NEW YORK — Internal Family Systems therapy, a form of psychotherapy that views the mind as composed of multiple sub-personalities or 'parts,' has surged in popularity in recent years, particularly since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. Developed in the 1980s by psychiatrist Richard Schwartz, IFS encourages clients to interact with these parts compassionately, asserting that there are 'no bad parts' and that a core 'Self' can lead the healing process. Despite its appeal to many seeking deeper emotional connections in an increasingly isolated world, the therapy lacks robust scientific backing, raising questions among mental health experts about its widespread use for serious conditions.
According to a recent analysis in Vox, the therapy's rise aligns with a broader cultural shift toward experiential and embodied practices in mental health treatment. Sigal Samuel, a contributor to Vox's Future Perfect section, explored this trend in an article titled 'Why people are craving a different kind of therapy right now,' published in late 2023. Samuel, who has personally tried IFS and expressed skepticism about its foundations, noted that friends and even evidence-oriented individuals are drawn to it. 'Some of my friends swear by it,' Samuel wrote, highlighting its appeal despite a 'shaky' scientific base.
Carl Erik Fisher, a bioethicist and psychiatrist at Columbia University who specializes in addiction, provides insight into why IFS resonates so strongly today. In his 2022 book The Urge: Our History of Addiction, Fisher initially dismissed IFS as 'hokey' but later found personal value in it. 'I feel like most of my supervisors at Columbia would turn up their noses at it — IFS does not have much of an evidence base, and it has neither the cerebral cachet of psychoanalysis nor the prestige of the more explicitly scientific therapies. But something about it works for me,' Fisher wrote.
Samuel interviewed Fisher to delve deeper into IFS's popularity. Fisher attributed the therapy's boom to a 'turn toward the experiential in psychotherapy these days.' He pointed to similarities with other trending modalities like Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR), somatic therapy, and mindfulness, which prioritize direct bodily and emotional experiences over purely analytical approaches. 'The thing that unites these is the shift away from rational or analytical insight to a more direct experiential practice,' Fisher said.
This experiential focus, Fisher explained, offers a form of 'intuitive, ecumenical, wisdom-oriented, potentially secular spirituality.' In an era where traditional religious frameworks are waning for many, IFS provides a path to 'lowercase-T transcendence' by encouraging awareness of one's internal multiplicity rather than a singular rational 'command center' in the brain. Fisher linked this appeal to post-Covid isolation, noting that remote work and digital interactions have left people feeling disconnected from their bodies. 'When you feel like you’re just a head floating in a Zoom box for most of the day, like a lot of knowledge workers do now, you really start to feel it,' he told Samuel.
The therapy's popularity spiked notably around 2020, coinciding with the pandemic's peak, when lockdowns amplified feelings of disconnection. Searches for IFS-related terms on Google Trends show a marked increase starting that year, according to data referenced in various mental health discussions. Proponents, including Schwartz's official IFS Institute founded in 2000, report thousands of certified practitioners worldwide, with training programs expanding rapidly in the U.S. and Europe.
However, concerns persist about IFS's application, especially given its limited empirical support. No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yet validated IFS as a treatment for psychiatric disorders, a point Samuel emphasized in her column 'Your Mileage May Vary.' Fisher acknowledged the importance of evidence-based research but cautioned against over-relying on RCTs as the 'gold standard.' 'The fact is that an RCT — as much as people call it the “gold standard” — is not the ultimate arbiter of truth or epistemic authority,' he said.
Fisher critiqued the psychotherapy research field for biases inherent in short-term studies, which often measure surface-level symptoms like those on the Beck Depression Inventory rather than deeper changes in personality or life purpose. He noted practical challenges, such as creating effective control conditions and blinding participants in therapy trials. Despite these issues, he stressed the need for better tracking of potential harms, as some reports have emerged of patients experiencing worsened symptoms after IFS sessions.
Samuel raised alarms about IFS being used for severe conditions like addiction, eating disorders, and personality disorders without sufficient data. Fisher agreed that caution is warranted for at-risk individuals. 'People who are at imminent risk of destabilization, whether it’s self-harm or substance use disorders — I don’t know that IFS is the best fit for immediately stabilizing someone seeking safety,' he advised. He also flagged vulnerabilities for those with unstable self-concepts or high suggestibility, where IFS's emphasis on bodily sensations might lead to fragmentation.
For eating disorders, Fisher recommended structured behavioral interventions over IFS, citing well-established protocols in that field. He drew a parallel to pseudoscientific treatments like homeopathy, warning that opting for unproven therapies could delay access to effective care. 'The problem is if you go get homeopathy for cancer, then you’re missing the opportunity to get a real treatment for cancer,' Fisher said, applying the analogy to mental health.
A key critique of IFS involves the role of suggestion in its practice. Therapists often ask clients to locate emotions in their bodies, which Samuel observed can feel leading. 'Anecdotally, my sense is that many people secretly just don’t feel it in their body. But the therapist asks that question as if it’s so profound that when you’re the client sitting there, you feel like you’ve got to come up with something,' she wrote. Fisher validated this concern, noting that therapists' asymmetrical authority can invalidate clients' experiences if not handled carefully.
'Generally, one of the deep critiques of psychotherapy going back decades is that the therapist has a sort of causal narrative about how the world works, what counts as suffering, what counts as the good. Because they have this asymmetrical authority, they can guide a client. And some of the critiques say that invalidates the epistemic authority of the client,' Fisher explained.
Another contentious element is IFS's concept of a core 'Self,' portrayed as a wise, compassionate leader beneath the parts. Samuel questioned this, arguing that neuroscience does not support a literal homunculus in the brain. Fisher responded that interpretations vary: careful practitioners avoid reifying the Self as a metaphysical entity, drawing parallels to Buddhist concepts like 'wise mind' balanced by teachings of emptiness. However, he worried that popularized versions could encourage surrender of personal agency. 'If you reify the self in such a way that it’s not the you that think you are, that there’s some other Self in there that’s kind of spiritual or metaphysical, then it’s kind of surrendering some autonomy,' he said.
Clients who voice skepticism during sessions sometimes face responses framing doubt as a 'skeptical part' resisting healing, potentially creating a self-reinforcing loop. Fisher called this 'invalidating' and poor practice. 'I think my own response, 99 out of 100 times [as the psychiatrist] in a situation like that, would be to validate and say: “That makes sense. It’s okay to be skeptical. Psychotherapy is messy and we don’t really know how it works,”' he advised.
As IFS continues to gain traction, with books, podcasts, and online communities proliferating, experts like Fisher urge a balanced approach. While it may offer real benefits for those seeking embodied, compassionate self-exploration, its rapid adoption outpaces research efforts. The American Psychological Association has not endorsed IFS, and calls for more studies are growing. Fisher suggested that professional bodies should monitor harms more closely without imposing moratoriums that could stifle innovation. For now, individuals considering IFS are encouraged to consult licensed therapists and weigh it alongside evidence-based options like cognitive behavioral therapy.
In the broader mental health landscape, IFS's popularity reflects a societal hunger for holistic healing amid ongoing challenges like remote work and digital overload. Whether it endures as a mainstream tool or faces scrutiny from mounting evidence remains to be seen, but its story underscores the tension between personal experience and scientific rigor in modern psychotherapy.