TFT Pseudoscience
Home Overview of TFT TFT Basics TFT Pseudoscience Heart Rate Variability EFT Monica Pignotti Further Readings

 

Home
Overview of TFT
TFT Basics
TFT Pseudoscience
Heart Rate Variability
EFT
Monica Pignotti
Further Readings

 

TFT as Pseudoscience

Michael Shermer, Ph.D., is a noted skeptic and the director of The Skeptic's Society. In his book Why People Believe Weird Things (1997), Shermer defines pseudoscience as "[1] claims presented so that they appear scientific even though [2] they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" (p. 33). In other words, pseudoscience is literally a "false science."

However, in order to understand what makes a pseudoscience false we must first define what science is. Again according to Shermer, science is a process that involves the "cumulative growth of a system of knowledge over time, in which useful features are retained and nonuseful features are abandoned, based on the rejection or confirmation of testable knowledge" (p. 31).

It can be argued that TFT meets both of the criteria presented above that define pseudoscience. First, the theory behind TFT uses the guise of science. By misinterpreting Bohm's concept of "active information," Callahan attempts to base his unorthodox techniques firmly in the realm of physics. However, the key word in the definition of a pseudoscience is that it "appears" scientific. Callahan takes an unrelated concept and uses it in an unintended way that has no scientific support. In addition, Callahan's theory is based on concepts from Chinese medicine which, after thousands of years, still lack convincing scientific verification of its theoretical basis. However, Callahan actually distorts the original concept of the body's "energy fields" to account for all psychological disorders.

TFT also meets the second condition of a pseudoscience, because after 20 years of development, it still lacks even the simplest forms of scientific evidence. No studies experimentally investigating the effectiveness of TFT compared with other credible treatments have been published in any respectable scientific journals. We even lack scientific evidence that would show that it works at all, or anything close to the success rates that are claimed. More importantly, we also do not know if it works better than validated methods when compared head-to-head. Up to this point, such comparisons have never been made. Finally, even if it proves effective to some degree, no evidence has been shown that would indicate that Callahan's unsupported theory is the correct explanation for any results.

Conversely, TFT fails to meet the definition of science. Specifically, no real accumulation of scientific knowledge has developed concerning the merits of TFT since its inception over 20 years ago. This is because there has been no effort on the part of Callahan to reject his theory through testable and experimentally investigated means.


A Review of the "Evidence" in Favor of TFT

I. Testimonials

The "evidence" for TFT falls into three general categories: (1) testimonials, (2) anecdotal case studies, and (3) methodologically flawed research. Let us begin with the first category. Testimonials are the type of "validation" that is used primarily in advertising. I call this "infomercial research" because it is what you generally see offered as conclusive evidence when you are swindled into buying a "revolutionary" new product on late-night television. If you peruse TFT web sites you will encounter many comments from "happy customers" of TFT. However, throughout history, there have been hundreds of advertisements, similar to those of TFT, that have used testimonials to promote products, but which have failed to live up to the lofty claims.

Testimonials do not constitute scientific data. For example, the person giving the recommendation may have an ulterior motive. Also, one person's experience may not be representative of what another can expect to experience. Science operates though empirical testing and not simply opinion and belief. Furthermore, you can find someone to endorse just about anything. Many TFT practitioners are not even licensed therapists and have not received proper training as a mental health professional. In fact, Callahan markets his therapy to everyone to use on others, including clergy, educators, and executives.

II. Case Studies

Callahan describes numerous case studies of clients treated with TFT. Once again, these case studies do not provide scientific proof because they contain only one subject and do not control for extraneous variables. Case studies can be seriously unrepresentative and the findings regarding one person cannot reliably be generalized to the larger population. Another flaw is that there is no comparison group. Perhaps the person improved through some other variable. These other variables cannot be teased apart with this method of investigation. For these and other reasons, case studies involving TFT do not provide scientific proof either of the treatment's general efficacy or of a validation of its methods or theory.

III. Flawed Research

Radio Call-In Show: Callahan (1985) and later Leonoff (1995) performed a demonstration of TFT on a radio call-in program using Voice Technology. People called up who reported public speaking fears and were instructed to tap on themselves. Callahan and Leonoff report a decrease in self-reported SUD level (subjective anxiety on 0-10 scale) following TFT treatment. This is far from controlled research and, despite Callahan's assertions, does not support TFT's efficacy. Just some of the problems with this report include: no comparison group, no determination that the callers actually had serious public speaking phobias, no objective measures of improvement, a non-random sample of participants, etc. Any reduction in SUD level reported could have resulted from the strong demand characteristics inherent in such a public demonstration. Most importantly, it would be natural for participants to be initially anxious but as they continued to face their fear of speaking over the radio their anxiety naturally would decrease. The standard treatment for public speaking phobia is called exposure, which is exactly what was occurring in this demonstration. The tapping was probably unnecessary.

