Internal Family Systems: Exploring Its Problematic Popularity
Lisa M. Brownstone, PhD & 2 others
June 26, 2024
Internal Family Systems (IFS) is a theory of mind organization developed by Richard Schwartz in the 1990s, which posits that the mind is an internal system of parts that exist separately and in conversation with one another. While this approach, on the surface, sounds like many theories of psychotherapy (e.g., any theory that discusses how contradictory internal experiences co-exist), IFS is unique in its labeling and separation of such parts into “vulnerable” and “protective” categories, and into roles like “exile,” “firefighter,” “manager” and “Self.” IFS focuses on helping clients have their “parts” be in conversation with the goal of decreasing psychological symptoms. More specifically, an IFS therapist encourages clients to embody different parts of self in session, encouraging clients to verbalize needs, wants, and past hurts from the perspective of each part. This can include facilitation of splitting and dissociative processes, as well as therapist questions pertaining to each part’s past or present experience at the exclusion of other parts (IFS Institute, 2024).
Notably, there is a strikingly small evidence-base in the literature for IFS, particularly given that it was developed 30 years ago. Three studies show some support for the acceptability or effectiveness of IFS with specific presenting concerns: depression, rheumatoid arthritis-related pain, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and dissociation (Haddock et al., 2016; Hodgdon et al., 2022; Shadick et al., 2013). Despite the limited research with selective samples, the IFS website makes sweeping claims about its healing power: “IFS is much more than a non-pathologizing, evidence-based psychotherapy to be used in a clinical setting. It is also a way of understanding personal and intimate relationships and stepping into life” (IFS Institute, 2024).
Furthermore, IFS usage appears to be increasing. We have noticed increasing numbers of trainees, supervisors, and colleagues who report using IFS across ranging presenting concerns (notably beyond concerns studied in treatment trials). Per the authors’ investigation, as of April 2024, 45,764 psychotherapists on PsychologyToday.com mentioned using IFS. There also appears to be an extensive number of posts about IFS on popular social media sites, which have become major sources of official and unofficial mental health information (Cook et al., 2017). Also per the authors’ investigation, on Instagram, there were 30,875 posts with #ifstherapy and 74,154 with #internalfamilysystems tags, and, on Tik Tok, there were 3 million posts mentioning “Internal Family Systems Therapy” and 1.2 million posts mentioning to “Internal Family Systems Technique.” Given its increasing popularity, IFS should be examined regarding potential for harm as its application has expanded to clients with ranging diagnoses, severity levels, and personality structures, as evidenced by the spanning diagnoses that IFS psychotherapists claim to treat on PsychologyToday.com (See Psychology Today, 2024). Additionally, it is possible that the proliferation of IFS in the mental health ecosystem is due to a need for more structured and robust training on empirically supported psychotherapy, as well as trauma-informed psychotherapy.
Potential Harms of the Overapplication of Internal Family Systems
We believe that the current expansion of IFS across psychotherapy and social media has moved beyond its evidence base. The existing literature has excluded those with psychosis, and, based on our clinical observations in hospital and private practice settings, there is possibly an overapplication of IFS to individuals experiencing psychotic symptoms either due to an underlying schizophrenia-related disorder, mood disorder, or severe trauma-related disorder. We are not the first to express concern about IFS application to those with psychosis or reality testing difficulties (Deacon & Davis, 2001). Our concern is that encouraging splitting of the self into parts for those who struggle with reality testing might be disorganizing. We also know from the complex trauma literature that a primary goal of treatment for dissociative disorders and complex trauma is a careful, phasic approach that encourages integration of dissociated parts and experiences (e.g., Courtois & Ford, 2016). Encouraging conversation between parts and telling clients what to label parts of self (e.g., firefighter) without significant sensitivity to ways this could exacerbate splitting of self-states could be dangerous for some. Additionally, IFS practitioners have faced litigation from past clients regarding introduction of false memory (e.g., Doe v. Riverside Partners, 2022), possibly facilitated by splitting of self-states and decreased reality testing. As such, there is potential for harm. Clinicians using IFS who have not received sufficient training in trauma-informed care may be at particular risk of misusing IFS in ways that cause such harm.
