Ces dernières décennies, de nombreuses méthodes de psychothérapie ont vu le jour afin de traiter les individus souffrant de trouble de stress post-traumatique. Dans cet article, nous avons choisi de nous intéresser à trois d’entre elles : l’Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR), la Thought Field Therapy (TFT) et l’Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT). Appartenant au courant des Power Therapies, elles ont été présentées comme des méthodes révolutionnaires par leurs promoteurs et ont fait l’objet d’une vive controverse au sein de la communauté scientifique. Pourtant, l’EMDR est désormais un traitement de référence du trouble de stress post-traumatique. La TFT et l’EFT, quant à elles, restent qualifiées de « pseudosciences ». Pour mieux comprendre ce qui peut expliquer cette différence, nous nous sommes intéressés aux facteurs qui ont favorisé l’émergence de ces méthodes, ainsi qu’aux oppositions qu’elles ont rencontrées dans leurs parcours respectifs de validation scientifique. Les résultats de l’étude nous ont amenés à discuter la notion de « pseudoscience » et adopter un regard critique sur les modalités d’évaluation des psychothérapies. Au final, il apparaît qu’aucun critère ne permet d’établir une limite nette entre « science » et « pseudoscience » à l’heure actuelle. Les conclusions de cet article invitent donc à poursuivre les recherches sur l’EMDR, la TFT et l’EFT, mais aussi à mener une réflexion sur l’évaluation des psychothérapies et la place des thérapies complémentaires dans le traitement de certains troubles psychiques en France.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.