"Clinical Systematic Demonstration”: The only way to demonstrate the efficacy of a treatment is to experimentally test it. This means randomly giving subjects either TFT or a credible comparison condition to see which does better.  A study is only accepted as evidence if it is first shown to be methodologically sound. After 20 years, no study has been published in a respected, scientific, peer-reviewed journal concerning the efficacy of TFT.

Carbonell and Figley (1999) did a non-controlled study of the effectiveness of several controversial trauma treatments, including Traumatic Incident Reduction, Visual-Kinesthetic Disassociation, Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, and Thought Field Therapy. They called their research a "Clinical Systematic Demonstration". Participants were recruited who did not necessarily meet criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) but who reported experiencing distress from some sort of "trauma". Thirty-nine participants were given one of the four treatments for one week. Carbonell and Figley reported that mean SUD levels at post-treatment and questionnaire measures showed some improvement at six months after treatment (only 17 subjects returned at 6-month follow-up).

This study is flawed in a number of ways. First, no control group existed to determine if the effects were the result of the normal remission of symptoms over time or the statistical tendency for extreme scores on tests to be lower on the second testing (regression toward the mean). Second, questionnaire assessment measures were only taken pre-treatment and at six month follow-up. It would only have been logical to administer the questionnaires directly at post-treatment to determine the immediate results of the therapy. Third, statistical analyses were not conducted to determine if the decreases were statistically significant. The mean decreases in the questionnaire measures were paltry in almost all conditions. Fourth, the researchers reported that participants had a hard time differentiating their trauma from the ups and downs of everyday life when reporting SUD ratings. This would call into question the reliability of the SUD rating to properly assess benefits from treatment. These are just a few of the profound methodological flaws in this study. Any benefits could readily be explained through non-specific treatment effects. Most damaging to TFT, all treatments produced similar "results" which once again go against TFT's high success rate claims.


Debunking TFT

I. Characteristics of Pseudoscience

Pseudosciences are characterized by the use of techniques to confuse, distract, and coerce people into believing in them. Sometimes this is done with a conscious intent to deceive and sometimes the proponents themselves are non-scientifically minded and easily led astray. Let us examine some common traits of pseudoscience to see if TFT fits this designation.

Pseudosciences employ scientific-sounding terminology. Callahan talks of disorders as "perturbations in the thought field" and psychological reversal as a condition involving a "reversed polarity in the energy flow." While this language sounds scientific and is meant to remind one of the physical sciences, Callahan has no scientific evidence that these things exist. He has incorporated common scientific language, but distorts it, using terminology in an unintended and erroneous way.

Pseudosciences lack falsifiability, a key ingredient of a science. A scientific theory will produce a set of predictions that can be tested. Confirmation of these predictions will provide verification for the theory. However, pseudosciences will explain away or ignore negative results that fail to confirm their theory. For example, when TFT doesn't work, proponents refer either to made-up concepts like psychological reversal, the reversal of energy flow, or energy toxins, which are thought field "allergies" that allegedly block the tapping from working. In addition, Gary Craig, inventor of the spin off therapy Emotional Freedom Techniques professes that anywhere you tap on the body you are affecting energy meridians and therefore you cannot create a "placebo" tapping procedure. This is a convenient way to keep your theory from being verified scientifically because it lacks the key features of falsifiability.

Pseudosciences tend to explain their results based on wild and unsubstantiated theories, while systematically ignoring scientific explanations. For example, Callahan holds that his results are obtained because tapping corrects energy disturbances. However, he ignores common scientific explanations, like imaginal exposure or placebo, for his treatment's effectiveness while uncritically adopting unproven hypotheses.

Pseudosciences often present biased and methodologically flawed evaluations as evidence. Proponents of TFT seek quick confirmation of their theories through anecdotes. In addition, TFT "research" lacks basic methodological rigor. Only evidence that is in favor of TFT is sought and reported; contrary evidence is ignored and left unreported. Instead of methodologically sound research, TFT presents anecdotes and testimonials as evidence. Vivid anecdotes make for dramatic presentations but poor proof.

