Anomalistic Psychology

Annotations:

• *Lacks falsifiability - hypotheses can't be disproved because they are 'jealous' phenomena. *Lacks controlled, replicable research, e.g. Bem(2011) no replicated. *Lacks theory to explain phenomena, e.g. ESP. *Burden of proof misplaced on sceptic. *Lacks ability to change explanations.

Annotations:

• If there are two competing explanations, simpler one is to be preferred - paranormal explanations are too convoluted

Annotations:

• *Paranormal research is not the only pseudoscience - some Freudian hypotheses also unfalsifiable. *Koch(1992) argues that psychology lacks objective theories. *Mousseau(2003) - paranormal research often matches standards of scientific research, or even betters it (e.g. publishing negative results). *The AAAS accepted the Parapsychological Association as a member. *Reasons to be concerned about paranormal research include: making money out of unfounded claims, not asking for evidence.

Annotations:

• Significant results could be due to other factors, e.g.: *Researcher bias - sheep-goat effect in receiver's elaborations (Wooffitt). *Expectations affect outcome of meta-analysis - Honorton vs Hyman. *File-drawer effect - results of meta-analyses change according to which studies are left out. *Lack of control - lack of soundproofing and order of presentation.

1. Evaluation

   Annotations:

   • *Positive results could be due to phenomena being 'jealous'. *Autoganzfeld improved control (e.g. random display of targets). *This still led to positive results by Honorton et al. but not Milton and Wiseman, although this was criticised by Bem et al. *Fraudulent research by Sargent still included in data; fraud may be a particular problem in parapsychology.

Annotations:

• *Expectations created in study by Wiseman and Greening led to macro-PK reports. *Lack of control - well-controlled studies show no effect (Hansel). *Ecological validity - micro-PK may not represent paranormal action.

1. Evaluation

   Annotations:

   • *Quality of studies not related to positive results (Radin and Nelson, 2003), same findings from non-believers (Bosch et al., 2006). *Significant effects not due to a small group of investigators nor to file-drawer effect (Radin and Nelson, 2003). *Bierman (2000) - steady decline in effect size over years, suggesting phenomena not real.

1. Explanations

   Annotations:

   • *Energy fields re-aligned by e.g. therapeutic touch. *Reduction of anxiety through psychological support. *Placebo effect - expectations of benefit created by success stories which could be due to spontaneous recovery.
   1. Evaluation

      Annotations:

      • *Lyvers et al. (2006) - no evidence for psychic healing, believers improved more. *No placebo effect for prayers for cardiac recovery (Benson et al., 2006)
2. Research studies

   Annotations:

   • *Wirth (1990) - tested patients treated with TT or no touch - former recover faster. *Rosa et al. (1998) - TT practitioners unable to detect 'energy field' of experimenter's hand. *Cha et al. (2001) - effect of prayer on infertile women, twice as many became pregnant
   1. Evaluation

      Annotations:

      • *Rosa et al. study invalid because experimenter not ill. *study repeated (Long et al., 1999), results better than chance, however this may be through heat detection. *Wirth's results haven't been replicated, and Wirth was subsequently convicted of criminal fraud. *Power of prayer study - one researcher has withdrawn their name.

1. Explanations

   Annotations:

   • *Clues help medium produce accurate information without psychic ability (cold reading). *Use of general statements (Barnum statements) and willingness of sitters to elaborate. *Fraud - psychic mediumship is big business so people resort to complex and convincing strategies.
   1. Evaluation

      Annotations:

      • *Sitters willing to be deceived. *Supported by mock seance (Wiseman et al., 2003).
2. Research studies

   Annotations:

   • *Schwartz et al. (2001) - accuracy of medium statements about 80%. *Rock and Beischel (2008) - mediums responding differently to dead or living loved ones.
   1. Evaluation

      Annotations:

      • *O'Keeffe and Wiseman (2005) - five mediums gave readings to five sitters producing 25 statements which were rated by sitters as having little relevance. *Schwartz et al. - undergraduates not suitable as control group. *Sheep-goat effect - positive findings from believers.

1. Explanations

   Annotations:

   • *Paranormal - mind and body separated. *Sensory input is disturbed, reconstruction based on bird's-eye view (Blackmore, 1982).
   1. Evaluation

      Annotations:

      • *Alvarado (1982) found no evidence of parasomatic body having physically moved. *Link between sensory disturbance and OOBEs - Blanke et al. (2002) and Ehrsson (2007). *Individual differences, e.g. OOBEs reported more often by believers and those prone to fantasy.
2. Research studies

   Annotations:

   • *Green (1968) - 400 personal accounts of OOBEs, 20% 'prasomatic', rest 'asomatic'. *Use of induced OOBEs (Alvarado, 1982) - weak but occasionally startling results. *Blanke et al. (2002) - stimulation of temporal-parietal junction of the brain resulted in OOBEs.
   1. Evaluation

      Annotations:

      • *Difficult to study OOBEs scientifically because occur without predictability. *Artificially induced OOBEs not seen as equivalent. *Physiological explanations are reductionist

1. Explanations

   Annotations:

   • *Evidence of an afterlife or 'soul' due to paranormal beliefs. *Endorphins released at time of stress, lead to feelings of euphoria and detachment (Carr, 1982). *REM intrusions due to hypoxia disrupt integration of sensory information. *Hypoxia triggers a flood of glutamate which is blocked by the brain to prevent neural death, leading to an NDE.
   1. Evaluation

