Limbo
Jedi Consular
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2008
- Messages
- 3,077
I would like to present an excerpt for consideration and discussion.
An Introduction to Parapsychology pg 89-90
Process-oriented research and the parapsychological experimenter effect
"Before reviewing the research in to the nature of ESP one further methodological issue must be raised. It is known as the parapsychological experimenter effect and it raises the problem that if ESP and other parapsychological phenomena are authentic and can operate outside the individual's conscious control, parapsychologists may have no reliable avenue for determining the nature of ESP. That is, process-oriented research may well be futile.
As in other types of psychological research the performance of subjects in ESP experiments can be influenced by the behavior of the experimenter (e.g., see White, 1977). The experimenter's level of motivation and handling of the participants can influence the subjects' motivation and expectations which in turn may have an effect on the level of their scores. Similarly, if any of the experimenters actions suggest to the subjects the precise nature of the experimental hypothesis they may strive to perform in a way that otherwise they would not. These sorts of biases in the procedures of human experiments are familiar to psychologists and deliberate steps can be taken to minimize their operation and influence. Methodological problems arising from the influence of the experimenter on the data generically are called experimenter effects.
There is, however, an additional bias of this type that raises such special difficulties for parapsychological experimentation that it has come to be designated specifically as the parapsychological experimenter effect. Essentially the parapsychological experimenter effect in psi research is the partial dependence of the obtained data on the parapsychological abilities of the experimenter ( Kennedy & Taddonio, 1976; White, 1976). As the the parapsychological experimenter effect assumes the existence of psi it is not particularly problematic for the issue of the authenticity of ESP, but it does raise the question of whether it is possible for a researcher to investigate the nature of ESP.
Suppose, for example, that a researcher wanted to test the hypothesis that extroverts were better at psi than introverts. It is possible that the experimenter subconsciously might use his or her own precognitive and extrasensory abilities to locate series of targets which are more susceptible to good scoring and allocate these to the group of extroverted participants. There is indeed some empirical evidence that extrasensory abilities may be utilized non-intentionally (Schechter, 1977). If account is taken of the possibility of psychokinesis (a paranormal influence on physical systems by the mind) it is conceivable that the experimenter subconsciously might influence even the production of target sequences for each subject in a direction favoring the hypothesis. Hence an observed relationship between extroversion and ESP performance might be nothing more than an artifact of the experimenter's subconscious use of his or her own psi to generate results in accordance with this relationship.
To what extent does the the parapsychological experimenter effect operate? That remains unknown, but some study of the issue is being undertaken. It has been noted that some parapsychologists get a higher rate of significant results than others. Charles Honorton in America and Carl Sargent in England seem to have achieved a high proportion of significant ESP results in their research, that is, they evidently were psi-conducive experimenters; the British parapsychologists John Beloff and Susan Blackmore on the other hand, very rarely obtain a statistically significant finding in ESP tests and appear to be psi-inhibitory experimenters. This could be due to the familiar psychological experimenter effects (e.g., upon the subjects motivation), or to the greater psi abilities of the more successful experimenters (the parapsychological experimenter effect) or to other factors such as differences in the professionalism of experimenters and in the conservation of their hypothesis."
An Introduction to Parapsychology pg 89-90
Process-oriented research and the parapsychological experimenter effect
"Before reviewing the research in to the nature of ESP one further methodological issue must be raised. It is known as the parapsychological experimenter effect and it raises the problem that if ESP and other parapsychological phenomena are authentic and can operate outside the individual's conscious control, parapsychologists may have no reliable avenue for determining the nature of ESP. That is, process-oriented research may well be futile.
As in other types of psychological research the performance of subjects in ESP experiments can be influenced by the behavior of the experimenter (e.g., see White, 1977). The experimenter's level of motivation and handling of the participants can influence the subjects' motivation and expectations which in turn may have an effect on the level of their scores. Similarly, if any of the experimenters actions suggest to the subjects the precise nature of the experimental hypothesis they may strive to perform in a way that otherwise they would not. These sorts of biases in the procedures of human experiments are familiar to psychologists and deliberate steps can be taken to minimize their operation and influence. Methodological problems arising from the influence of the experimenter on the data generically are called experimenter effects.
There is, however, an additional bias of this type that raises such special difficulties for parapsychological experimentation that it has come to be designated specifically as the parapsychological experimenter effect. Essentially the parapsychological experimenter effect in psi research is the partial dependence of the obtained data on the parapsychological abilities of the experimenter ( Kennedy & Taddonio, 1976; White, 1976). As the the parapsychological experimenter effect assumes the existence of psi it is not particularly problematic for the issue of the authenticity of ESP, but it does raise the question of whether it is possible for a researcher to investigate the nature of ESP.
Suppose, for example, that a researcher wanted to test the hypothesis that extroverts were better at psi than introverts. It is possible that the experimenter subconsciously might use his or her own precognitive and extrasensory abilities to locate series of targets which are more susceptible to good scoring and allocate these to the group of extroverted participants. There is indeed some empirical evidence that extrasensory abilities may be utilized non-intentionally (Schechter, 1977). If account is taken of the possibility of psychokinesis (a paranormal influence on physical systems by the mind) it is conceivable that the experimenter subconsciously might influence even the production of target sequences for each subject in a direction favoring the hypothesis. Hence an observed relationship between extroversion and ESP performance might be nothing more than an artifact of the experimenter's subconscious use of his or her own psi to generate results in accordance with this relationship.
To what extent does the the parapsychological experimenter effect operate? That remains unknown, but some study of the issue is being undertaken. It has been noted that some parapsychologists get a higher rate of significant results than others. Charles Honorton in America and Carl Sargent in England seem to have achieved a high proportion of significant ESP results in their research, that is, they evidently were psi-conducive experimenters; the British parapsychologists John Beloff and Susan Blackmore on the other hand, very rarely obtain a statistically significant finding in ESP tests and appear to be psi-inhibitory experimenters. This could be due to the familiar psychological experimenter effects (e.g., upon the subjects motivation), or to the greater psi abilities of the more successful experimenters (the parapsychological experimenter effect) or to other factors such as differences in the professionalism of experimenters and in the conservation of their hypothesis."
