Stop the Use of Eye Movements in Resource Development and Installation, Until Their Additional Value Has Been Proven: A Rejoinder to

This brief article responds to Leeds and Korn’s (2012) commentary on our article (Hornsveld et al., 2011) in which we found that eye movements (EMs) during recall of positive and resourceful autobiographic memories (such as those used in resource development and installation [RDI]) led to decreases of (a) vividness, (b) pleasantness, and (c) experienced strength of the intended quality or resource. Hence, we found an opposite effect than what was intended and critically discussed this in our article. In their comments, Leeds and Korn stress their positive clinical experience with RDI and emphasize the limitations of our study. Here we argue that our results, despite their limitations, are fully in line with mounting evidence supporting a working memory account for EMs. Moreover, opposite effects for EMs in the RDI and the safe place procedure accord with several other clinical observations. Given the absence of any confirmatory results, we again advocate, and now even more strongly, to stop the use of EMs in the RDI and safe place procedures until their additional value has been proven.