      Annotations:

      • *Likely to be a psychological component because NDEs not experienced by all. *Cardiac survivors regarded NDE as a spiritual experience, but this doesn't mean that spiritual factors cause NDEs. *Cultural differences and similarities suggest that both psychological and physiological factors important.
2. Research studies

   Annotations:

   • *Ring (1980) - survivors describe NDE as peaceful and like a life review. *Nelson et al. (2006) - NDE group more likely to experience REM intrusions. *Jansen (1993) - ketamine can produce symptoms of NDEs, and ketamine has same effects as glutamate (Jansen, 2009).
   1. Evaluation

      Annotations:

      • *Early studies poorly controlled. *Interviewer bias may affect data collected.

Annotations:

• *Illusion of causality - if two things happen at same time, 'sheep' more likely to believe that one has caused the other. *Illusion of connection - making links between unrelated items. *Illusion of control - explanations for coincidence give sense of order in world, more likely in 'sheep' (Ayeroff and Abelson, 1976). *General cognitive ability - lower intelligence more likely to be believers.

1. Evaluation

   Annotations:

   • *Adaptive significance - Type 1 errors of causal thinking tolerated in order to avoid Type 2 errors. *Illusion of connection - may be created by higher levels of dopamine (Brugger et al., 2008). *Making links also adaptive and may underlie creativity (Thalbourne, 1998). *Illusion of control supported by Whitson and Galinsky (2008). *General cognitive ability - not always confirmed in all studies, e.g. Jones et al. (1977) found complete opposite.

Annotations:

• *Paranormal experiences are a cognitive illusion due to attributing cause to random events (Blackmore and Troscianko, 1985). *Tested using repetition avoidance (e.g. birthday party paradox), conjunction vignettes (estimate probability).

1. Evaluation

   Annotations:

   • *Blackmore (1997) - no difference between sheep and goats on probability task. *Evidence shows belief is linked to probability misjudgement but not necessarily a cause. *Probability misjudgement may be linked to low cognitive ability. *Probability misjudgements can alternatively be explained in terms of failing to understand heuristics, such as representativeness (Kahneman and Tversky, 1972).

Annotations:

• *Making erroneous causal links (Type 1 error) is adaptive. *Skinner (1947) - superstitions develop when an accidental stimulus-response link is learned, and then maintained through negative reinforcement (dual process). *Superstitions develop to give an illusion of control (Whitson and Galinsky, 2008).

1. Evaluation

   Annotations:

   • *Skinner provided evidence from study of pigeons, who acquired superstitions. *Staddon and Simmelhag (1971) repeated Skinner's experiment and found 'superstitious' behaviours unrelated to food reward. *Matute (1996) - humans did learn to press a button despite no actual effectiveness. *Some superstitions are learned indirectly (cultural), provide sense of control. *Illusion of control increases self-efficacy (Damish et al., 2010).

Annotations:

• *Freud (1915) - a form of child-like thinking, a defence mechanism in adults. *Dual processing theory - thought is intuitive or logical. *Animism (Piaget, 1954) - association of objets with feelings, e.g. feng shui. *Nominal thinking - names of objects affect our feelings about them, e.g. a jar labelled cyanide (Rozin et al., 1986). *Law of contagion - magical thinking is adaptive to avoid disease (Nemeroff and Roxin, 1994).

1. Evaluation

   Annotations:

   • *Experimental support with voodoo dolls - participants fell more responsible if they had bad thoughts (Pronin et al., 2006). *May act like a placebo and provide positive expectations (e.g. Rosenthal and Jacobsen, 1968 - self-fulfilling prophecy). *Costs - associated with ,ental disorder, e.g. schizophrenia and OCD. *Benefits - avoid 'depression realism', lack of magical thinking liked to low levels of dopamine (Mohr et al., 2005). *Real-world application - increase willingness to donate organs for transplant (Vamos, 2010).

Annotations:

• *Neuroticism - negative emotional states reduced by paranormal beliefs (defence mechanism). *Extraversion - people more open to paranormal beliefs. *Positive correlation with neuroticism (Williams et al., 2007) and with extraversion (Honorton et al., 1992).

Annotations:

• *Fantasy proneness - becoming so deeply absorbed in fantasy to believe it real, demonstrated in fake seance (Wiseman et al., 2003). *Suggestibility - more willing to believe fakes, link demonstrated by Hergovich (2003). *Creative personalities make links between unrelated items (Thalbourne, 2001).

Annotations:

• *Locus of control, field dependence, higher sensation seeking and dissociation.

Annotations:

• *Method used to measure paranormal beliefs affects correlations with personality factors. *Wiseman and Watt (2004) found correlation with neuroticism only when negative beliefs of PBS measured. *Evidence that psychoticism is linked to some paranormal beliefs (Francis et al., 2010). *Locus of control - depends on type of paranormal belief, some correlate positively with externality, some negatively. *Susceptibility might explain recollection of alien abductions (Clancy et al., 2002). *Paranormal experiences may be false beliefs, more common in susceptible people, supported by French and Wilson (2006). *Some evidence of link with mental disorder but more likely satisfies a need for some people, e.g. abuse in childhood may lead to fantasy proneness and need for a greater sense of control.