The Graveyard of Good Intentions: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Discredited Psychological Treatments and Pseudoscience

The history of clinical psychology and psychiatry is a testament to the desperate human desire to heal the mind and also a grim chronicle of the failures that occur when scientific rigor is abandoned in favor of charisma, intuition, or theoretical dogma. While modern psychotherapy is largely grounded in evidence-based practices that prioritize patient safety and measurable outcomes, the path to this present standard was paved with interventions that were at best ineffective and at worst actively destructive. To understand the current landscape of mental health care, one must rigorously examine the errors of the past. This analysis explores twenty specific therapeutic modalities and psychological theories that have been discredited by modern science. We will dissect the historical context of their invention, the specific mechanisms by which they failed, the harm they caused to patients, and the high-quality research that eventually led to their abandonment. This is not merely a historical exercise but a necessary inoculation against the allure of pseudoscientific and disproven approaches in psychotherapy that continue to threaten the integrity of the field.

Recovered Memory Therapy: The Construction of False Narratives

Recovered Memory Therapy (RMT) represents one of the most significant ethical collapses in the history of modern psychology. Rising to prominence in the 1980s and 1990s, this approach was predicated on the unproven Freudian concept of repression, suggesting that the mind automatically sequesters traumatic memories to protect the psyche. Practitioners believed that these memories could be retrieved intact through hypnosis, guided visualization, and sodium amytal interviews. The movement was catalyzed by the publication of Michelle Remembers, a book co-authored by psychiatrist Lawrence Pazder and his patient Michelle Smith, which detailed lurid and biologically implausible accounts of Satanic ritual abuse. This sparked a moral panic that swept across North America, leading to what became known as the Memory Wars.

The fundamental flaw of RMT lies in its misunderstanding of neurobiology. Memory is not a video recorder that stores events perfectly; it is a reconstructive process subject to distortion. Research by cognitive psychologists like Dr. Elizabeth Loftus at the University of California Irvine definitively demonstrated that memory is malleable and that leading questions from an authority figure can implant complex false memories in healthy adults. In the clinical setting, RMT therapists inadvertently coached vulnerable patients into confabulating horrific abuse scenarios. This led to the devastation of countless families as adult children accused parents of crimes that never occurred. The American Psychological Association has since issued strict guidelines regarding memory recovery, emphasizing that while trauma can be forgotten, there is no scientific evidence to support the use of hypnosis to retrieve accurate historical truths.

Rebirthing and Attachment Therapy: The Deadly Metaphor

Rebirthing therapy, often grouped under the umbrella of coercive restraint therapies, emerged in the 1970s based on the theories of Leonard Orr. The central tenet was that psychological struggles in adulthood were the direct result of birth trauma. Proponents argued that by physically simulating the birth process—forcing a patient to struggle through a restricted passage—one could release this primal trauma and reset the nervous system. This modality gained traction in the treatment of adopted children with Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD), under the misguided belief that forcing a child to regress to infancy would allow them to re-attach to their new parents.

This methodology reached a tragic nadir with the death of Candace Newmaker in 2000. Candace was a 10-year-old girl who was smothered to death during a rebirthing session in Colorado. Her therapists wrapped her in a flannel sheet and piled pillows and their own body weight on top of her to simulate a womb, instructing her to push her way out to be reborn. When she cried out that she could not breathe, the therapists interpreted her distress as resistance to the therapeutic process and increased the pressure. This tragedy exposed the pseudoscience of attachment therapy, which violates the core principles of Attachment Theory as established by John Bowlby. Bowlby demonstrated that attachment is formed through consistent safety and reciprocity, not through cathartic trauma or physical coercion. Following Newmaker’s death, Candace’s Law was passed to criminalize such dangerous techniques.

Primal Scream Therapy: The Hydraulic Fallacy

Developed by Arthur Janov in the 1960s, Primal Scream Therapy captivated the public imagination after John Lennon of The Beatles underwent treatment. Janov theorized that neurosis was the result of repressed childhood pain, which he termed Primal Pain. He argued that the only cure was to regress the patient to a state of infant helplessness and force them to express this pain through violent screaming, sobbing, and physical thrashing. The therapy operated on a hydraulic model of emotion, assuming that pressure builds up inside the psyche and must be physically released to prevent psychological rupture.

