguistic programming and the police: Worthwhile or not?

  • Aldert Vrij
  • Shara K. Lochun


In the seventies Bandler and Grinder (1975, 1979; Grinder & Bandler, 1976) developed their model of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP). The aim of this model is to facilitate communication between persons (Particularly between counselors and clients). There is a growing body of literature on NLP; it is nowadays even used in a police context (Gray, 1991; Mayers, 1993; Rhoads & Solomon, 1987). What does NLP mean? To what extent does empirical research support the NLP-model? And, to what extent is NLP useful for the police? This article addresses these three questions.


Police Officer Verbal Response Counseling Psychology Representational System Criminal Psychology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976).Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance, and affiliation.Sociometry, 28, 289–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baddeley, M. (1989). Neurolinguistic programming: The academic verdict so far.The, Australian Journal of Clinical Hypnotherapy and Hypnosis, 10, 73–81.Google Scholar
  4. Baddeley, M., & Predebon, J. (1991). Do the eyes have it? A test of neurolinguistic programming’s eye-movement hypothesis.The Australian Journal of Clinical Hypnotherapy and Hypnosis, 12, 1–23.Google Scholar
  5. Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1975).Structure of magic. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.Google Scholar
  6. Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1979).Frogs into princes. Moab, Utah: Real People Press.Google Scholar
  7. Barnett, E. A. (1990). The contribution and influence of neurolinguistic programming on analytical hypnotherapy.The Australian Journal of Clinical Hypnotherapy and Hypnosis.11, 1–14.Google Scholar
  8. Beck, C. E., & Beck, E. A. (1984). Test of the eye-movement hypothesis of neurolinguistic programming: A rebuttal of conclusions.Perceptual and Motor skills, 58, 175–176.Google Scholar
  9. Buckner, M., Meara, N. M., Reese, E. J., & Reese, M. (1987). Eye movement as an indicator of sensory components in thought.Journal of Counseling Psychology 3, 283–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheney, S., Miller, L., & Rees, R. (1982). Imagery and eye movements.Journal of Mental Imagery, 6, 113–124.Google Scholar
  11. Coe W. C., & Scharcoff, J. A. (1985). An empirical evaluation of the neurolinguistic programming model.The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 33, 310–318.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dorn, F. J., Atwater, M., Jereb, R., & Russell, R. (1983). Determining the reliability of the NLP eyemovement procedure.American Mental Health Counsellors Association Journal, 5, 105–110.Google Scholar
  13. Dowd, T., & Hingst, A. (1983). Matching therapists predicates: An in vivo test of effectiveness.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 207–210.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dowd, T., & pety, J. (1982). Effect of counselor predicate matching on perceived social influence and client satisfaction.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 206–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Einspruch, E. L., & Forman, B. D. (1985). Observations concerning research literature in neurolinguistic programming.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 589–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elich, M., Thompson, R. W., & Miller, L. (1985). Mental imagery as revealed by eye movements and spoken predicates: A test of neurolinguistic programming.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 622–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellickson, J. (1981). The effect of interviewers responding differentially to subjects representational systems as indicated by eye movements.Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 2754B.Google Scholar
  18. Falzett, W. C. (1981). Matched versus unmatched primary representational systems and their relationship to perceived trustworthiness in a counseling analogue.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 305–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Famer, A., Rooney, R., & Cunningham, J. R. (1985). Hypothesized eye movements of neurolinguistic programming: A statistical artificat.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 717–718.Google Scholar
  20. Fromme, D., & Daniell, J. (1984). Neurolinguistic programming examined: Imageny, sensory mode, and communication.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 387–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graunke, B., & Roberts, T. (1985). Neurolinguistic programming: The impact of imagery tasks on sensory predicate usage.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 525–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gray, R. (1991). Tools for the trade: Neuro-linguistic programming and the art of communication.Federal, Probation, 55, 11–16.Google Scholar
  23. Grinder, J., & Bandler, R. (1976).Structure of magic II. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.Google Scholar
  24. Gumm, W., Walker, M., & Day, H. (1982). Neurolinguistic programming: Method or myth?Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 327–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hammer, A. (1983). Matching perceptual predicates: Effect on perceived empathy in a counseling analogue.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 172–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Helm, D. J. (1991). Neuro-linguistic programming: Establishing rapport between the school counselor and the student.Journal of Instructional Psychology, 18, 255–257.Google Scholar
  27. House, S. (1994). Blending NLP representational systems with the RT counseling environment.Journal of Reality Therapy, 14, 61–65.Google Scholar
  28. Mayers, K. S. (1993). Enhancement of psychological testimony with the use of neurolinguistic programming techniques.American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 11, 53–60.Google Scholar
  29. Mercier, M., & Johnson, M. (1984). Representational system predicate use and convergence in counseling Gloria revised.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pesut, D. J. (1991). The art, science, and techniques of reframing in psychiatric mental health nursing.Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 12, 9–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Poffel, S., & Cross, H. J. (1985). Neurolinguistic programming: A test of the eye-movements hypothesis.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1262.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Rhoads, S. A., & Solomon, R. (1987). Subconseious rapport building: Another approach to interviewing.The Police Chief,4, 39–41.Google Scholar
  33. Sharpley, C. F. (1984). Predicate matching in NLP: A review of research on the preferred representational system.Journal of Counseling Psychology 31, 238–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sharpley, C. F. (1987). Research findings on neurolinguistic programming. Nonsupportive data or an untestable theory?Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 103–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thomason, T. C., Arbuckle, T., & Cady, D. (1980). Test of the eye-movement hypothesis of neurolinguistic programming.Perceptual and motor Skills, 51, 230.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Vrij, A. (1991).Misverstanden tussen politie en allochtonen: Social psychologische aspecten van verdacht zijn. Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij.Google Scholar
  37. Vrjj, A. (1996). Misverstanden tussen politie en verdachten in een gesimuleerd politieverhoor.Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 51, 137–146.Google Scholar
  38. Vrij, A. (1997a) Interviewing suspects. In A. Menon, A. Vrij, & R. Bull,Accuracy and perceived credibility of suspects, victims, and witnesses. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  39. Vrij, A. (1997a). Nonverbal communication and credibility. In A. Memon, A. Vrij, & R. Bull.Accuracy and perceived credibility of suspects, victims, and witnesses. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  40. Vrij, A. (1997c). Physiological parameters and credibility: The polygraph. In A. Memon, A. Vrij, & R. Bull,Accuracy and perceived credibility of suspects, victims, and witnesses. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  41. Wertheim, E. H., Habib, C., & Cumming, G. (1986). Test of the neurolinguistic programming hypothesis that eye-movements relate to processing imagery.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62, 523–529.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Police and Criminal Psychology 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aldert Vrij
    • 1
  • Shara K. Lochun
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK

Personalised recommendations