THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF ANOMALOUS
EXPERIENCE
To read up on theoretical and methodological issues in the study of anomalous experience, refer to pages
648–659 of Eysenck’s A2 Level Psychology.
Ask yourself
 What is a pseudoscience?
 What do you already know about ESP and psychokinesis?
 Why do you think it is hard to research parapsychology using the scientific
approach?
What you need to know
ISSUES OF
ISSUES OF
PSEUDOSCIENCE SCIENTIFIC
FRAUD

Is
parapsych
ology a
pseudoscie
nce?

Research
examples
including
the case of
Walter J.
Levy and
Project
Alpha
(James
Randi)
CONTROVERSIES
RELATING TO
GANZFELD
STUDIES OF
EXTRA-SENSORY
PERCEPTION

Theoretical
and
methodologic
al
controversies
PSYCHOKINESIS
(MIND OVER
MATTER)

Controversies
surrounding
research
ISSUES OF PSEUDOSCIENCE
Pseudoscience refers to beliefs that are based on a body of knowledge or “evidence” that appears to be
scientific but that, on closer inspection, does not adhere to scientific principles or methods. An example is
parapsychological phemonena, such as mind reading.
Pseudoscience is the opposite of science because it requires open-minded belief; it has failed to use many
aspects of the scientific method favoured by traditional science. The scientific method involves the
manipulation of an independent variable and measure of a dependent variable. All other variables need to
be controlled, so that the independent variable is isolated as the only factor affecting the dependent
variable. Pseudoscience does not employ rigorous controls.
Evidence parapsychology could be a pseudoscience
 Mousseau (2003, see A2 Level Psychology page 651) examined studies
published in some mainstream scientific journals (e.g. Experimental
Physiology) and compared them with parapsychology journals (e.g. Journal of
Parapsychology). She used content analysis to see how many of the articles
conformed to some of the criteria of science. She concluded that
parapsychology uses the experimental method less than mainstream science.
However, one scientific criterion was met because parapsychology research
does disconfirm more often than the mainstream (taken as a measure of
falsifiability).
One of the main criticisms of pseudoscientific research is that published
work is full of self-citations (researchers citing their own work), which of
course is open to researcher bias and has questionable validity as it is
unlikely to have been peer reviewed.
Evidence against parapsychology as a pseudoscience
 There are some parapsychology procedures that are scientific, i.e. that
employ the experimental method and try to establish cause and effect. For
example, the Ganzfeld procedure for testing out extra-sensory perception is
strictly experimental and can easily be replicated given the correct
equipment.
 Parapsychologists argue that because parapsychology phenomena are
anomalistic, conventional science cannot always be used to test it—the two
are just very different.
ISSUES OF SCIENTIFIC FRAUD