Modern neuroscience has largely dismantled this hydraulic hypothesis. Research into emotion regulation and aggression indicates that for many individuals, the dramatic expression of anger or distress does not dissipate the emotion but rather reinforces the neural pathways associated with it. This process, known as rehearsal, can actually make patients more aggressive and less able to self-regulate. Furthermore, for trauma survivors with dysregulated nervous systems, the intense physiological arousal of screaming can induce a state of flooding or dissociation rather than healing. Contemporary somatic therapies, such as Somatic Experiencing and brain-based medicine, have evolved to prioritize titration—the slow and controlled release of energy—over the overwhelming catharsis advocated by Janov.

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP): The Commercialization of Pseudoscience

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) was created in the 1970s by Richard Bandler and John Grinder, who claimed to have codified the communication patterns of successful therapists like Milton Erickson and Virginia Satir. NLP asserts a connection between neurological processes, language, and behavioral patterns, promising that one can reprogram the brain to cure phobias, depression, and learning disorders in a single session. It became a staple of corporate training and self-help seminars, marketed as a technology of success.

Despite its commercial success, NLP has withered under scientific scrutiny. A systematic review published in the British Journal of General Practice found little to no evidence for its efficacy in improving health outcomes. Core concepts of NLP, such as the idea that eye movements reveal whether a person is lying (The Eye Accessing Cues model), have been rigorously tested and debunked. Research published in PLOS ONE demonstrated that there is no correlation between eye direction and truthfulness, rendering the technique useless for its advertised purpose. While NLP introduced some useful soft skills regarding rapport building, its claims to be a standalone psychological science are unfounded.

Facilitated Communication: The Illusion of Agency

Facilitated Communication (FC) emerged in the 1980s as a revolutionary method to unlock the minds of nonverbal individuals with autism and cerebral palsy. The technique involves a facilitator supporting the hand or arm of the client while they type on a keyboard. Proponents claimed that this allowed clients to express complex thoughts and poetry that had been trapped inside their bodies. The emotional appeal of FC was immense, offering hope to families who had been unable to communicate with their loved ones.

However, controlled studies revealed a devastating truth: the messages were being authored by the facilitators, not the clients. Through a phenomenon known as the ideomotor effect, facilitators were unconsciously guiding the client’s hands to type what they expected to hear. This was proven in double-blind trials where the client and facilitator were shown different images; the typed description always matched the image seen by the facilitator. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association has issued strong position statements against FC, citing the risk of stripping individuals of their true agency and the danger of false allegations of abuse generated by the facilitators’ own projections. This tragedy highlights the crucial importance of understanding our own blindspots in clinical practice.

Conversion Therapy: The Pathology of Prejudice

Conversion therapy, also known as reparative therapy, encompasses a range of dangerous practices aimed at changing an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Historically, this included aversion techniques such as inducing nausea with drugs or administering electric shocks while the patient viewed homoerotic imagery. The underlying premise was that homosexuality was a mental illness that could be cured through behavioral conditioning or psychoanalysis.

This approach has been universally rejected by every major medical and mental health organization, including the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization. Research has consistently shown that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be altered through therapy. Furthermore, studies indicate that exposure to conversion therapy significantly increases the risk of depression, substance abuse, and suicide among LGBTQ+ youth. The practice is now banned in many jurisdictions, recognized not as therapy but as a form of psychological torture rooted in societal prejudice rather than clinical science.

Scared Straight Programs: The Failure of Deterrence

Rising to popularity in the 1970s following an Academy Award-winning documentary, Scared Straight programs involve taking at-risk youth into prisons to be confronted, screamed at, and intimidated by inmates. The theory was that exposure to the harsh realities of prison life would deter juveniles from future criminal behavior. It appealed to a “tough on crime” political sentiment and the intuition that fear is a powerful teacher.

