Slides Shared Resource

1. Anomalistic– the Specification <ul><li>Theoretical and methodological issues in the study of anomalous experience…
of 23
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  • 1. Anomalistic– the Specification <ul><li>Theoretical and methodological issues in the study of anomalous experience </li></ul><ul><li>• Issues of pseudoscience and scientific fraud </li></ul><ul><li>• Controversies relating to Ganzfeld studies of ESP and studies of psychokinesis </li></ul><ul><li>Factors underlying anomalous experience </li></ul><ul><li>• Cognitive, personality and biological factors underlying anomalous experience </li></ul><ul><li>• Functions of paranormal and related beliefs, including their cultural significance </li></ul><ul><li>• The psychology of deception and self-deception, superstition, and coincidence </li></ul><ul><li>Belief in exceptional experience • Research into: </li></ul><ul><li>psychic healing </li></ul><ul><li>out-of-body and near death experience </li></ul><ul><li>psychic mediumship </li></ul>
  • 2. AQA A A2 PSYCHOLOGY Lesson FIVE Ganzfeld Studies of ESP
  • 3. Lesson objectives <ul><li>Outline the Ganzfeld Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Describe and evaluate studies of ESP that use the Ganzfeld Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>HOMEWORK: Outline and critically evaluate Ganzfeld studies of ESP (16) </li></ul>
  • 4. Starter <ul><li>Telepathy experiment: Zener cards </li></ul><ul><li>Use the information in your handbook to conduct the Zener card telepathy experiment </li></ul>
  • 5. Zener Cards
  • 6. Zener Cards <ul><li>5 cards – Star, Square, Circle, Cross, Wavy lines. </li></ul><ul><li>In a test for telepathy the cards were viewed by a remote person (the sender ) who attempted to 'transmit' the information to the participant (the receiver). </li></ul><ul><li>In a test for clairvoyance the cards were not viewed by anyone prior to the participant's psi attempt. </li></ul><ul><li>Further info: </li></ul><ul><li>Try it yourself: </li></ul><ul><li> http:// </li></ul>
  • 7. What are Ganzfeld Studies? <ul><li>The Ganzfeld technique is a technique used to test for telepathy in which a sender attempts to transmit a mentally the identity of a randomly selected target to a receiver who is perceptually deprived </li></ul><ul><li>Participants’ eyes are covered up with half ping-pong balls so that the visual field is completely white and they wear headphones playing either white or pink noise (human noise of all kinds mixed together) </li></ul>
  • 8. What are Ganzfeld Studies? <ul><li>A red light is shone on the face of the receiver (participant) and whilst in this relaxed state, they will have a series of mental images. </li></ul><ul><li>At pre-specified times, a ‘sender’ in a remote location (which could be a room down the corridor or thousands of miles away) attempts to transmit information about a randomly-selected target, usually a picture or a video clip to the receiver </li></ul><ul><li>The receiver verbally describes their </li></ul><ul><li>imagery at this time </li></ul>
  • 9. What are Ganzfeld Studies? <ul><li>Afterwards, the receiver judges which of four possible images was being transmitted to them (the original target plus four decoys) </li></ul><ul><li>Statistically, the receiver has a 25% chance of hitting the correct answer. </li></ul>
  • 10. Ganzfeld Experiments
  • 11. Sargent (1979) <ul><li>Complete the deconstruction flowchart of Sargent’s (1979) ganzfeld study </li></ul><ul><li>Also, complete the evaluation (notice that there are some new evaluations, objectivity and replicability!) </li></ul>
  • 12. Meta-Analysis of Ganzfeld Studies <ul><li>Milton and Wiseman (1999) </li></ul><ul><li>Published a meta-analysis of 30 ganzfeld studies carried out in seven independent laboratories according to stringent guidelines: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Strict security guidelines against sensory leakage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Testing and documentation of randomization methods for selecting targets and sequencing the judging pool </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Statistical correction for multiple analyses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advance specification of the status of the experiment (pilot testing) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Full documentation in the published report of the experimental procedures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The status of statistical tests </li></ul></ul><ul><li>These guidelines were put forward by Hyman and Honorton (1986) </li></ul>
  • 13. Meta-Analysis of Ganzfeld Studies <ul><li>Milton and Wiseman’s data set consisted of 1198 individual trials </li></ul><ul><li>Participants were found NOT to score above chance expectation (this means that their scores were found to be no more significant than guesswork!) </li></ul>