Increased Popularity of Internal Family Systems
Many early career psychotherapists have graduated from programs that have required “Research Methods,” “Counseling Techniques,” and “Counseling Theories” courses per accreditation requirements (e.g., MPCAC, CACREP). Counseling techniques courses often focus on common factors in psychotherapy, while counseling theories courses often provide an agnostic overview of all classic psychotherapy theories. Research methods courses often focus on basics of research design and program evaluation. However, there is often a lack of integration across these courses, such that many students graduate as license eligible without an understanding of how to evaluate whether a psychotherapeutic approach has empirical support for addressing particular symptomatology. IFS is a marketable approach that likely draws in client interest (given the popularity on social media), and many of its practitioners are likely not aware of its lack of empirical support. We believe this lack of integrative education potentially leaves many early career psychotherapists to be susceptible to misleading trainings on approaches that are not sufficiently evidence-based.
Additionally, accreditation requirements for many graduate programs in psychotherapy do not include trauma-informed training (Cook et al., 2017). Relatedly, in a survey of doctoral psychology training programs, Henning and colleagues (2022) found that one in five programs offered a class in trauma-informed care. This may be because the roots of most of these disciplines are vocational psychology, adjustment concerns, and familial distress (e.g., Munley et al., 2004), and not the treatment of acute and persistent mental health difficulties. During training and afterwards, clinicians increasingly report working with clients with high acuity symptoms needing trauma-informed psychotherapy across various levels of care (e.g., Xiao et al., 2017). We suspect that many people applying IFS are doing so to meet the needs of their clients, particularly given IFS’ reputation of being a go-to treatment for complex PTSD and dissociation. For example, many Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) practitioner trainings suggest IFS integration with EMDR when clients struggle with complex trauma and dissociation (Brown, 2021). As such, the combination of less than adequate training in evaluating psychotherapies for empirical support and the lack of emphasis on trauma-informed treatment training likely sets the stage for psychotherapists to be interested in an approach like IFS.
IFS Online
As mentioned above, the current authors examined the popularity of IFS on Psychology Today, Instagram, and Tik Tok. These findings indicate a substantial amount of IFS-related content on these sites. Nonetheless, there are no current peer-reviewed articles that have examined the content of posts discussing IFS. As such, the general public is receiving unknown messages from content creators (many of whom are likely mental health providers) regarding IFS. Some of this content, such as TikTok posts on “Internal Family Systems Techniques” may be encouraging audiences to apply IFS without the supervision of a trained therapist. This may be shaping the broader publics’ understanding of healing and psychotherapy and fueling a demand for IFS from psychotherapy clients. Such demand may, in turn, impact training and continuing education selection for psychotherapists. The popularity of IFS and related language (e.g., #innerchild, #partswork) on social media may also shape the publics’ understanding of mental health, trauma, and identity outside of psychotherapy. As such, IFS content on social media likely shapes dialogue within and outside of psychotherapy spaces.
Future Research Directions for Internal Family Systems
There is a need for research to explore why psychotherapists pursue training in IFS, why and how psychotherapists use social media to talk about tenants of IFS, and what presenting concerns psychotherapists are implementing IFS. We hold concerns regarding potential diagnoses, severity levels, and personality structures that may not benefit (or may be at risk for harm) when considering application of IFS, however, further research is needed to better understand such nuances. Understanding etiologies of psychotherapists’ pursuit of IFS training or integration of IFS tenants into their work may help identify training gaps in trauma-informed care. Understanding the prevalence of “therapy talk” on social media and the reach of posts to consumers may elucidate a need for ethical guidelines around therapy talk in the social media landscape (White & Hanley, 2022).
About the Authors
Lisa M. Brownstone, PhD
Lisa Brownstone, PhD (she/they) is an Assistant Professor of the Practice in Counseling Psychology at the University of Denver. They spend their time teaching emerging counselors and psychology trainees about psychotherapy. Her areas of clinical and research specialization include disordered eating, weight stigma, gender affirming care, trauma, and group psychotherapy. Dr. Brownstone identifies as a social justice advocate psychologist and is passionate about non-value neutral practice.
Madeline J. Hunsicker, MA
Madeline Hunsicker, MA is a counseling psychology candidate in the Department of Psychological and Quantitative Foundations at the University of Iowa. Her research focuses broadly on psychotherapy process, with particular focus on group therapy for eating disorders and therapy process with marginalized groups more broadly.