However, longitudinal studies conducted by the Campbell Collaboration and other criminologists have shown that Scared Straight programs are not only ineffective but actually harmful. Participants in these programs were found to be *more* likely to commit crimes than their peers who did not attend. The mechanisms for this failure include the traumatization of the youth, the glamorization of the criminal lifestyle, and the alienation of the adolescents from prosocial support systems. The National Institute of Justice now lists Scared Straight as a program that “does not work,” serving as a stark reminder that intuitive solutions often fail when tested against empirical data.

Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD): The Trauma of Forced Processing

Critical Incident Stress Debriefing was developed as a mandatory, single-session intervention to be administered immediately following a traumatic event, such as a school shooting or natural disaster. The goal was to have survivors process their emotions and the details of the event within hours of its occurrence to prevent the development of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). It became a standard protocol for first responders and military personnel.

Subsequent research, including a comprehensive review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, found that CISD does not prevent PTSD and may actually increase the risk of developing it. By forcing individuals to relive the trauma before they have naturally established a sense of safety, the intervention can interfere with the brain’s natural healing processes. It essentially retraumatizes the individual during the acute shock phase. Modern trauma care now emphasizes “Psychological First Aid,” which focuses on establishing safety, comfort, and connection rather than forced emotional processing. This aligns with the physiological turn in trauma treatment, which prioritizes nervous system regulation over immediate cognitive processing.

The D.A.R.E. Program: Education Without Evidence

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) was a ubiquitous presence in American schools during the 1980s and 1990s. The program utilized police officers to teach schoolchildren about the dangers of drug use, utilizing a “Just Say No” curriculum. It relied on fear appeals and the authority of law enforcement to discourage substance abuse.

Despite receiving massive government funding, rigorous evaluations of the program found it to be completely ineffective. A landmark study published by the American Psychological Association indicated that D.A.R.E. graduates were just as likely to use drugs as those who did not participate. In some cohorts, D.A.R.E. students actually had higher rates of experimentation, likely due to a phenomenon known as the “boomerang effect,” where exposure to information about drugs inadvertently piqued curiosity. The failure of D.A.R.E. underscores the importance of evaluating educational psychology programs based on outcomes rather than intentions.

Learning Styles Theory (VARK): The Myth of the Visual Learner

The theory of Learning Styles posits that individuals have a dominant mode of learning—Visual, Auditory, Reading/Writing, or Kinesthetic (VARK)—and that instruction is most effective when tailored to this preference. This concept has deeply permeated the education system, influencing curriculum design and teacher training for decades.

However, despite its intuitive appeal, the scientific support for learning styles is virtually non-existent. A comprehensive review published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest found no evidence that matching instruction to a student’s preferred learning style improves educational outcomes. The research suggests that while students may have *preferences*, they do not have fixed *styles* that dictate their ability to learn. The persistence of this neuromyth wastes valuable educational resources and can limit students by labeling them and discouraging them from developing a well-rounded set of cognitive skills.

Power Posing: The Replication Crisis Case Study

Power Posing gained worldwide fame following a viral TED Talk by social psychologist Amy Cuddy. The theory suggested that standing in assertive, “high-power” postures for two minutes could cause hormonal changes—specifically increasing testosterone and decreasing cortisol—that would lead to increased confidence and risk-taking behavior. It was presented as a simple “life hack” based on embodied cognition.

The theory began to crumble during the “Replication Crisis” in psychology, where researchers attempted to duplicate the results of famous studies. Comprehensive replication efforts, including a meta-analysis published in Psychological Science, failed to find any significant effect of power posing on hormonal levels or behavioral outcomes. While the initial study suggested a physiological link, larger and more rigorous datasets revealed that the effect was likely a statistical artifact. This case highlights the danger of popularizing preliminary scientific findings before they have been robustly validated.

Graphology: The Pseudoscience of Handwriting

Graphology is the practice of analyzing physical characteristics of handwriting to infer personality traits, mental health status, and intelligence. Historically used in employee selection and forensic profiling, graphologists claim that the loops, slant, and pressure of script reveal the subconscious mind.