Pseudosciences are often engaged in shameless self-promotion and profit seeking. The "evidence" Callahan presents is used only for advertising purposes to attract people to the therapy.  He sells a line of health products. Skepticism is almost totally lacking, perhaps because of an inherent monetary conflict of interest.

Pseudosciences keep methods a secret, preventing independent investigation. For example, Callahan charges therapists $100,000 for his esoteric Voice Technology and will not disclose the procedure. In addition, VT-trained therapists are bound by a confidentiality contract from discussing the "technology."

Pseudosciences appeal to pseudo-authority. TFT therapists proudly list meaningless credentials after their names to mimic traditional academic degrees (e.g., Ph.D., M.D.). A person trained at the highest levels of TFT who may not even have obtained a high school diploma may list herself as follows: Jane Doe, TFTdx, VT

Finally, pseudosciences make dramatic and overstated claims. Callahan says that his techniques can be over 98% effective yet no controlled studies have been done to confirm these results.

II. Placebo Effects

Showing that TFT has the characteristics of a pseudoscience does not necessarily make it ineffective. Many clinicians attest to the treatment's effectiveness and this cannot be ignored. While I do not feel it is wise to take the word of Callahan about TFT's overinflated success rates without any confirming data, I do believe that the treatment may be associated with benefits in some individuals in some circumstances. This is likely purely correlational in nature.  There may numerous other explanations for why TFT shows some signs of being "effective." Let's explore them.

Placebo Effects: A placebo therapy operates through mechanisms other then the specific components of the therapy (i.e., tapping). Why a placebo "works" is due to a number of specific and non-specific factors that have nothing to do with the claimed mechanism. Placebo effects are sometimes produced through the mere suggestion of treatment rather than the treatment itself. The concept of placebo is usually only given a cursive examination; but researchers continue to be surprised. Most clinicians, while understanding placebo effects at least to some degree, often ignore this explanation when examining a treatment's efficacy. This may be partly due to the bias clinicians (like all of us) implicitly possess. Most clinicians want to believe that their interventions are producing the benefits. Placebo effects can be a serious blow to the clinician's ego. Today, most researchers agree that almost any psychotherapy will produce benefits if provided in the right healing context, which may have nothing to do with the treatment itself.

Wayne Hooke (1998) reports that Callahan sets forth three arguments to contradict placebo explanations of TFT:

(1) Callahan claims that intentional placebos do not work in his experience. First, it would be foolish to take Callahan simply at his word here. Only proper research can provide evidence for Callahan's claims. Research supports the efficacy of intentional placebos.

(2) Callahan argues that TFT lacks face validity, meaning that client's are highly skeptical about the effectiveness of the treatment. Callahan claims that he can get results from clients who do not believe that the treatment will work.  Again, this claim is yet to be proved by Callahan or any other TFT proponent. Furthermore, Callahan is misinformed if he believes that placebo works solely when the client believes whole-heartedly in the treatment's efficacy before treatment begins. First of all, clients can come to be "persuaded" to buy into TFT the more they are exposed to it in a process called "effort justification." In any case, even an initially skeptical client can still benefit from TFT based on a placebo response. A placebo does not even actually require a positive belief in the treatment or even a perception from the client that they are receiving some type of "active" treatment (which the therapist assures them it is). Clients may begin to erroneously attribute any positive effects of the treatment to the tapping, and they are enthusiastically persuaded to do by the TFT therapist, while unrecognized variables may be responsible for the benefits. Many additional factors, other then the TFT procedures, exist and will be delineated shortly. We will further refute this claim in the section on Psychological Reversal.

(3) Callahan states that TFT produces changes in the autonomic nervous system (ANS), a physiological variable, and therefore is not subject to placebo responding, a psychological variable. Once again, Callahan provides only vague case studies as evidence of TFT's effect on the ANS. Nevertheless, autonomic variables are indeed influenced by "psychological" factors and can be improved through other means. For more information, read the section on Heart Rate Variability.

Expectancy Effects and the Confirmation Bias: A related concept to placebo effects is expectancy effects. Expectancy effects occur when clinicians, or the clients, look for evidence that confirms the treatment's effectiveness because of their pre-existing beliefs. These therapists may have a confirmation bias that makes them hypervigilent for evidence in favor of TFT while ignoring contrary evidence. TFT proponents repeatedly present confirming evidence to the public and completely ignore disconfirming evidence in evaluating TFT. This is why proper research is simply a must.

