Comment une technique de psychothérapie devient-elle « scientifique » ? Analyse comparée de trois méthodes de traitement du psychotraumatisme jugées « pseudo-scientifiques »

Context

In recent decades, numerous psychotherapy methods have emerged to treat individuals suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. This article focuses on three of them: Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR), Thought Field Therapy (TFT) and Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT). Belonging to the Power Therapies movement, they have been presented as revolutionary methods by their promoters and have been the subject of considerable controversy within the scientific community. However, EMDR is now a standard treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. TFT and EFT, on the other hand, are still described as “pseudosciences”. In order to gain a better understanding of the factors that explain this difference, we analysed the way in which EMDR, TFT and EFT developed. We therefore looked at the factors which encouraged the emergence of these methods, but also at the opposition they encountered in their respective paths to scientific validation.

Methodology

In order to conduct our comparative analysis, we carried out a non-systematic review of the literature. To do this, we consulted reference works and collected articles relating to EMDR, EFT and TFT using several scientific databases. In total, our analysis covered thirty-seven articles, including eleven reviews of literature, eight books and seven other documents (reports, reviews of evidence, treatment guidelines) produced by health care institutions.

Results

After a brief presentation of EMDR, TFT and EFT, we first looked at the factors which encouraged their emergence. We identified three of these: the rise of psychotherapies in the second half of the twentieth century, the notion of “concept creep”, and the popularisation of alternative and complementary medicine. It is this combination of factors that has created a favourable context for the emergence of Power Therapies. At the same time, EMDR, TFT and EFT have also been criticised for their inconsistent theoretical foundations, the poor methodological quality of their initial studies, and questionable promotional tactics. For all these reasons, the scientific community has repeatedly labelled them “pseudosciences”.

Discussion

These results led us to discuss the notion of “pseudoscience”. At the end of our research, it appeared to us that the various criteria developed to date did not make it possible to draw a clear line between “science” and “pseudoscience”. With this in mind, we took a critical look at how psychotherapies are evaluated, and tried to determine the respective scientific status of EMDR, TFT and EFT. Despite its inconsistent theoretical foundations, EMDR is the method that comes closest to being scientifically valid. EFT, on the other hand, lacks sufficient evidence to prove its effectiveness, but efforts to standardise its practice have been made with a view to facilitating its evaluation. Finally, TFT is the method that comes closest to being a pseudoscience.

Conclusion

This article shows the importance of the scientific, sociological and societal context in which certain currents of psychotherapy emerge, and the impact this context can have on their development. The conclusions of this article not only call for further research into EMDR, TFT and EFT, but also for reflection on the methods used to evaluate psychotherapies and the place of complementary therapies in the treatment of certain mental disorders in France.