Amanda K. Greene, PhD, MPH
Amanda K. Greene, PhD, MPH is an interdisciplinary researcher who studies how social media interacts with individuals’ experiences of their bodies, illness, and health. Her research has been published in journals such as Body Image, Feminist Media Studies, Qualitative Psychology, Social Media + Society, and The Journal of Health Communication.
Citation
References
Brown, G. O. (2021). Internal family systems informed eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: An integrative technique for treatment of complex posttraumatic stress disorder. International Body Psychotherapy Journal, 19, 112-122. https://isc.training/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/oshea-brown-IFS_EMDR.pdf
Cook, J. M., Simiola, V., Ellis, A. E., & Thompson, R. (2017). Training in trauma psychology: A national survey of doctoral graduate programs. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 11, 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000150
Courtois, C. A., & Ford, J. D. (2016). Treatment of complex trauma: A sequenced, relationship-based approach. The Guilford Press.
Deacon, S. A., & Davis, J. C. (2001). Internal Family Systems theory: A technical integration. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 20, 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1521/jsyt.20.1.45.19410
Doe v. Riverside Partners, CV 117 CDP No. 4:22. (2022). https://casetext.com/case/doe-v-riverside-partners-llc-1
Haddock, S. A., Weiler, L. M., Trump, L. J., & Henry, K. L. (2016). The efficacy of Internal Family Systems therapy in the treatment of depression among female college students: A pilot study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 43(1), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12184
Henning, J. A., Brand, B., & Courtois, C. A. (2022). Graduate training and certification in trauma treatment for clinical practitioners. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 16(4), 362-375. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000326
Hodgdon, H. B., Anderson, F. G., Southwell, E., Hrubec, W., & Schwartz, R. (2022). Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among survivors of multiple childhood trauma: A pilot effectiveness study. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 31, 22–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2021.2013375
IFS Institute. What is Internal Family Systems? | IFS Institute. (2024). Retrieved June 3, 2024, from https://ifs-institute.com/about-us.
Munley, P. H., Duncan, L. E., Mcdonnell, K. A., & Sauer, E. M. (2004). Counseling psychology in the United States of America. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 17, 247–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070412331317602
Psychology Today. Find an Internal Family Systems (IFS) Therapist. (2024). Retrieved June 3, 2024, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists?category=internal-family-systems-ifs.
Shadick, N. A., Sowell, N. F., Frits, M. L., Hoffman, S. M., Hartz, S. A., Booth, F. D., Sweezy, M., Rogers, P. R., Dubin, R. L., Atkinson, J. C., Friedman, A. L., Augusto, F., Iannaccone, C. K., Fossel, A. H., Quinn, G., Cui, J., Losina, E., & Schwartz, R. C. (2013). A randomized controlled trial of an internal family systems-based psychotherapeutic intervention on outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: A proof-of-concept study. The Journal of Rheumatology, 40, 1831–1841. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.121465
White, E., & Hanley, T. (2022). Therapist + social media = mental health influencer? Considering the research focusing upon key ethical issues around the use of social media by therapists. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 23(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12577
Xiao, H., Carney, D. M., Youn, S. J., Janis, R. A., Castonguay, L. G., Hayes, J. A., & Locke, B. D. (2017). Are we in crisis? National mental health and treatment trends in college counseling centers. Psychological Services, 14, 407–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000130
Comments (14)
- Joanne TwomblyApril 2, 2025
You might want to read my book Trauma and Dissociation Informed IFS. I agree that IFS’s insistence that no coping skills are needed and that everyone with every diagnosis can be treated with standard IFS is majorly concerning.
- Anna SApril 25, 2025
Your comment made me curious. I was trying to find where in this article there is mention of “no coping skills are needed”. Where does this idea come from? I have not interpreted IFS and unburdening parts in this way. I feel that CBT can be more dis-arming to coping mechanisms without offering an alternative in a way. I am referring to reframing “maladaptive thoughts”. IFS does feel like rearranging a system, but when done gently and with consent, a new way to cope should be agreed on (between self and parts). I think CBT just rearranges a coping system while the person is away– in the sense that the parts aren’t included in the process in the same way and the client might just reframe based on what they THINK is better, not what they truly feel fits for them and their parts.
I agree that an insistence that every diagnosis can be treated with IFS is problematic. But I think anything that makes such bold claims is problematic.
