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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Einspruch, E. L., & Forman, B. D. (1985). Observations concerning research literature in neurolinguistic programming.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 589–596.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hammer, A. (1983). Matching perceptual predicates: Effect on perceived empathy in a counseling analogue.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 172–179.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Poffel, S., & Cross, H. J. (1985). Neurolinguistic programming: A test of the eye-movements hypothesis.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1262.

    PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sharpley, C. F. (1987). Research findings on neurolinguistic programming. Nonsupportive data or an untestable theory?Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 103–107.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Google 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aldert Vrij.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vrij, A., Lochun, S.K. Neuro-linguistic programming and the police: Worthwhile or not?. J Police Crim Psych 12, 25–31 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02813808

Download citation

Keywords

  • Police Officer
  • Verbal Response
  • Counseling Psychology
  • Representational System
  • Criminal Psychology