Ganzfeld - PowerPoint Presentation

Ganzfeld
Ganzfeld

Ganzfeld - Description


experiment Methodological issues related to the study of ESP Homework Read pages 24 of Anomalistic pack on coincidence A nswer the questions Due 26 J anuary Starter Outline two differences between science and pseudoscience ID: 510440 Download Presentation

Tags

esp ganzfeld results studies ganzfeld esp studies results analysis meta statistical research receiver milton due science data honorton choice

Embed / Share - Ganzfeld


Presentation on theme: "Ganzfeld"— Presentation transcript


Slide1

Ganzfeld experiment

Methodological issues related to the study of ESPSlide2

Homework

Read pages 2-4 of Anomalistic pack on coincidence.

A

nswer the questions

Due: 26

J

anuarySlide3

Starter

Outline

two

differences between science and pseudoscience.

(4 marks)Slide4

Pseudoscience actually means ‘false science’. Pseudoscientific explanations can be difficult to identify because they are presented as being scientific even though they do not meet the criteria for true science.

Scientific

findings are subjected to

peer review

before publication. Results of pseudoscience are published without peer review often in newspapers

Science

requires that experiments should be

replicable

but the results of many pseudoscientific studies cannot be replicated

In

science, key terms are defined precisely but in pseudoscience, specialist terms (

eg

‘aura’) are used

vaguely

and not clearly

operationalised Slide5

Ganzfeld experiment

https

://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZT9pOPhS3USlide6

What is ESP?

What is the

Ganzfeld

experiment? Slide7

ESP:

Ability to acquire knowledge and information without the use of the five main senses or previous experiences (e.g. telepathy, pre-cognition, clairvoyance

etc

).

Ganzfeld

:

German

word meaning ‘ total field’ and the name of the method used by anomalistic psychologists to examine ESP.Slide8

Findings

from

GanzfeldSlide9

Meta-Analysis of Ganzfeld Studies

Milton and Wiseman (1999)

Published a meta-analysis of 30

ganzfeld

studies carried out in seven independent laboratories according to stringent guidelines:

Strict security guidelines against sensory leakage

Testing and documentation of randomization methods for selecting targets and sequencing the judging pool

Statistical correction for multiple analyses

Advance specification of the status of the experiment (pilot testing)

Full documentation in the published report of the experimental procedures

The status of statistical tests

These guidelines were put forward by Hyman and

Honorton

(1986)Slide10

Meta-Analysis of Ganzfeld Studies

Milton and Wiseman’s

data set consisted of 1198 individual trials

Participants were found NOT to score above chance expectation (this means that their scores were found to be no more significant than guesswork!)Slide11

However

The cut off date for studies to be completed was Feb 1997

This meant that one large-scale study with positive results was not included in the meta-analysis

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)

The conditions required to establish a reliably positive outcome in

ganzfeld

studies have yet to be specified.Slide12

Criticisms of Ganzfeld research

Hyman (1985)

conducted a Meta-analysis of 42 pieces of research (48% of all the

Ganzfeld

research).

He argued there was not enough evidence to support the existence of ESP due to flaws in the research:

Security

Statistical analysis (

eg

: data being missed out or incorrectly analysed)

ProcedureSlide13

Criticisms cont.

Milton & Wiseman’s

(1999) MA suggested

Ganzfeld

studies are flawed as exact replication of procedures by peer research is impossible.

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.

Endersby

suggests we should be wary of using MA’s to examine the effects of ESP as they are prone to missing out data! File draw effectSlide14

Findings from

Ganzfeld

Read the findings now in your pack…

Honorton

(1978)

Milton and Wiseman

Bem

and

Honorton

Hyman (1985)

Note at the bottom of your pack what this suggests about the theory

Try to make three pointsSlide15

Evaluation of studies

1. Why is it difficult to discount the notion that ESP exists? (use relevant terminology)

2. What may the variation in results tell us about the replicability of the

Ganzfeld

procedures used in the studies?Slide16

Methodological issues

Lack of Control

Non-randomisation of targets

Problems with the

Ganzfeld

procedure

Problems with statistical analysisSlide17

Can the choice of experimental design affect results?

Differences between forced choice and free response.

Honorton

& Ferrari

– 52yr Meta-analysis ESP in specially selected people (Forced Choice). Sig results.

Milton

– ESP in specially selected people (Free association – greater with

Ganzfeld

)

But… File draw effectSlide18

Exam question

Outline

and evaluate the

Ganzfeld

technique as a way of investigating ESP.

(4 marks + 4 marks)Slide19

Describe

The sensory deprivation of a subject (the receiver) via headphones with white noise,

translucent goggles or halved ping-pong balls over the eyes

The

sender, who is in another room, chooses one of a selection of (usually) 4 images

to send telepathically. The choice of image to send should be random

The

receiver attempts to ‘read’ the image

At

the end of the session the receiver is shown a set of images and asked to select

the target image from several or to describe the image

If

the receiver is really able to read the thoughts of others, he/she should be able to

pick the target at greater than chance level over several trialsSlide20

Evaluate

AO2/AO3 credit is awarded for an evaluation of the

Ganzfeld

procedure as a way of

studying

ESP. Credit should be awarded for any relevant methodological issues

including:

possible

cheating and lack of control in early studies

eg

sensory leakage,

insecure

storage

of

images

possible

researcher bias

eg

sceptical

researchers v psi believers can influence

the amount

of elaboration by the

receiver

influence

of the receivers’ beliefs (the sheep-goat effect)

Candidates

may also consider how early problems led to the development of the

auto-

Ganzfeld

procedure and discuss how this is an improvement on the original.

This

material

Shom More....
By: yoshiko-marsland
Views: 32
Type: Public

Download Section

Please download the presentation from below link :


Download Presentation - The PPT/PDF document "Ganzfeld" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.

Try DocSlides online tool for compressing your PDF Files Try Now