I hope this makes sense and that this message is received with the intent I have — curiosity and kindness.
I will look up your book!
- Elijah EilerMay 29, 2025
I just want to echo support for Joanne Twombly’s work! She also has a couple of great interviews on the podcasts IFS Talks and The One Inside. This article specifically doesn’t mention that IFS doesn’t think we need to teach coping skills, but this is a narrative in the IFS community. But there are people, like Joanne, who integrate the use of coping skills with the model.
I’m an IFS trained therapist and I agree it’s really problematic how little research has been done on it and how widely it’s applied given that small evidence base. I know more research is being done, but I don’t know it’s taken this long to only have a few studies published – most of these only exploratory studies.
- Peter Bertin McCaffreyJune 1, 2025
IFS has become the therapy du jour. My feeling is that if an individual has the ability to enter into a working relationship with the therapist, and is able to utilize the observing ego to deal with reactive ego states, this is sufficient to deal with the majority of issues people present with.
- Mary BentonJune 30, 2025
I am concerned about the use of IFS with someone whose diagnosis isn’t clear – cPTSD vs DID. Does anyone have experience with this or know of any formal research on the topic?
- Robin IveyOctober 1, 2025
I would also like to see information on the application of IFS on clients who experience mental disorders .
- CarolNovember 4, 2025
IFS doesn’t believe people have mental disorders.
- Dadin RodarteFebruary 4, 2026
That’s clearly not an accurate statement.
- Mustafa GürsoyNovember 7, 2025
How is it different from schema therapy, which works with schema modes in a similar way to how IFS works with aspects?
- Aleksandra KłosNovember 17, 2025
I consider stabilization to be a necessary skill when working with IFS and trauma. Unfortunately, stabilization is not taught during IFS trainings and so therefore, solely IFS, in the shape of current training, has its limits.
- Sergi LlopartDecember 26, 2025
I am a level 2 EMDR psychologist and level 1 IFS. I have to say that IFS has helped unblock and improve several patients that I had previously treated with EMDR or had had EMDR treatment with another therapist.
IFS works and in my opinion helps to understand the human mind or psyche in a much better way than all of other therapies. I confess I was reluctant to use it for the last 7 years, since I first heard of it, but a workshop with Richard Schwartz and the level 1 training has proven to me the value of this therapy.
Having said that, I would be very cautious using it with DID, Bipolar, Schizophrenic, and probably some other disorders. Hopefully I will try it with a person with bipolar disorder in a few weeks, who showed mild improvement with EMDR, but as I say, with extreme caution.
- IrwinJanuary 29, 2026
A bunch of adepts and easily washable brains. If someone says , it is good , with very little evidence to support the claim, it must be good , and “let’s hurry up as the sheep we are “ and buy it. Make Dick a millionaire. This duck can go to jail forever for harming millions of therapists and millions of clients out there . He knows nothing about the modality or even if those entities that “live around the body” are actually dark entities . Sometimes, clients feel that they make up stuff and that they don’t know if what they are saying is actually true or exists, but okay. It is a modality that is overpriced and underdelivered. We don’t know if we are summoning demons in the session or accessing them. And this therapy has been integrated by BRainspotting and somatic experiencing. Why? If there is no evidence , it is the same as a magic bowl or crystals . And how do you really know if the client is dissociated outside of therapy? They may present well. How did this little man have so much traction? What is wrong with the claim from an EMDR trainer that Dick is racist and mysoginist, yet he sells his products to exactly those marginalized populations . He makes millions out there. Who will stop this man ? Who? How do we hold everyone accountable and discourage the use of such a cultish strategy?
- Lucie AndersenMarch 25, 2026
Skepticism and curiosity are welcome of course. However, with respect Irwin, having met Dr Richard Schwartz and completed the trainings and even been an assistant on many trainings, I can say that your characterization of him is very inaccurate. I do not believe that he has benefitted unfairly from the success of IFS and has been extremely generous with giving his time freely in situations where funding is challenging. If you watch many of the videos of Dr Schwartz conducting therapy with volunteer ‘clients’ then I think his personality will be clarified a lot more than through guess work and imaginings.
I have witnessed him in many different settings and he has always shown enormous humility, gentleness, intelligence, care and respect. He is extremely respectful to all people I have ever seen him interact with including women and people of all backgrounds and ethnicities. He is very frequently promoting the work of competent therapists of all backgrounds not just white heterosexual males as your post perhaps implies.
