A02 methodological issues

Question 1

What are the 2 sections for the eval

Answer 1

Ganzfeld studies of esp

Psychokinesis

Question 2

What are the 3 sections on ganzfeld

Answer 2

Researcher bias

Improving control

Conflicting findings continue

Question 3

Talk about researcher bias eval

Answer 3

Could be argues that reason for positive results from non sceptics could be due to the fact that jealous phenomena only appear when in the presence of a non sceptic

Question 4

Who tested researcher bias in ganzfeld and what did they say

Answer 4

Hyman

Although significant effect has been found there’s no adequate explanation which renders the findings meaningless cz many believers lack the ability to give a theory or explain

Question 5

Talk a about improving control

Answer 5

Autoganzfeld is a new technique used to improve control of ganzfeld studies

It uses a computer to select and display the targets removing bias Cz experimenter is blind as to which target was selected so they can’t influence target

The recieved is also placed in a soundproof room which deals with the major objections

Question 6

Talk about conflicting findings continue intro

Answer 6

Despite like a nice more control used. Conflicting Findings were still occurring

Question 7

Who tested conflicting findings continue

Answer 7

Honorton
Wiseman and Milton
Bem et al

Question 8

What did honorton do and find

Answer 8

Still found positive results (34% of autoganzfeld syudies found statistically significant effects

Question 9

What did sceptics Wiseman and Milton finds and do

Answer 9

Didn’t find what honorton found when they reviewed over 30 autoganzfeld studies no sig result

Question 10

What did bem et al do and find

Answer 10

Criticised the review of Wiseman and Milton cz it included syudies that didn’t follow the ganzfeld protocol

When these studies were removed a significant result was obtained.

Question 11

Conclusion for conflicting studies continue

Answer 11

Show the methodological issues with the esp research

Question 12

What are the 4 sections for the eval of pk

Answer 12

Lack of control
Number of investigators
File drawer effect
Effect size

Question 13

Who tested lack of control on pk

Answer 13

Radin and Nelson

Bosch et al

Question 14

What did radin and Nelson do and find on terms of lack of control in pk

Answer 14

Metanalusis Assessed methodological quality of each study and correlated it with the outcomes. Fund no sig rel

Question 15

What did Bosch et al do and find

A neutral researcher

Answer 15

Also supported melons a and radins findings

Looked at highest quality studies. Found no significant effects. Same findings from non believers

Question 16

Conclusion for lack of control on pk

Answer 16

Suggests quality of control/study isn’t a factor in obtaining significant effects

Question 17

Who tested on # of investigators

Answer 17

Radin and Nelson

Question 18

What did radin and Nelson do and find in terms of # of investigators in pk

Answer 18

Meta analysis suggests that small # of investigators isnt linked to positive findings

The overall significant effect can be attributed to a small group of investigators gaining significant results

Question 19

Intro for # of investigators affecting research on pk

Answer 19

Some believe it may be due to small # of investigators

Question 20

Conclusion for # of investigators

Answer 20

Significant effects are not due to investigator numbers or file drawer effect

Question 21

Talk about the into for the film drawer effect

Answer 21

Positive pk results were attributed to selective reporting

Question 22

Who tested the file drawer effect

Answer 22

Nelson and radin

Question 23

What did Nelson and radin say about the file drawer effect

Answer 23

The avergae number of unreported studied per investigator was just 1

Question 24

Conclusion for file drawer effect

Answer 24

The file drawer effect is unlikely to explain the positive findings

Question 25

Who studied effect size

Answer 25

Bierman

Question 26

What did bierman do and find

Answer 26

Steady decline in effect size over the years. Suggesting phenomena aren’t real. This is reinforced cz if the fact that studied are becoming more accurate over the years.