Scientific fraud involves the participant, the experimenter, or both claiming phenomena that has not really
happened!
Research examples
The case of Walter J. Levy
Levy (see A2 Level Psychology page 652) was researching the psi (ESP) abilities of rats and gerbils, among
other species. Mainly positive results were found and these seemed to be valid as the study controlled for
humans affecting the recording of results as equipment was used to do this. Levy’s associates—Kennedy,
Davis, and Levin—identified the case as fraudulent when they noticed that Levy acted strangely near the
recording equipment. Levy was seen “fiddling” with the recording equipment, which was not necessary as
the computer recorded the results on a “paper-punched” readout. It was no coincidence that this tied with a
string of “hits” being recorded on a number of occasions! Subsequently, it was also discovered that the plug
for the “misses” was not connected and so could not record them! Levy’s associates set up another
recording device, unbeknownst to him, which showed conclusively that the misses had not been recorded
by the original recording equipment.
Project Alpha—James Randi (1983)
Randi (1983, see A2 Level Psychology page 653) set up Project Alpha to test if the researchers were
fraudulent. He chose two participants who appeared to have psychokinetic and ESP powers—spoonbending and telepathy.
Randi instructed the researchers to put only one object on the table for the participants to bend (to test if the
researchers would follow a set protocol). However, there were many objects on the table and each item was
marked with a tag attached to it via a piece of string, and so this could easily be swapped by the participants
when the experimenter was distracted. Another trick involved the participants deliberately leaving the room
last so that they could leave a window unlocked. They would then come back and bend all of the spoons,
and then claim that they had done this via psychokinesis during the night.
The telepathy tasks involved the participants being given an envelope with a target drawing inside, which
was “sealed” using two staples. The participants were left in the room alone with the envelope! It wasn’t
that difficult to unpick and then replace the staples. The participants deliberately got some wrong as 100%
accuracy would have been suspicious.
This research shows how easily researchers can be fooled by fraudulent participants and the lack of
scientific rigour of the test procedures.
CONTROVERSIES RELATING TO GANZFELD STUDIES OF EXTRA-SENSORY PERCEPTION
ESP stands for extra-sensory perception, which refers to an ability to acquire knowledge and information
without the use of our five main senses, for example, telepathy, pre-cognition, and clairvoyant abilities.
The Ganzfeld procedure (Ganzfeld is German for “entire field”) involves participants being placed, alone,
in a room where they experience mild sensory deprivation because halved ping-pong balls are placed over
their eyes and a red light is shone into their face, and they wear headphones, which play white noise so that
they experience visual and auditory deprivation for around 30 minutes. Participants are commonly referred
to as receivers because whilst they are being sensory deprived, a sender will choose from the pack of Zener
cards and try mentally to send the shape to the receivers. The receivers describe what they feel is on the
card. The results are then calculated to see whether the correct answers deviate significantly from if the
answers could have been given by chance.
Controversy 1: have early research findings been replicated?
Early research, e.g. Rhine and Pratt (1954, see A2 Level Psychology page 654), showed that certain
individuals had extraordinarily high scores on ESP tasks; as high as 40% accuracy (with chance being at
20%). The controversy is whether these findings have been successfully replicated. Some argue no, that the
tightening of controls and the introduction of Ganzfeld-type procedures has meant such high accuracy is no
longer found. However, Parker and Brusewitz (2003, see A2 Level Psychology page 654) challenge this and
identify six more case studies of people who score well above chance in ESP and related tasks.
Controversy 2: can the choice of experimental design affect results?
The second controversy refers to whether a forced-choice or a free-response design is used. In a forcedchoice design, the participant chooses from a pre-determined set of answers (e.g. Zener cards). However,
with a free-response design, participants must simply state what is being transmitted to them and so there is
no knowledge of the possible answers, which avoids the issue that correct responses will be more likely
using a forced-choice design because the targets are known. Research shows ESP is significantly more
likely to be supported when fixed rather than free-response is used, which questions the validity of these
findings as evidence for ESP.
Controversy 3: can factors bring about positive results without being a case for ESP?
Honorton and the Psychophysical Research Laboratory have identified a four-factor model of “success in
Ganzfeld” studies, which suggests that certain factors do bias results in favour of supporting ESP. These
four factors have been further researched by Dalton (1997, see A2 Level Psychology page 655).
 Factor 1: prior experience: Participants with prior experience of Ganzfeld–psi



