Primal Therapy - Criticism

Criticism

Primal therapy has not achieved broad acceptance in mainstream psychology. It has been frequently criticized as lacking outcome studies to substantiate its effectiveness. It is regarded as one of the least creditable forms of psychotherapy and has been classified in a 2006 APA Delphi poll as "discredited".

Primal therapy has sometimes been dismissed as shallow, glib, simplistic, or trendy. It has also been criticized for not paying sufficient attention to transference. Some researchers have suggested that primal therapy's contention that adults can recall infantile experiences is empirically refuted. Primal therapy has also been rejected as dogmatic or overly reductionist.

In the book Let's Talk About Me, Dr. Anthony Clare criticizes primal therapy in several ways. He claims that Janov sees confirming evidence everywhere: "Everything is taken as evidence of ." He claims that Janov has "no evidence" that childhood traumas cause adult neurosis, except for the "frenzied memories" of his patients.

In a 1982 paper published in the journal Zeitschrift für Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychoanalyse, Ehebald and Werthmann report that, following a review of the scientific literature, they found "no on-going reports of primal therapy's therapeutic results, no statistical studies and no follow-up studies." Concluding that primal therapy is not a valid therapeutic technique, they stated that most psychotherapists in the Federal Republic of Germany believe it to be questionable in theory and dangerous in practice.

Alice Miller initially endorsed primal therapy. Later, however, she wrote a communication to her readers in which she expressed some reservations about it. In that communication, she stated that primal therapy could be dangerous when conducted by therapists who are not properly trained. She also stated that there was "too much faith" in cathartic discharge, claiming that the relief was sometimes temporary. She also voiced criticisms about the structure of the initial three-week intensive phase, claiming that it could provide opportunities for unscrupulous therapists. She warned of the dangers of developing an "addictive dependency" to pain.

In 1996, authors Starker and Pankratz published in Psychological Reports a study of 300 randomly sampled psychologists. Participants were asked for their views about the soundness of methods of mental health treatment. Primal therapy was identified as one of the approaches "most in question as to soundness."

The 1996 book "Crazy" Therapies discusses Janov's claim to have discovered the one cure for neurosis: "Evidence that expressing angry, violent behaviour does not drain it away but increases the chances of its recurrence has been presented in the scientific psychology literature for years." (page 128)

In the 1998 book Insane Therapy, sociologist Marybeth F. Ayella says that "what Frank (1974:424-25) describes as healing cults more closely resembles what I think occurs in Primal Therapy than does Janov's description."

Primal therapy is cited in the book The Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions. The author claims that all schools of psychotherapy, including primal therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and others, have no scientific evidence of effectiveness beyond placebo.

In the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology, Timothy Moore wrote: "Truth be known, primal therapy cannot be defended on scientifically established principles. This is not surprising considering its questionable theoretical rationale."

Martin Gardner wrote a critical article called "Primal Therapy: A Persistent New Age Therapy" in the Skeptical Inquirer. Gardner discussed some of what he sees as the problems with primal therapy, and also details a protest over the publication of Janov's 2002 book The Biology of Love.

The National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) Newsletter listed primal therapy, among other treatments, in the article "Dubious Mental Health".