Abstract: This study was designed to experimentally examine a major tenet of Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP), developed by Bandler and Grinder (1975-1981), by investigating some of their basic premises concerning eye movement patterns. Specifically, the primary focus of this study was to test the level of agreement between sensory-specific statements (visual, auditory and kinesthetic in nature) and the postulated corresponding eye movement patterns. The subjects in this study were 64 undergraduate students from Ball State University. The subjects were volunteers, and these individuals represented various academic majors. The sample consisted of 44 women and 20 men, ranging in age from 18 to 51. There were 57 whites and seven blacks. The subjects were individually tested by an experimenter and were read 24 experimental statements (visual, auditory, kinesthetic and non-specific in nature), which were developed by the investigator. The eye movements of the subjects were recorded on videotape and later scored by three independent raters. Each rater scored all 64 subjects. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using the index Kappa, and the agreement ranged from .66 to .88. A one-sample test of proportions was used to determine whether agreement between each system-specific statement and associated eye movement categories was the result of chance occurrence or if agreement was indeed more frequent than chance. The main hypothesis formulated was designed to investigate the agreement between visual, auditory and kinesthetic system-specific statements and subsequent eye movement patterns as described by Bandler and Grinder. There were 24 experimental statements. Eighteen of the statements were specific (six visual, six auditory, and six kinesthetic) and six of the statements were non-specific. Agreement between the statements and the associated eye movement pattern was tested. Five of the six hypotheses relating to the agreement between visual system-specific statements and visual eye movement patterns were found to be significant at the .05 level. Three of the six hypotheses relating to the agreement between auditory system-specific statements and auditory eye movement patterns were found to be significant at the .05 level. None of the hypotheses between kinesthetic system-specific statements and kinesthetic eye movements were found to be significant at the .05 level. Support was thereby found for agreement between some eye movement patterns and sensory-specific statements. Recommendations for further study were formulated.