This practice has been consistently debunked and is categorized as a pseudoscience similar to phrenology. The British Psychological Society and other professional bodies rank graphology alongside astrology in terms of validity. Meta-analyses comparing graphologists’ assessments against standard personality tests and job performance metrics show zero correlation. The perceived accuracy of graphology is often attributed to the “Barnum Effect,” where individuals accept vague and general personality descriptions as uniquely applicable to themselves.

Color Therapy (Chromotherapy): The Spectrum of Deception

Chromotherapy posits that visible light and color can be used to treat mental and physical health conditions by balancing the body’s “energy centers.” Practitioners claim that looking at or being bathed in specific colors can cure depression (yellow), calm anxiety (blue), or stimulate appetite (red). While phototherapy (light boxes) is a legitimate treatment for Seasonal Affective Disorder due to its effect on melatonin, the specific claims of chromotherapy are scientifically unfounded.

The American Cancer Society and other medical bodies state that there is no evidence to support the idea that color alone can alter cell biology or cure psychiatric disease. The psychological effects of color are largely culturally determined and associative rather than physiological. Relying on color therapy for serious psychological conditions delays effective treatment and relies on a mystical rather than biological understanding of the body. For a more scientific perspective on the impact of color on the psyche, one can explore the psychology of color within a valid psychological framework.

Polygraph Testing: The Theater of Truth

While often associated with criminal justice, the polygraph or “lie detector” has also been used in therapeutic settings to verify fidelity in couples therapy or abstinence in addiction treatment. The machine measures physiological arousal—heart rate, blood pressure, respiration, and skin conductivity—under the assumption that deception triggers a specific stress response.

The scientific consensus, as summarized by the National Research Council of the National Academies, is that the polygraph is scientifically invalid. There is no unique physiological sign of deception. Anxiety, fear, confusion, and anger can all mimic the arousal patterns associated with lying. Conversely, sociopaths or individuals who are detached from the truth can often pass the test easily. The use of the polygraph in therapy destroys trust and relies on intimidation rather than the therapeutic alliance to elicit truth, often resulting in false positives that ruin relationships.

Orgone Therapy: The Accumulation of Nonsense

Wilhelm Reich, a psychoanalyst and student of Sigmund Freud, developed the theory of Orgone energy in the 1930s. He claimed to have discovered a universal life force that permeated all nature. Reich believed that mental illness was caused by a blockage of this energy and built “Orgone Accumulators”—large boxes lined with metal and organic material—where patients would sit to absorb the energy. He claimed this could cure everything from schizophrenia to cancer.

Reich’s theories became increasingly erratic and disconnected from reality. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) eventually obtained an injunction against the sale of Orgone Accumulators, labeling them as fraudulent medical devices. Reich was imprisoned for contempt of court, and tons of his publications were burned by the government. While Reich made early contributions to the understanding of body-mind connection, his descent into pseudoscience serves as a cautionary tale about the lack of falsifiability in psychoanalytic theory.

Large Group Awareness Training (LGAT): The Est Phenomenon

In the 1970s, Werner Erhard developed *est* (Erhard Seminars Training), a form of Large Group Awareness Training that promised rapid personal transformation. The seminars were grueling, often lasting 12 to 16 hours a day over two weekends. Participants were verbally abused, forbidden from using the bathroom, and subjected to intense psychological pressure to “break down” their egos and accept a new philosophy of personal responsibility.

While some participants reported life-changing breakthroughs, research indicated that these effects were often short-lived products of group hysteria and adrenaline. More concerning were the casualties; a significant number of participants experienced psychotic breaks or severe emotional distress following the training. A study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry highlighted the risk of LGATs precipitating psychiatric emergencies in vulnerable individuals. The authoritarian nature of the training and the dismantling of psychological defenses without adequate support violated ethical standards of care.

The Mozart Effect: Marketing Myth as Developmental Science

The “Mozart Effect” refers to the popular belief that listening to classical music, specifically Mozart, can permanently increase a child’s intelligence and spatial-temporal reasoning. This theory spawned a massive industry of “Baby Einstein” products and educational curricula designed to passively boost IQ.