III. Other Explanations

Non-Specific Treatment Effects: There exist other factors, related to the placebo concept, that may help to explain benefits gained by using TFT that have nothing to do with the theorized mechanisms. Non-specific treatment effects are well known by psychotherapy researchers. They include: expectation for improvement, therapist enthusiasm and support, therapist-client alliance, effort justification, among others.

Imaginal Exposure: TFT employs some techniques which are found in other therapies but in this case renamed "attunement". TFT may achieve some benefits from imaginal exposure to the distressing thought and habituation through repetition of procedures until subjective distress is decreased. This is a common technique of therapists who treat anxiety disorders. Anxiety cannot keep increasing forever; over time it is bound to go down. Therefore, the therapist keeps the client in the situation and provides them with techniques to help decrease anxiety. This is to make sure that the anxiety is no longer associated with the situation so that it will not trigger anxiety in the future. Over time, clients will often habituate to the anxiety producing situation. Imaginal exposure has been used successfully for many years in traditional cognitive-behavioral therapies.

Demand Characteristics: An important factor that produces effects in TFT probably involves demand characteristics. Demand characteristics are when improvement is produced because of the therapist's expectation for improvement. These feelings, either consciously or subconsciously, get transferred to the client who responds in a way that he/she feels that the therapist wants or expects (i.e., social desirability) . The main way that TFT therapists "measure" their success is through the SUD scale. This method of subjectively reporting a number is invariably influenced by demand characteristics. If the SUD does not decrease after the tapping the procedure is repeated until it does. The failure to use more objective measures to assess the treatment compounds this problem.

Distraction: In TFT, the client is asked to "attune to the thought field" which is actually simply thinking about what is distressing the client, and provides a SUD rating. Then the TFT therapist goes through a set of techniques which momentarily distracts the person and then asks them to think about the distressing thought again and give a SUD rating. For some people, it is conceivable that the passage of time and distraction of tapping temporarily reduces the emotional charge of the event. Clients often report that the effects do not last.

IV. PR and "Energy Toxins"

One of the hallmarks of a pseudoscience is its attempt to explain away any disconfirming evidence. This brings us to a discussion of two concepts used to explain away TFT failures: Psychological Reversal and energy toxins.

Psychological Reversal: PR is described as a condition that prevents TFT techniques from working. The physiological manifestation of this condition is claimed to be the reversed flow of energy in the body. Needless to say, these assertions of a reversed energy flow have no scientific basis, even within the theory of traditional Chinese medicine. In addition, observable manifestations of the "phenomenon" include a negative thinking that blocks the TFT interventions from working. PR gives the therapist an opportunity to repeat tapping sequences and therefore increases demand characteristics and habituation.

Figley (1995) reports that the correct technique to free the individual from this problem is as follows:

"Join your fingers together (either hand) and tap the little finger side of the other hand . . . while saying the following: "I accept myself, even though I still have this kind of anxiety." Repeat this statement three times while continuing to tap."

I find it interesting that TFT therapists use cognitive coping statements ("I accept myself, even though I still have this kind of anxiety") when the treatment does not produce the desired effects. Why would an affirmation statement, which is based on a cognitive therapy approach, be necessary to correct an energy disturbance? TFT proponents have always asserted that it is the tapping that directly affects the energy system. Coping statements can produce benefits alone. While it is true that Callahan has officially removed these statements from his treatment in the last few years, many TFT therapists continue to use them.

Energy Toxins: Another common explaining away of failures comes in the concept of energy toxins. Energy toxins are theorized to be akin to "thought field allergies" to some type of foreign substance that negatively affects the energy system and blocks successful TFT treatment or causes a problem that TFT had previously "cured" to return. Quite conveniently, it is asserted that the person does not have to possess an actual allergy to the substance for this to occur. Until the offending substance is identified, it is claimed the person will not respond to treatment. TFT practitioners claim that after the substance is removed, the tapping will work. This is yet another way to explain TFT failures. TFT therapists conduct a pseudoscientific "muscle testing" procedure to determine the offending substance. How do they know when they have found the energy toxin? When the tapping starts to work, that is. This is simply circular reasoning.

V. The Apex Problem...Or Solution?

Callahan states that often when clients benefit from TFT treatment they do not credit the procedure. For example, they will point to other explanations such as distraction, placebo, etc. Callahan sees this as the human mind's inability to comprehend the fact that TFT actually works because it is so bizarre. However, perhaps the clients are rightfully positing the more likely explanations for improvement that do not require unfounded and unscientific notions. It would appear that the clients recognize that it's not the tapping that is responsible but other common and mundane phenomena.