tend to produce consistently higher success rates.
Factor 2: practice of a mental discipline like meditation: People who meditate
are more likely to have higher success scores in Ganzfeld tasks. This could be
due to them being used to attending internal mental processes.
Factor 3: prior laboratory experience: Participants who have had any prior
experience with laboratory studies (non-Ganzfeld) tend to do better at
Ganzfeld tasks. Thus, prior experience of research may help participants
focus better during the study.
Factor 4: feeling/perception preferences on a Myers–Briggs-type indicator:
Participants who show a preference for feeling/perception (FP) on the
Myers–Briggs style questionnaire tend to generate higher success rates.
Perhaps because a FP person is more open to experiencing ESP as such types
enjoy new experiences.
These four factors raise controversy because they are confounding variables that may account for ESP, and
so if research does not control these four factors then cause and effect cannot be established
Controversy 4: can the belief of the experimenter affect ESP results?
Smith (2003, see A2 Level Psychology page 656) found results are more likely to support ESP when the
experimenters believe in the existence of psi phenomena than experimenters who might be described as
sceptical. This is known as the experimenter expectancy effect as the experimenter’s expectations affect the
responses of the participants. Participants may try harder when being studied by those that believe in psi.
Controversies solved? Autoganzfeld
An autoganzfeld testing system has helped to address the weaknesses of the traditional method as the
system is automatic and randomised by computer so this eliminates human error and experimenter effects.
The procedure is completely standardised and can be easily replicated.
After Honorton and a range of colleagues ran a series of trials using the system, a review was conducted
and the success rate was well above chance, at 33% (Bem & Honorton, 1994, see A2 Level Psychology
page 656). Thus, this offers stronger support for ESP than previous research with even higher percentages
because this research is well-controlled and so we can be more confident in the validity of the evidence.
PSYCHOKINESIS (MIND OVER MATTER)
Psychokinesis (PK) derives from the Greek words psyche, meaning “mind”, and kinesis, which means
“movement”. This occurs when the mind is able to affect matter, space, time, or energy in a way that
cannot be explained by the current laws of physics. A common test of psychokinesis is spoon-bending.
There are two main types of psychokinesis:
1. Macro-PK: the ability to affect objects that can be directly observed (so the
effect can be seen), e.g. affecting the throw of a die or spoon-bending.
2. Micro-PK: the ability to affect much smaller objects (like a random number
generator). Therefore, the effects cannot be directly observed so the
researchers use statistics to see if the results are well above what would be
expected by chance.
Significantly less work has been done on PK than on ESP. Nevertheless, there
are still controversies surrounding research into PK.
Controversy 1: early research used dice in a potentially biased way
Early research tested whether participants could influence the throw of two dice to achieve a cumulative
score over 7. For significance five hits out of every 12 rolls needed to be successful (as this is better than
chance). J.B. Rhine (see A2 Level Psychology page 657) obtained results that were significantly better than
chance. However, he decided to check whether the dice were biased by changing the cumulative score
round to less than 7, and then to exactly 7. Above-chance performance was seen on all trials, indicating
biased dice.
Radin and Ferrari (1991, see A2 Level Psychology page 657) reviewed 148 experiments using a metaanalysis and found only 69 studies of these did check to see if the dice were biased. The results were still
significant and so did support PK but not as strongly as when all of the studies were used. The controversy
is that not all studies have checked whether the dice are biased and so this questions the validity of the
evidence as support for PK.
Another bias in early research is that participants used to be allowed to throw the dice from their hand, and
so they may have practised ways of throwing the dice to influence the landing and so findings would be due
to this rather than PK , and so this completely invalidates the research as evidence for PK.
Controversy 2: potential experimenter effects
Potential experimenter effects have been tested out via anpsi—examining if animals have PK powers. The
procedure involves an electric grille with half of it activated at any one time to test if the animal can use PK
powers to “send” the electric current to the other half of the grille. Irwin and Watt (2007, see A2 Level
Psychology page 658) report that there has been success using a range of species.
A study using cockroaches found a significant effect but in the wrong direction as the cockroaches sat on
the side that became electrified significantly more than chance would suggest (Schmidt, 1970, see A2 Level
Psychology page 658)! Experimenter effects may account for the findings as it has been suggested Schmidt
might have disliked cockroaches and so used his own PK powers to influence which half was electrified,
i.e. the side that the cockroaches were on. Whilst we cannot be sure if experimenter effects occurred or not
this shows how difficult it is to research parapsychology as it is difficult to isolate the participants’ PK
powers from those of the experimenter.
So what does this mean?
Parapsychology uses the scientific method less than other research areas and so is seen by some as a
pseudoscience. However, this is countered by parapsychologists that argue the nature of parapsychology
does not always lend itself to the scientific method. Another argument against it being a pseudoscience is
that some parapsychology procedures are scientific, such as the Ganzfeld procedure. The cases of scientific
fraud and the controversies surrounding the use of the Ganzfeld procedure and research into psychokinesis
do further question the scientific nature of research into parapsychology. However, it should be noted that
more recent research does challenge these controversies, such as the autoganzfeld technique and the
research that has checked for biased dice and so established psychokinesis through a more controlled
procedure.
Over to you
1(a) Discuss issues of pseudoscience and scientific fraud. (10 marks)
(b) Outline and critically evaluate findings from Ganzfeld studies. (15 marks)