Anomalous experience

View mindmap
  • Anomalistic
    • Science/Pseudo-science
      • Falsifiable-can it be proven wrong?
      • Control- is the hypotheses able to be tested?
      • Replication
      • Peer Review- skip the review and publish work in non-scientific sources
      • Progression of knowledge- Ignores contradictory evidence=no growth in knowledge
      • Burden of proof
    • Ganzfeld study (ESP)
      • ESP-the perception of objects/events without any of the senses being involved.
      • Sender and receive in soundproof rooms.
      • Ping-Pong balls. Red light. Headphones.
      • Choose one image and transmits.
      • Receiver is presented with four images. 25% of chance.
      • Researcher Bias (Woolfitt)- sceptical researchers were less encouraging when asking receivers to elaborate.
      • Biased analysis (Hyman)- meta-analysis & found success rate of 31%. however is due to methodological issues.
      • Meta-analysis
        • Honorton- 28 Ganzfeld found 43% success rate.
          • Rosenthal- conclusions agreed.
        • Honorton & Hyman- agreed a set of guidelines.
          • Strict security precautions against sensory leakage.
          • Testing and documenting randomisation methods for selecting targets
          • Full documentation in the published report
          • Details of statistical tests used
        • File-drawer effect- decide what studies to include and remove.
        • Lack of control- e.g sensory leakage, presentation of target selection
    • Psychokinesis
      • Micro- influencing the output of probabilistic systems
        • Levy- rats influencing electrodes for pleasure. Influenced so pleasure 54%.
          • Been unplugging generator = Fraud
          • Difficult to generalise to animals
          • Ethical issues
        • Schmidt's electronic coin flipper- A random event generator. they had to try and influence the way it lands & discovered a result above chance.
          • good attempt to reduce methological  bias in PK
          • Not all Ps flipped coin = not fool proof.
          • PK effects that are slight in individuals are amplified in groups.
      • Macro- distorting an object
        • Targ & Puthoff studied Geller (spoon bender) in a lab. Only able to do so when touching the spoon.
        • Wiseman & Greening- effects of expectations. If told the spoon continues to bend they are more likely to say it will.
        • Randi- one million prize for paranormal ability. No-one claimed.
      • Methodological issues
        • bias/sleight of hand in dice rolling
        • Experimenter bias in recording
        • Lack of validity
        • Difficulties in replication


No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Anomalistic psychology resources »