Havening Techniques

Origins in clinical writing

Havening Techniques is associated with Ronald A. Ruden, a physician and holder of a doctorate, and his brother Steven J. Ruden, a dentist. The earliest item located in PubMed is their 2010 article in Dentistry Today titled as an introduction to havening therapy for phobic and anxious dental patients. The PubMed record lists no abstract, so what the article contains was not reviewed here, and the date is the earliest verified appearance rather than proof of when the method began.

Ronald Ruden later set out a theoretical account in a 2018 paper in Explore, titled as a psychosensory model of treating disorders arising from traumatic stress. The abstract describes the proposal as theory and speculation and introduces the term Event Havening for the touch-based approach it describes. The paper is a statement of the originator's hypothesis, not a test of it.

Ownership, stewardship and spread

The official website states that Havening Techniques and Havening Touch are registered trademarks owned by Ron Ruden and may be used only with permission, and that the techniques are stewarded by the Center for Havening Research and Training, a New York nonprofit. The site gives no founding date or history. A 2025 viewpoint written by a Havening practitioner states that more than 1,000 certified mental health practitioners use the method worldwide, a figure that comes from an advocate and was not independently checked.

A 2026 letter by New Zealand clinical psychologists and a psychiatrist notes that the method is trademarked and requires an annual licence fee. That letter makes the point as part of a critique of how the method is promoted, which is a position of the letter authors rather than an established finding.

Names and trademarks

Sources use Havening, Havening Techniques and Havening Touch, often with the registered trademark symbol. The organization's pages describe Havening Touch as the human touch used as sensory input within the method. The term psychosensory is used by the originator and by practitioner authors as a family label for approaches that apply sensory input, here touch, to influence emotional responses. It is a descriptive label within this literature and not a recognized category in clinical guidelines reviewed for this page.

Technical vocabulary used by proponents

Proponent writing uses terms that are specific to the method. Electroceuticals refers to electrical or electromagnetic effects the originator proposes are generated by touch. Depotentiation refers to a proposed removal of AMPA receptors from synapses in the amygdala. SUD is the Subjective Units of Distress rating from zero to ten, and CASE is a checklist of cognitive, autonomic, somatosensory and emotional aspects of a memory. These words describe the theory and the session format, and their use does not mean the underlying processes have been demonstrated in people receiving the method.

Named techniques

A practitioner article describes five foundational techniques: Event, Transpirational, Outcome, Role and Affirmational Havening. Other variants are named, including metaphorical and color-based forms. The organization also uses the term Self-Havening for touch applied by the person alone.

Session format as practitioners describe it

A practitioner article on perinatal use states that sessions usually last 60 to 90 minutes, with touch lasting 20 to 40 minutes. It describes a preparatory conversation, recall of a distressing event with a distress rating, a stretch of touch on the arms, face or hands while the person does simple mental tasks, and a return to the memory to see how it presents. It states that the event need not be described aloud, and that the touch can be applied by the practitioner, by a support person or by the person alone. This is an account from practitioners, written by authors who also describe four of their own cases.

The same article says some techniques are used differently in particular settings. It states that Transpirational Havening is not recommended during pregnancy because of the potential for emotional flooding, and that a gentler talk-based variant is used instead.

Proposed mechanism

The originator proposes that touch combined with attention to a distressing memory generates slow delta-frequency activity and calcium signaling that reduce the strength of amygdala synapses holding the memory, leaving the memory recallable with less emotional charge. The abstract of the 2018 paper presents this as theory and speculation. A practitioner article repeats the account while stating that it requires further empirical examination, and a 2026 critique by clinicians calls parts of the account unsupported or overstated and rejects the idea that a memory is stored in one brain region.

Training and certification

The organization states that practitioner certification begins with an accredited training run by a certified trainer. Further requirements listed on its page include a science review, an ethics requirement, an application, documented case studies and recorded sessions, and an annual licensing fee to keep the certified title. The page sets no explicit eligibility criteria beyond the training, so certification does not itself indicate a licensed mental health qualification. The certifying body is the organization that stewards the method, not an independent professional register. No statutory regulation specific to the method was found in the sources reviewed.

