If EFT Has So Much Research, Why Isn't Every Psychologist Using It?

One of the questions I'm asked most often is:

"If Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT or tapping) has so much supportive research, why isn't it considered as mainstream as therapies like EMDR or Cognitive Behavioural Therapy?"

It's a great question, and the answer might surprise you. It has less to do with whether EFT works, and much more to do with how psychology decides what becomes accepted as "evidence-based."

Evidence is only one piece of the puzzle

Most people imagine science as a simple process:

Research proves something works → psychologists adopt it.

In reality, it looks much more like this:

Research suggests something works → researchers ask why it works → other researchers try to replicate it → professional organisations evaluate the quality of the evidence → clinical guidelines are updated.

This process often takes decades.

In fact, implementation science suggests it takes an average of around 17 years for research findings to become routine clinical practice. That means even highly promising therapies can spend many years sitting in the "interesting but still being evaluated" category.

EMDR travelled a very similar road

Today, Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) is recognised internationally as an evidence-based treatment for trauma.

But when it was first introduced in the late 1980s, many psychologists were deeply sceptical. The idea that moving your eyes while recalling traumatic memories could reduce PTSD symptoms sounded implausible to many clinicians.

It took years of rigorous research, independent replication, refinement of treatment protocols and the gradual development of theories explaining why EMDR worked before major organisations accepted it. Interestingly, researchers are still debating exactly which parts of EMDR are essential. Even with widespread acceptance, the precise mechanisms continue to be investigated.

Science is comfortable saying: "We know this works, but we're still learning exactly why."

EFT has faced an even bigger challenge

Clinical EFT combines several well-established therapeutic ingredients:

• gradual exposure to difficult memories and emotions

• cognitive reframing

• acceptance

• mindfulness

• gentle somatic stimulation through tapping on acupuncture points

The difficulty is that this last ingredient—the tapping—is the part that attracts the most attention.

Many psychologists ask: "Is the tapping doing something unique, or are people improving because of the exposure, cognitive work and therapeutic relationship?"

That is a perfectly reasonable scientific question. Researchers continue to investigate it.

While an increasing number of studies suggest tapping contributes benefits beyond the psychological components alone, others argue that the established elements of therapy may explain much of the improvement. The scientific conversation is still evolving.

First impressions matter—even in science

Another challenge for EFT is simply that it looks unusual. Talking to a therapist feels familiar. Writing down your thoughts feels familiar. Even following someone's fingers with your eyes, as in EMDR, has now become relatively familiar.

Tapping on your face while talking about emotional experiences looks... different.

Whether we like it or not, new ideas are often judged not only by their evidence, but also by how well they fit with existing ways of thinking.

History matters too

Early versions of EFT grew from the field of "energy psychology" and were often explained using concepts such as energy meridians.

For many psychologists trained in neuroscience and behavioural science, these explanations felt difficult to reconcile with contemporary scientific models.

As a result, discussions often shifted away from the clinical outcomes and towards debates about the proposed explanations.

Today, researchers such as Dr Peta Stapleton at Bond University have helped move the conversation toward a more contemporary scientific framework. Rather than focusing on "energy," Clinical EFT is increasingly described as an integration of exposure therapy, cognitive techniques and somatic regulation, with a growing body of randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses supporting its effectiveness across anxiety, depression, PTSD and stress-related conditions.

The APA Division 12 story

One of the more interesting chapters in EFT's journey involves the American Psychological Association (APA). Within the APA is the Society of Clinical Psychology (Division 12), which has historically developed standards for identifying empirically supported treatments.

Back in the 1990s, Division 12 created a set of criteria (often called the Chambless criteria) that therapies needed to meet before they could be considered empirically supported. These standards focused heavily on factors such as high-quality randomised controlled trials, treatment manuals, independent replication and comparison with existing therapies.

