On Janov’s website he and one of his former followers write about an alleged “experiment” at UCLA.
I saw the tapes of this alleged “experiment” and it was nothing of the sort. It never was published in a peer-reviewed journal. The bottom line is that it is just another wacky case-study, NOT AN EXPERIMENT. An experiment, in psychology, involves the random assignment of a relatively large number of participants into two or more groups, in which one independent variable only is changed. There was no random assignment in Janov’s study, there was two heavily persuaded participants with extremely strong prior belief in the efficacy of primal therapy, and in the theory. In fact, I believe the participants were therapist trainees, and thus had a strong vested interest in proving primal therapy right (their potential future income was at stake).
The participant claimed to “relive birth” during which he was attached to a thermometer and other equipment. Janov proceeded to explain the changes in temperature after the fact in terms of primal theory. The trouble is, any outcome would have been interpreted as evidence for primal therapy. It is a ridiculous study that provides absolutely no support to the safety or efficacy of primal therapy
The disturbing thing is the way this non-experiment, and a complete non-event is masked in pseudoscientific jargon that can only confuse the lay-reader into submission. I suppose the aim is to have people be overwhelmed enough by the jargon so as to say “it sounds complicated, I don’t understand it, so it must be true.”
Not only that, Janov’s website goes on to infer that low birth-weight correlations (without giving r or p numbers) with later problems somehow offer support to primal therapy. He fails to give details, or boundary conditions and crucially, and unforgivably, he fails to point out to the lay reader that correlation does not equal cause. I hate to burst their bubble, but primal therapy has got nothing to do with these correlations. Primal therapy involves dubious birth relivings, angry catharsis, prolonged crying, risk of false memory production, strong social influence, the breaking up of families, ad hoc assessment of progress whereby any outcome is seen as success, testimonials from heavily socially-influenced participants, encouragement of heuristics over systematic reasoning, and no proper evidence.
Calling a non-experimental study an experiment is a relatively serious ethical breach. However, the problem with the study goes much deeper than that.
Ironically, the fact that the participants showed signs of unusual temperature drops and signs of anoxia during their birth confabulations are strong arguments against primal therapy. The idea that putting the body through anoxia in the present somehow cures anoxia in the past is incorrect. There is no mechanism that would do this, in fact physiological biology would predict that anoxia in the present can only do more harm.
I am amazed, disappointed and disturbed at the powerful persuasive abilities of Janov and his team, that manage to enchant and re-enchant otherwise very intelligent people. Those who have gone through primal therapy are so vulnerable to be enchanted all over again. Those who never went through it often think it is crazy.
I wish them no harm, they are likeable people on a personal level, but I will endeavour to warn people about the craziness connected to the theory and practice of primal theory.
Of course, I also want babies to be healthy and not suffer from anoxia. I believe Janov and others are being implicit Benthamites in thinking that if primal therapy does not survive, everyone will say “no harm no foul” when it comes to prenatal anoxia (and perhaps other forms of harm). The truth is, you don’t have to believe in the reliving of traumas, and rebirthing in order to understand the importance of prenatal care. In fact it could be argued that while people are wasting time and money on primal therapy, it is actually others who are doing more to help mothers have better pregnancies. Would a practitioner lose credibility anyway if they started selling primal therapy to pregnant mothers?
The bottom line again: the “UCLA experiment” was not an experiment. It was not published in a peer-reviewed journal. When I visited UCLA’s psychology library they couldn’t find it anywhere.