Uses described by proponents

Proponent sources describe use for distressing memories and trauma-related reactions, and also for fears, performance goals and stress management. The official site states that self-use suits some stress-related memories, discourages self-use for serious trauma or psychological disorder, and advises seeing a certified mental health provider in those cases. A practitioner viewpoint reports eight case vignettes with outcomes such as quick resolution of a phobia and improvement in a medical measure, and links trauma to conditions such as chronic pain and diabetes.

A practitioner article proposes use in perinatal distress and birth trauma, supported by four illustrative cases that the authors state were not formally analyzed. The 2010 dentistry article was titled as addressing phobic and anxious dental patients.

Status of these claims

The case vignettes in these sources are uncontrolled and come from the practitioners who delivered the sessions, so they cannot show that the method caused the outcomes described. The 2026 critique describes claims of erasing trauma within about 20 minutes as resting on vignettes without limits on effectiveness. Claims about physical illness are not tested by any controlled study found in this review.

Searches and overall picture

A PubMed search of titles and abstracts for Havening or psychosensory therapy returned ten records, six of which concerned the method (the 2010 dentistry article, the 2018 theory paper and trial, a 2025 case-based article, a viewpoint and a 2026 letter); the other four were unrelated. The controlled studies by Hodgson and Sumich were located outside PubMed. No systematic review or clinical guideline addressing Havening was found. Published empirical work consists of one randomized trial in joint replacement, a controlled trial reported in more than one paper, one small within-person study, and practitioner case reports. Several of the studies include the originator or practitioner-affiliated authors among their authors.

Randomized trial in joint replacement

In a prospective randomized trial, 19 patients received the psychosensory therapy and 22 served as controls after total joint arthroplasty. Pain scores on the first postoperative day, at discharge and at about one month did not differ between groups, and neither did opioid use, length of stay, complications, readmissions or emergency visits. The authors concluded that the therapy was not effective in reducing pain or narcotic use in that setting. The sample was small, the report comes from the abstract, and the finding concerns postoperative pain, not emotional distress.

Waitlist-controlled trial of Type D personality scores

A trial reported in 2021 compared 68 treated adults with 57 on a waiting list, measuring Type D personality scores at baseline, 24 hours and one month. The abstract reports lower scores and cortisol and blood pressure changes in the treated group, with waitlist scores stable, and interprets this as possible mutability of Type D traits. The 2026 critique states that participants self-referred, that the study was unblinded, that a waitlist control cannot separate the technique from expectation or allegiance, and that a second paper reports on the same trial. The abstract describes the study as statistician-blind, so the sources differ on blinding.

Small mechanistic and descriptive studies

A 2022 study of 24 participants each had a session after reporting a distressing event, comparing sessions with and without Havening Touch. Distress fell more with touch, and electroencephalography showed increased beta and decreased gamma activity. The authors note that the methods do not assess the amygdala directly. Follow-up was two weeks and no independent replication was found. The perinatal article contributes case descriptions only.

The 2026 critique calls the evidence base small and immature and asks for preregistered trials with active comparators, long follow-up and reporting of adverse events. A practitioner viewpoint likewise states that placebo-controlled trials are still needed.

What the sources report about harms

None of the sources reviewed reports a systematic assessment of harms. The practitioner viewpoint and the perinatal article do not report adverse events, and the 2026 critique states that it describes no specific harms but asks future studies to report adverse events and dropouts and raises nocebo effects as a concern. The absence of reported harms in small, practitioner-led reports is not evidence that none occur, particularly since recalling distressing events can bring up strong emotion.

Care boundaries and suitability

The organization advises against self-use for serious trauma or a psychological disorder. The perinatal article states that Transpirational Havening is not recommended in pregnancy because of emotional flooding, and that people who are uncomfortable with touch can have it applied by themselves or a support person, or can discuss alternatives. A practitioner viewpoint says trauma practitioners need trauma-therapy training and supervision and raises ethical and safety concerns about lay use.

The 2026 critique states that effective psychotherapies for post-traumatic stress disorder already exist. This page is not a substitute for care, and the sources reviewed do not support delaying or replacing established treatment for trauma, anxiety or pain with this method. Guideline statements on the method were not located.