Researchers involved in Clinical EFT argued that, over time, EFT had accumulated enough evidence to satisfy these original standards. This position has been outlined in several peer-reviewed publications, including work involving Dr Peta Stapleton.

However, psychology itself continued to evolve.

As the science of evidence synthesis became more sophisticated, Division 12 adopted newer evaluation methods (known as the Tolin criteria) that placed greater emphasis on systematic reviews, meta-analyses, strength of evidence, risk of bias and the overall quality of an entire body of literature, rather than simply counting individual positive studies.

In 2021, Dr Peta Stapleton formally submitted Clinical EFT for review under these updated standards for PTSD. According to her public account, the submission underwent review and revision, but before the process was completed, the Society of Clinical Psychology changed its review process and did not continue evaluating EFT under the original pathway that had been approved.

Importantly, this should not necessarily be interpreted as the APA concluding that EFT is ineffective. Rather, it reflects something quite common in science: the standards used to evaluate evidence continue to evolve.

As our methods for reviewing research become more rigorous, the "goal posts" sometimes change—not because a therapy has become weaker, but because psychology is continually refining how it decides what counts as the strongest possible evidence.

So... where does that leave us?

From my perspective as a psychologist, this is actually how science should work.

Healthy scientific communities are cautious. They question. They debate. They replicate findings. They update standards. This is the way to develop confidence and rigor in therapeutic approaches.

Sometimes that process feels frustratingly slow, particularly when clinicians are seeing positive outcomes in practice and researchers are publishing encouraging results.

But history reminds us that many therapies we now consider mainstream—including EMDR—once occupied exactly this position.

Clinical EFT has now accumulated a substantial and growing research base, with increasing independent replication and high-quality systematic reviews. At the same time, researchers continue investigating how it works, which components are essential, and where it fits within evidence-based clinical guidelines.

Perhaps the more interesting question is no longer: "Does EFT work?"

Instead, psychology appears to be asking: "How do we best understand it, and where does it belong within the broader landscape of evidence-based care?"

Science has always advanced by asking questions like these.

Why this matters to me as a psychologist

One of my responsibilities as a psychologist is to continually evaluate emerging research and remain open to approaches that may benefit the people I work with. Science is always evolving, and so should we.

It is in my clients' best interests (and, I believe, in my professional interests) to stay informed about therapies that demonstrate credible and growing evidence. Expanding my knowledge and clinical skills isn't about chasing the latest trend; it's about ensuring I can offer the most appropriate, effective and individualised care possible.

No single therapy is right for every person. Every client brings a unique history, nervous system, personality, strengths and goals into the therapy room. The more evidence-informed tools I have available, the better able I am to tailor treatment to the individual sitting in front of me.

This doesn't mean accepting every new approach uncritically. Quite the opposite. It means reading the research, understanding both the strengths and limitations of the evidence, listening to healthy scientific debate, and integrating new knowledge thoughtfully and ethically into practice.

Ultimately, my commitment isn't to a particular therapeutic modality—it is to helping people heal. If high-quality evidence continues to emerge for approaches that can safely and effectively reduce suffering, then I believe it is both good science and good clinical practice to remain curious enough to learn, while remaining critical enough to evaluate the evidence carefully.

References

• Church, D., Stapleton, P., Vasudevan, A., & O'Keefe, T. (2022). Clinical EFT as an evidence-based practice for the treatment of psychological and physiological conditions: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 951451.

• Feinstein, D. (2014). Empirically supported psychological treatments: The challenge of evaluating clinical innovations. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 202(10), 699–709.

• Chambless, D. L., & Hollon, S. D. (1998). Defining empirically supported therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.

• Tolin, D. F., et al. (2015). Empirically supported treatments: Recommendations for a new model. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice.

• Society of Clinical Psychology (APA Division 12). Historical and current evidence evaluation frameworks.

• Stapleton, P. (2025). Statement Regarding the APA Division 12 Review of EFT under the Tolin Criteria.