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 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.
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