IFS is not for everyone and clearly not for you currently. But I have to say that so far in my experience, there are few people who do not seem to respond positively to it. Some people respond far more slowly than others as in all methods of course and with forensic populations and populations with C-PTSD then going extremely slowly is pretty much always safer and ultimately faster. It could be used ineptly for sure if someone doesn’t do formal trainings and practice as with any methodology.
The fact that the IFS healing steps are firmly based on the process of Memory Reconsolidation used within EMDR and multiple other more well researched therapeutic approaches (as described clearly by Dr Bruce Ecker as well as Dr Tori Olds) should give skeptics some helpful understanding. I agree that it can appear to be magical if one doesnt examine the mechanisms that facilitate change. And I also agree that we need much more research into the outcomes of IFS therapy in a wider range of settings.
This comment is offered in the spirit of wanting to balance a view that a part of me finds unjustified. However, I do respect your right to hold an opposing opinion and to express your opinions as you see fit.
- A clinical psychology candidateApril 21, 2026
I suspect that certain IFS skills may be useful for PTSD and complex PTSD, but none of the leaders in IFS’s organization is scientifically trained enough to conduct quality clinical research. The most problematic issue, though, is that none of the founders, including Richard Schwartz, developed good training program or manual for this therapy. So, even IF this therapy were an effective therapy, therapists cannot be trained to conduct it properly. Their training seems to be just telling therapists their concepts, then when it comes to how to conduct it effectively, it’s just “eyeballing”. Not surprising, multiple scandals and abuse of power from the training program were uncovered a few years ago.
This therapy is especially dangerous for PTSD or C-PTSD patients who have weak sense of self or dissociative symptoms, even though they are frequently used for PTSD by private practice therapists. The multiple “parts” concept seems to work against the self-referential processing, therefore trigger further dissociations. This brings up a bigger issue: actually I can assure you that 99% of the therapists who claim they can do therapy about trauma have NOT been trained in trauma therapy. Psychological trauma is a very niche topic that have a lot of special issues around the patients. There are many therapy modules that are harmful for PTSD / C-PTSD patients. There is an APA manual about it, but almost all therapists have never read it. Clinicians should NOT claim that they are able to treat a certain mental health concern that is outside of their clinical training (oh, and a few weeks of training is NOT a training). If you really want to specialize in trauma, do a one or two year supervision practice with a trauma clinic or trauma psychologist. A “trauma-informed” program training is not the same as psychotherapy targeting trauma.
If you are a patient who’s looking for an effective therapy to heal with your trauma, here are the well-researched psychotherapies:
– First type: Past-focused psychotherapies (these target traumatic memories)
– Prolonged exposure therapy: good if you have a specific traumatic scenario or acute traumatic event
– Cognitive processing therapy: this is the type of CBT specifically designed for PTSD! If a therapist only says “CBT” in their profile, that’s more of a general CBT, not specific for trauma.
– EMDR: it is very effective, but it may be tricky to find a good therapist. Its training program tends to be low-quality and will give out certificate to anyone attending “weekend programs”. When you find a therapist, ask them which training program on EMDR they have done. If the program is just for a few days or a short few months, they are not good. You need to find a therapist who have done clinical hours under supervision with EMDR.
– Second type: present-focused psychotherapies (these mainly target emotion regulation and interpersonal problems, probably better for those without clear traumatic memories, such as some with C-PTSD)
– Process-experiential therapy
– Present centered therapy
– Problem solving therapy
– Third type: medication augmented psychotherapy (psilocybin/and other few you know drugs. This is still in research phase, but it shows a little bit potential. The clinicians who can do this are in universities, medical training centers, or hospitals because they are doing it for research. Do NOT believe that any “therapists” can conduct this type of therapy. THEY DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY! There is a specific procedures in these therapies to minimize distress.)PS: be aware of mindfulness-based therapies from therapists without real trauma training! PTSD patients have higher risk to experience distress during mindfulness practice. Again, this returns to the initial point: you need to find a clinician who had trainings in trauma, and ask them a lot of questions about their credentials in the first therapy session to see if they have the right background.
Leave a comment
Your email address will not be published. Comments are reviewed before they appear.