Rarely has there been such a clear conflict that proves the point, “It's not the facts that matter – It’s the story about the facts that matters.”  The latest development taking place in the Journal of Psychotherapy Integration is a classic case of the resistance of the old school to a paradigm shift (Kuhn,1962/1970).   

If you will pardon the boxing metaphor (even though it is very apt), in one corner is Dr. David Feinstein, the reigning scribe and champion of energy psychology scientific reviews. In the other corner, are academicians/professors Carolyn Boness, Rory Pfund and David Tolin.

Feinstein's review article 

In 2023, Feinstein published a review article in the Journal of Psychotherapy Integration entitled “Integrating the manual stimulation of acupuncture points into psychotherapy: A systematic review with clinical recommendations.” The article summarizes the research on acupoint tapping, discusses possible mechanisms of action, and concludes, “the growing evidence base documenting the effectiveness, speed, and durability of the approach appears promising.” Download a preprint version

Energy psychology is an unsinkable rubber duck 

Following the publication of this article, professors Carolyn Boness, Rory Pfund and David Tolin published a “blistering critique” of Feinstein’s article, in which they labeled energy psychology an “unsinkable rubber duck,” and took this position:

• The rationale for energy psychology is based on premises that are pseudoscientific.
• The claim that tapping on acupuncture points is an active ingredient in energy psychology is based on insufficient evidence.
• The quality of efficacy evidence is low. 
• Energy psychology is not compatible with ethical practice.

https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/jbrgu

Feinstein's response

David Feinstein recently published a detailed rejoinder to the Boness et al's critique that you can find here.

https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/ysg6u

It is worth reading both. Feinstein does a great job of tearing Boness et al’s comments to pieces. I am not going to comment on everything. I suggest you read both and decide for yourself.

Boness et al engage in the same problems they critique Feinstein and energy psychology for

What I find so disturbing about Boness et al is they project onto Feinstein and energy psychology ethical and methodological problems that they themselves engage in. For instance:

• They cherry pick the data. They accuse Feinstein of essentially cherry picking the data, when in fact they cherry pick the data by simply ignoring the latest data from the last 15 years and cite a handful of lone commentaries from 20 years ago. Boness et al also focus on theories of why tapping works from 20 years ago and completely ignore more recent formulations and discussions. 

• They are ignorant of the facts. Their description of the history of EFT and TFT points to a total ignorance of the facts. They state that EFT is trademarked so there must be economic motivations. However, the fact is that EFT is no longer trademarked.   

Violating the APA's ethical standards 

In a move of incredible chutzpa, Boness et al. completely ignore the fact that over 98% of the 175 published studies support the efficacy of meridian tapping approaches and suggest that it is unethical to foist these so-called fake therapies upon the public.

Feinstein counters by rightly stating that, according to the APA’s ethical standards, “Where evidence is showing that a therapeutic modality is outperforming standard treatments for a range of psychological conditions, reducing cortisol levels, catalyzing the expression of beneficial genes, lowering blood pressure, reducing pain, and producing durable outcomes, it is not compatible with ethical practice to claim in a public statement that those benefits do not exist.”

In conclusion

For the last 10-15 years, the energy psychology community has accepted the challenge that we need to have scientific evidence to demonstrate the validity of what we see clinically every day. The assumption has been that by doing the research, “playing by the rules” energy psychology, especially acupoint tapping approaches, would eventually become accepted. To some extent this has happened. As Boness et al. show we still have a way to go. This particular battle of titans should remind us to remember. “It is not the facts that matter – It’s the story about the facts that matters.” 

Author

Robert Schwarz, PsyD, DCEP serves as ACEP's executive director. A licensed psychologist for over 35 years, he has authored 3 books: Tools for Transforming Trauma; PTSD: A Clinician’s Guide and We’re No Fun Anymore: Guiding Couples to a Joy Filled Marriage Through the Power of Play, as well as numerous articles and papers including "Energy Psychology as a Polyvagal Intervention for Trauma."   

References

·         Boness, C. L., Pfund, R. A., & Tolin, D. (2023, August 1). Acupressure in Psychotherapy as an Unsinkable Rubber Duck: A reply to Feinstein (2023). https://doi.org/10.1037/int0000315

·         Feinstein, D. (2023). Integrating the manual stimulation of acupuncture points into psychotherapy: A systematic review with clinical recommendations. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 33(1), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/int0000283

·         Feinstein, D. (2024, April 25). The Real Reasons Energy Psychology Is Proving to Be Durable: Rejoinder to  “Acupressure in Psychotherapy as an Unsinkable Rubber Duck, Reply to Feinstein (2023)”. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ysg6u

·         Kuhn, Thomas (1962/1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1970, 2nd edition, with postscript).

Photo by kylie De Guia on Unsplash