The Rise of Internal Family Systems Therapy: Promise and Peril
Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy is experiencing a surge in popularity, embraced by celebrities and individuals seeking help with trauma and mental health challenges. But as more people turn to this approach, questions are being raised about its scientific basis and potential risks. While proponents tout its compassionate framework, critics point to a lack of rigorous evidence and concerns about its methods.
Developed in the 1980s by therapist Richard Schwartz, IFS views the mind not as a unified entity, but as a collection of “parts,” each with its own agenda. These parts fall into categories: “Exiles” carry emotional pain, “Managers” attempt to protect against that pain, and “Firefighters” react when pain breaks through. The goal of IFS is to access the “Self”—a core of calm, curiosity, and compassion—to understand and heal these internal family dynamics.
The appeal of IFS lies in its intuitive nature and its emphasis on self-compassion. The idea that we all contain multitudes resonates with many, and the therapy’s rejection of the notion that we should always be rational offers a refreshing alternative to approaches like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). IFS allows individuals to view maladaptive behaviors not as failures of willpower, but as attempts by different parts of themselves to cope with difficult emotions.
“There’s a lot people like about the IFS model — and with good reason,” explains a recent analysis of the therapy. “It’s got some genuinely positive aspects — and it doesn’t hurt that movies like Inside Out helped popularize the idea that we’re all made up of lots of little parts!” The core tenet of “no bad parts” is particularly attractive, offering a framework for self-acceptance and reducing self-judgment.
However, the growing popularity of IFS is not without its critics. A key concern is the limited evidence base supporting its effectiveness. As of February 15, 2026, a chatbot ranking top evidence-based therapies did not include IFS. While a small 2013 study co-authored by Schwartz suggested improvements in rheumatoid arthritis patients undergoing IFS, there have been no randomized controlled trials establishing its efficacy for psychiatric disorders.
This lack of rigorous research raises concerns, particularly when IFS is used to treat serious conditions like eating disorders. Reports have emerged of patients experiencing negative consequences, including the development of false memories and a worsening of symptoms. Experts also caution against encouraging clients to “play out conversations” between their parts, warning that this could be disorienting for individuals with reality testing difficulties.
Another point of contention is the concept of the “Self,” which some critics view as a metaphysical claim lacking scientific grounding. The practice of locating feelings in specific parts of the body, a common technique in IFS, has also been questioned, with some individuals feeling pressured to identify physical sensations even when none are present.
some leading figures within the IFS community have introduced concepts like “Unattached Burdens,” which some interpret as demonic possession. This has raised concerns about the potential for therapists to inadvertently implant beliefs in supernatural phenomena, potentially harming vulnerable clients.
So, should individuals be dissuaded from trying IFS? The answer appears to depend on the severity of their issues. For those with serious mental health conditions, it may be prudent to be aware of the limitations and potential risks. For individuals seeking help with less complex challenges, IFS might offer benefits, but it’s important to maintain a critical perspective. Exploring alternative approaches like self-compassion training, which offers similar benefits without the potentially problematic metaphysical elements, may be a more grounded option.