The phenomenon originated from a small 1993 study that showed a temporary improvement in spatial reasoning in college students after listening to Mozart. However, subsequent meta-analyses, including work published in Nature, demonstrated that the effect was negligible, temporary, and not specific to Mozart. It was merely a result of “arousal and mood”—students performed better because they felt more awake and pleasant, an effect that could be achieved by drinking coffee or listening to an upbeat audiobook. The commercialization of this finding distorted the public’s understanding of child development, emphasizing passive consumption over active engagement and play.

Hypnotic Age Regression: The Fabrication of the Past

Hypnotic Age Regression is a technique where a therapist induces a trance state and suggests that the patient return to a younger age to retrieve memories or re-experience events. This is distinct from RMT but shares similar flaws. Practitioners claim that the patient can access the cognitive and emotional state of an infant or toddler to heal early wounds.

Research in developmental psychology confirms that adults cannot accurately access the cognitive state of a child because the adult brain has structurally changed. Furthermore, the American Psychological Association warns that hypnosis creates a state of hypersuggestibility. When a therapist asks a “regressed” patient to describe their third birthday, the patient is likely to confabulate a scene based on present knowledge and imagination rather than accessing a literal neurological recording. This technique poses a high risk of creating false narratives that can complicate the patient’s understanding of their own history.

Holding Therapy: Coercion Disguised as Connection

Holding Therapy is a subset of Attachment Therapy often used with children who have behavioral issues or autism. The technique involves the caregiver or therapist forcibly holding the child, often face-to-face, restricting their movement until they stop resisting and “surrender” to the comfort. The theory is that the child’s rage must be physically contained to allow for bonding.

This practice is ethically abhorrent and clinically dangerous. It ignores the child’s autonomy and bodily integrity, teaching them that submission is the price of affection. The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) has condemned the use of coercive holding, noting that it can lead to physical injury and severe psychological trauma. Rather than building trust, it often creates a fear-based relationship where the child complies solely to escape the physical restraint.

Comprehensive Bibliography and Academic References

American Psychological Association. (2012). *D.A.R.E. program not effective, study finds*. Monitor on Psychology.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2018). *Facilitated Communication [Position Statement]*. Retrieved from asha.org.

Beyerstein, B. L. (1990). Brainscams: Neuromyths and pseudoscience. *International Journal of Mental Health*, 19(3), 27-36.

Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J., & Yap, A. J. (2010). Power posing: Brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. *Psychological Science*, 21(10), 1363-1368. [Retracted/Debunked by subsequent meta-analysis].

Chambless, D. L., & Ollendick, T. H. (2001). Empirically supported psychological interventions: Controversies and evidence. *Annual Review of Psychology*, 52, 685-716.

Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., & Lohr, J. M. (Eds.). (2014). *Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology (2nd ed.)*. The Guilford Press.

Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. *Learning & Memory*, 12(4), 361-366.

McNally, R. J., & Deb, D. (2004). Debriefing after trauma: Does it work? *Psychiatric Times*, 21(13), 1-4.

Mercer, J. (2013). *Alternative Psychotherapies: Evaluating Unconventional Mental Health Treatments*. Rowman & Littlefield.

Norcross, J. C., & Goldfried, M. R. (Eds.). (2005). *Handbook of Psychotherapy Integration*. Oxford University Press.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. *Psychological Science in the Public Interest*, 9(3), 105-119.

Petrosini, L., et al. (2010). The Mozart effect: A quantitative meta-analysis. *Nature*, 463, 86.

Ranehill, E., et al. (2015). Assessing the robustness of power posing: No effect on hormones and risk tolerance in a large sample of men and women. *Psychological Science*, 26(5), 653-656.

Singer, M. T., & Lalich, J. (1996). *Crazy Therapies: What Are They? Do They Work?*. Jossey-Bass.

Spitzer, R. L. (2012). Evidence for harmful effects of conversion therapy. *Archives of Sexual Behavior*.

Wegner, D. M., & Wheatley, T. (1999). Apparent mental causation: Sources of the experience of will. *American Psychologist*, 54(7), 480–492.