There has been some confusion with regard to a published paper by Wendy Waite and Mark Holder (2003) which supposedly invalidates EFT. The following is an attempt to clarify some points with regard to their study.

Waite and Holder recruited people with specific fears. Initially, each Participant (P) focused on that fear and rated it on an 11 point SUDS scale. Then one round of treatment (see below) was given, lasting about 2 or 3 minutes. After that the SUDS scale was given again.

The researchers assigned each P to one of 4 treatment conditions: (1) usual EFT (involving both usual verbalizations and usual locations). (2) arm (involving usual verbalizations but tapping was on 12 locations on one arm), (3) doll (involving usual verbalizations but tapping was on 12 locations on a doll), and (4) control condition (making a toy out of paper). They observed no significant differences among the first 3 conditions – each showed about an 18% decrease in fear whereas the control condition showed no such decrease.

Waite and Holder concluded that, “These results do not support the idea that the purported benefits of EFT are uniquely dependent on the tapping of meridians” (p. 20). At first glance, obtaining a positive outcome by tapping on a doll, besides conjuring images of voodoo, might seem the quintessential example of a treatment effect that is due to factors unrelated to the EFT procedure being examined. Consider, however, those who believe that the hypothesized meridian system does exist and does mediate EFT’s benefits. They might well argue that a deeper analysis shows that an unanticipated therapeutic mechanism may be involved within the procedure itself.  It so happens that in acupuncture, the fingertips contain meridian endpoints, which are purportedly among the most responsive points on a meridian.  So Waite and Holder may have unwittingly had their participants stimulating powerful acupuncture points by tapping on the doll.  Tapping on the doll, rather than eliminating all meridian stimulation, as Waite and Holder apparently believed they had done, may have, in fact, been an effective way of stimulating certain meridians.

On the other hand, critics of the hypothesized meridian system can argue that participants in the doll condition got much less meridian stimulation than in the usual EFT condition and thus might reasonably be expected to show a much smaller effect. Although this is a seemingly logical argument, it does not constitute proof that the hypothesized meridian system functions in this reasonable way. There is, in fact, no evidence that the energy system, if indeed it exists, operates in this manner–– that is, that the more stimulation it receives, the greater the effect.

While Waite and Holder's conclusions are premature due to the possible unanticipated role of stimulating the meridian endpoints on the fingertips, a subsequent study that had an individual other than the participant do the tapping in each of the conditions involving tapping could decisively resolve this question. What can be concluded from the Waite and Holder study is that there is some empirical support for those practitioners who claim that stimulating acupuncture points other than those specified by EFT may still produce the effects of EFT. The therapeutic effects observed in both the doll treatment condition and the arm treatment condition support this conclusion.

We would also like to point out that in discussing EFT, many people – both the method’s advocates and those who criticize it – place considerable emphasis, when assessing EFT, on the role of the hypothesized energy meridian system. As researchers, we prefer to totally separate (a) consideration of the hypothesized energy meridian system and (b) evaluation of whether EFT works. We thus focus on the actualprocedures or operations involved in EFT (such as verbal statements, the act of tapping, etc) in evaluating whether EFT works.

In this context, we believe Waite and Holder erred in their second conclusion, namely that, “…these results suggest that the reported effectiveness of EFT is attributable to characteristics it shares with more traditional therapies” (Waite & Holder, 2003, p. 20). We would point out that any overt procedure (such as the usual EFT verbal statements, the act of tapping, the presence of rhythmic stimulation etc.) shared by usual EFT, their arm condition, and their doll condition, but not present in their control condition, could account for the observed decrease in fear. Until careful dismantling studies that look at such operations separately and/or in combination have been done, there is no basis whatsoever for ascribing “the reported effectiveness of EFT” to any characteristics of more traditional therapies.”

We also wish to comment on the fact that the observed decrease in fear occurred very quickly – in 2 or 3 minutes. We know of no scientific studies of procedures characteristic of more traditional therapies which would show an 18 % decrease in fear in so short a time. If further research should establish that this decrease in fear does in fact reflect a true effect of EFT, then EFT does indeed show something new and of interest.

In summary, Waite & Holder‘s data are interesting, but their conclusions unfortunately do not follow from their data.

References
Waite, L.W. & Holder, M.D. (2003).  Assessment of the emotional freedom technique: An alternative treatment for fear. The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 2 (1) 20-26. Download from http://www.srmhp.org/0201/emotional-freedom-technique.html.