Anomalistic Psychology

Anomalistic Psychology

1. Pseudoscience and Parapsychology

   • Pseudoscience - masquerading as science
     • Lacks falsifiability - hypotheses can't be disproved because they are 'jealous' phenomena.
     • Lacks controlled, replicable research, e.g. Bem (2011) not replicated
     • Lacks theory to explain phenomena, e.g. ESP
     • Burden of proof misplaced on sceptic.
     • Lacks ability to change explanations.
   • If there are two competing explanations, simpler one is to be preferred (Occam's razor) - paranormal explanations are extremely convoluted.
   • AO2
     • Paranormal research is not the only pseudoscience - some Freudian hypotheses also unfalsifiable.
     • 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.
   • Scientific Fraud
     • e.g. Uri Geller

2. Methodological Issues

   • ESP (Ganzfeld)
     • Significant results could be due to other factors, e.g.
       • Research bias - sheep-goat effect in receiver's elaborations (Wooffitt, 2007).
       • Expectations affect outcome of meta-analysis - Honorton (1985) vs Hyman (1985).
       • File-drawer effect - results of meta-analysis change according to which studies are left out.
       • Lack of control - lack of soundproofing and order of presentation.
     • EVALUATION *Positive results could be due to phenomena being 'jealous'.
       • *Autoganzfeld improved control (e.g. random display of targets).
       • *This still led to positive result by Honorton et al. (1990) but not Milton and Wiseman (1999), although this was criticised by Bem et al. (2001).
       • *Fraudulent research by Sargent still included in data; fraud may be a particular problem in parapsychology.
   • Psychokinesis
     • Expectations created in study by Wiseman and Greening (2005), led to macro-PK reports.
     • Lack of control - well-controlled studies show no effect (Hansel, 1989).
     • Ecological validity - micro-PK may not represent paranormal action.
     • EVALUATION *Quality of studies not related to positive results (Radin and Nelson, 2003), same findings from non-believers (Bosch et al., 2006).
     • Bierman (2000) - steady decline in effect size over years, suggesting phenomena not real.

3. Psychic Healing and Mediumship

   • EXPLANATIONS
     • Healing *Energy fields re-aligned by e.g. therapeutic touch. *Reduction of anxiety through psychological support. *Placebo effect.
       • EVALUATION *Lyvers et al. (2006) - no evidence for psychic healing, believers improved more. *No placebo effect for prayers for cardiac recovery.
     • Mediumship *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.
       • EVALUATION *Sitters willing to be deceived. *Supported by mock seance (Wiseman et al.)
   • RESEARCH STUDIES
     • Healing *Wirth (1990) - patients tested with TT or no touch -former recovered 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.
       • EVALUATION *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.
     • Mediumship *Schwartz et al. (2001) - accuracy of medium statements about 80%. *Rock and Beischel (2008)
       • EVALUATION *O'Keeffe and Wiseman (2005) *Schwartz et al. *Sheep-goat effect

4. OOBE and NDE

   • EXPLANATIONS
     • OOBE *Paranormal - mind and body separated. *Sensory input is disturbed, reconstruction based on bird's eye view (Blackmore, 1982).
       • EVALUATION *Alvardo (1982) found no evidence of parasomatic body having physically moved. *Individual differences, e.g. OOBEs reported more often by believers and those prone to fantasy.
     • NDE *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 neuronal death, leading to an NDE.
       • EVALUATION *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.
   • RESEARCH STUDIES
     • OOBE *Green (1968) - 400 personal accounts of OOBEs, 20% 'parasomatic, rest 'aromatic'. *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.
       • EVALUATION *Difficulty to study OOBEs scientifically because occur without predictability. *Artificially-induced OOBEs not seen as equivalent. *Physiological explanations are reductionist.
     • NDE *Ring (1980) - survivors describe NDE as peaceful and like a life review. *Nelson et al. (2006) - NDE group more likely to experience REM intrusions.
       • EVALUATION *Early studies poorly controlled. *Interviewer bias may affect data collected.

5. Coincidence and Probability

   • Coincidence
     • Illusion of causality & Illusion of connection & Illusion of control & General Cognitive ability
       • EVALUATION *Type 1 errors and Type 2 errors. *Brugger et al - high levels of dopamine *Illusion of control supported by Whitson and Galinsky
   • Probability Judgement
     • Paranormal experiences are a a cognitive illusion due to attributing cause to random events (Blackmore and Troscianko) & Tested using repletion avoidance, questions about probability etc.
       • EVALUATION *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 misjudgement can alternatively be explained in terms of feeling to understand heuristics, such as representativeness.

6. Superstitious Behaviour and Magical Thinking

   • Superstitious
     • *Making erroneous casual 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)
       • EVALUATION *Skinner provided evidence from study of pigeons, who acquired superstitions. *Staddon and Simmelhag repeated Skinner's experiment and found 'superstitious' behaviours unrelated to food reward. *Illusion of control increases self efficacy.
   • Magical Thinking
     • *Fraud - a form of child-like thinking, a defence mechanism in adults. *Dual processing theory - thought is intuitive or logical *Animism (Piaget) - association of objects with feelings *Nominal thinking - names of objects affect our feelings about them *Law of contagion
       • EVALUATION *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, others 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 Fench 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 leak to fantasy proneness and need for a greater sense of control.

7. Personality Factors in Anomalous Experience

   • Eysenck's
     • Neuroticism (defence mechanism) & Extraversion - People more open to paranormal beliefs & Positive correlation with neuroticism (Williams et al) and with extraversion (Honorton et al).
       • EVALUATION *Wiseman and Watt found correlation with neuroticism only when -ve beliefs of PBS measured.
   • More imaginative
     • Fantasy proneness - becoming so deeply absorbed in fantasy to believe it's real & Suggestibility - more willing to believe fakes & Creative personalities make links between unrelated items
       • EVALUATION *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.
   • Locus of control & field dependence
     • EVALUATION *Locus of control - depends on type of paranormal belief, some correlate positively with externality, others negatively.