  • 14. However <ul><li>The cut off date for studies to be completed was Feb 1997 </li></ul><ul><li>This meant that one large-scale study with positive results was not included in the meta-analysis </li></ul><ul><li>If it had been included, the results of the meta-analysis would have reached statistical significance (the results would not have been due to chance but due to an influence of the IV on the DV) </li></ul><ul><li>The conditions required to establish a reliably positive outcome in ganzfeld studies have yet to be specified. </li></ul>
  • 15. Criticisms of Ganzfeld research <ul><li>Hyman (1985) conducted a Meta-analysis of 42 pieces of research (48% of all the Ganzfeld research). </li></ul><ul><li>He argued there was not enough evidence to support the existence of ESP due to flaws in the research: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Security </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Statistical analysis (eg: data being missed out or incorrectly analysed) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Procedure </li></ul></ul>
  • 16. Criticisms cont. <ul><li>Milton & Wiseman’s (1999) MA suggested Ganzfeld studies are flawed as exact replication of procedures by peer research is impossible. </li></ul><ul><li>However, Bem et al. (2001) conducted a MA using the same data as above and found a hit rate of 30% - statistically significant above the 25% expected. </li></ul><ul><li>Endersby suggests we should be wary of using MA’s to examine the effects of ESP as they are prone to missing out data! </li></ul>
  • 17. Criticisms cont. <ul><li>Rosenthal & Harris (1988) suggest Experimenter Effects could influence Ganzfeld outcomes. </li></ul><ul><li>They showed that ESP scores for participants who were treated nicely during experiments were higher than those who were treated ‘coldly’. </li></ul><ul><li>This could be seen as a confounding variable </li></ul>
  • 18. Criticisms cont. <ul><li>Schmeidler (1999) suggests the Sheep/Goat effect </li></ul><ul><li>Sheep = those who believed in ESP </li></ul><ul><li>Goats = those who were skeptical of ESP </li></ul><ul><li>There was an above average hit rate for Sheep and below average for Goats. </li></ul><ul><li>This is a huge confounding variable and shows that belief of the paranormal shapes our experiences of it. </li></ul>
  • 19. Standards for conducting the Ganzfeld experiments <ul><li>Bem & Hornorton (1994) suggest the following stringent standards for conducting the Ganzfeld exp. </li></ul><ul><li>These should help avoid Experimenter Effects, Bias, other Extraneous variables and reduce Fraud </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Strict security against sensory leakage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proper randomization of subjects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Statistical correction for multiple analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advance specification of status of experiment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Full documentation of experimental procedures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Full description of statistical tests. </li></ul></ul>
  • 20. The Autoganzfeld <ul><li>As discussed earlier – the introduction of the Auto-G (a computerised version) was brought in. </li></ul><ul><li>This reduced human bias and created more valid, replicable studies. </li></ul><ul><li>Hornorton (1994) reviewed 11 Auto-G studies which showed results sig. higher than chance – suggesting real Anomalous experience (the existence of ESP!) </li></ul><ul><li>He does however accept that a final verdict will rest upon numerous detailed replications by independent researchers. </li></ul>
  • 21. Evaluation of Ganzfeld Studies <ul><li>Read through pages 469-70 and answer the following questions, justifying your answers using research. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How VALID do you believe Ganzfeld studies of ESP to be? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What were the key findings of HYMAN’s meta-analysis? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What were the key findings of RADIN and SCHLITZ’s meta-analysis? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the ‘file-drawer effect’? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What did Rosenthal and Harris find out about experimenter effects? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the ‘sheep-goat effect’? </li></ul></ul>
  • 22. Issues and Debates <ul><li>Bias in Psychological research </li></ul><ul><li>The role of Animals in research </li></ul><ul><li>Ethical issues </li></ul><ul><li>Nature vs Nurture </li></ul><ul><li>Free Will vs Determinism </li></ul><ul><li>Reductionism </li></ul>
  • 23. Eye on the Exam Practice <ul><li>Outline and critically evaluate findings from </li></ul><ul><li>Ganzfeld studies. (16 marks) </li></ul><ul><li>AO1 skill – 5 marks </li></ul><ul><li>A02/3 skill – 10 marks </li></ul><ul><li>About 1 1/2 pages of writing </li></ul>
  • We Need Your Support
    Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

    Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

    No, Thanks