When to use IEMT versus when to use Metaphors of Movement.
As the developer of the two models, I often get asked, "When do you use IEMT and when do you use MoM?" It's a good question and has a fairly simple answer.
As many people will be aware, Metaphors of Movement was a natural progression from the advanced IEMT modules. As I was developing advanced application of both the IEMT pronoun work and metaphors for visual accessing, it became increasingly apparent that I was departing from work that used eye movements.
Thus rather than confuse the issue, it seemed sensible to seperate out the two models.
It also quickly emerged that the application of the metaphors versus the application of the eye movement work was very different.
So, when to use which. Well, I think of it like this: when life has messed up the person (i.e. stuff happened to them) then IEMT is the model of choice. When it is the person who is messing up life (i.e. they are doing stuff to life) then MoM is a better choice.
So, IEMT tends to work well for traumas, phobias, emotional reactivity, depression and so on.
MoM tends to work best for behavioural change.
The main benefit of IEMT is that the results are immediate and tangible and doesn't require too much sophistication or verbal interaction on the part of the practitioner or the client. This can be of great advantage when the client isn't able to communicate their pain verbally which may arise for a number of reasons - i.e. there is a preference for non-disclosure, the client is too distressed or simply isn't the kind of person who can do that kind of thing. The IEMT protocols were partly developed for exactly this type of situation.
Some practitioners will use both the MoM and IEMT models within a session. This is something that seems quite reasonable and is something that I used to do too. However, wih the few clients I do see these days I am increasingly using shorter (i.e. 10-30mins) but more frequent sessions (4-8 sessions) and keeping to one model within each session.