1,721,079 research outputs found
Section V. Conclusions. Where do we go from here?
No full textLance Stormhttp://trove.nla.gov.au/work/2005826
The Ganzfeld debate continued: A response to Milton and Wiseman (2001)
No full textMost researchers in parapsychological circles and beyond are familiar with the ganzfeld debate, which was revived in a series of articles that appeared in Psychological Bulletin This article is a response to J. Milton and R. Wiseman's (2001) reply to L. Storm and S. Ertel (2001), who took issue with J. Milton and R. Wiseman's (1999a) claim that the evidence for psi in the ganzfeld was not replicable. The authors (Storm & Ertel) argue that in their reply, J. Milton and R. Wiseman (2001) misrepresented the issues raised in R. Hyman and C. Honorton's (1986) joint Communique to their advantage. Milton and Wiseman wrongly took the standards of the Communique as implying low quality of all previous studies and downplayed the accumulated evidence that doubts about the credibility of pre-Communique ganzfeld researchers were unwarranted. They wrongfully belittled statistical significance, an important contributor to empirical evidence, and on mere circumstantial grounds, they ignored the necessity of the bidirectionality test, which is acknowledged as a unique psi indicator. The authors reassess the effect sizes for the various ganzfeld databases and conclude that Milton and Wiseman's critique is essentially out of place. For future ganzfeld and psi research in general, the authors recommend a process-oriented strategy
The Ganzfeld debate continued: A response to Milton and Wiseman (2001)
No full textMost researchers in parapsychological circles and beyond are familiar with the ganzfeld debate, which was revived in a series of articles that appeared in Psychological Bulletin This article is a response to J. Milton and R. Wiseman's (2001) reply to L. Storm and S. Ertel (2001), who took issue with J. Milton and R. Wiseman's (1999a) claim that the evidence for psi in the ganzfeld was not replicable. The authors (Storm & Ertel) argue that in their reply, J. Milton and R. Wiseman (2001) misrepresented the issues raised in R. Hyman and C. Honorton's (1986) joint Communique to their advantage. Milton and Wiseman wrongly took the standards of the Communique as implying low quality of all previous studies and downplayed the accumulated evidence that doubts about the credibility of pre-Communique ganzfeld researchers were unwarranted. They wrongfully belittled statistical significance, an important contributor to empirical evidence, and on mere circumstantial grounds, they ignored the necessity of the bidirectionality test, which is acknowledged as a unique psi indicator. The authors reassess the effect sizes for the various ganzfeld databases and conclude that Milton and Wiseman's critique is essentially out of place. For future ganzfeld and psi research in general, the authors recommend a process-oriented strategy
Does psi exist? Comments on Milton and Wiseman's (1999) meta-analysis of ganzfeld research
No full textJ. Milton and R. Wiseman (1999) attempted to replicate D. Bem and C. Honorton's (1994) meta-analysis, which yielded evidence that the ganzfeld is a suitable method for demonstrating anomalous communication. Using a database of 30 ganzfeld and autoganzfeld studies, Milton and Wiseman's meta-analysis yielded an effect size (ES) of only 0.013 (Stouffer Z = 0.70, p = .24, one-tailed). Thus they failed to replicate Bem and Honorton's finding (ES = 0.162, Stouffer Z = 2.52, p = 5.90 x 10(-3), one-tailed). The authors conducted stepwise performance comparisons between all available databases of ganzfeld research, which were argued not to be lacking in quality. Larger aggregates of such studies were formed, including a database comprising 79 ganzfeld-autoganzfeld studies (ES = 0.138, Stouffer Z = 5.66, p = 7.78 x 10(-9)). Thus Bem and Honorton's positive conclusion was confirmed. More accurate population parameters for the ganzfeld and autoganzfeld domains were calculated. Significant bidirectional psi effects were also found in all databases. The ganzfeld appears to be a replicable technique for producing psi effects in the laboratory.Storm, Lance, Ertel, Suitber
Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992-2008: Assessing the Noise Reduction Model in Parapsychology
No full textWe report the results of meta-analyses on 3 types of free-response study: (a) ganzfeld (a technique that
enhances a communication anomaly referred to as “psi”); (b) nonganzfeld noise reduction using alleged
psi-enhancing techniques such as dream psi, meditation, relaxation, or hypnosis; and (c) standard free
response (nonganzfeld, no noise reduction). For the period 1997–2008, a homogeneous data set of 29
ganzfeld studies yielded a mean effect size of 0.142 (Stouffer Z 5.48, p 2.13 108). A
homogeneous nonganzfeld noise reduction data set of 16 studies yielded a mean effect size of 0.110
(Stouffer Z 3.35, p 2.08 104), and a homogeneous data set of 14 standard free-response studies
produced a weak negative mean effect size of 0.029 (Stouffer Z2.29, p .989). The mean effect
size value of the ganzfeld database were significantly higher than the mean effect size of the nonganzfeld
noise reduction and the standard free-response databases. We also found that selected participants
(believers in the paranormal, meditators, etc.) had a performance advantage over unselected participants,
but only if they were in the ganzfeld condition
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
