Berlin Cleft-intwain HRUs of FLYTE 93 Do belief in the paranormal constructs predict repetition avoidance in subjective random generation tasks? OR: Is post-industrial capitalist psychology adequate to investigate the widely-attested phenomena the wise still call Magick? Personal experience Personal experience is often cited as the basis for peoples belief in extra-sensory perception (ESP) (Blackmore 1992, Blackmore & Troscianko 1985). Cognitive illusions of causality & the sheep-goat effect Blackmore (1992), seeking reasons for these beliefs, theorised that some such experiences are attributable to cognitive illusions of causality, epiphenomena of cognitive processing, analogous to visual illusions. If effects of such illusions can be demonstrated, they may explain, without recourse to positing ESP, the sheep-goat effect (SGE), the robust tendency of believers in paranormal phenomena (sheep) to score higher on ESP tasks than non-believers (goats) (Brugger, Landis & Regard 1990). Belief-induced response bias Since ESP research target sequences have been consistently shown to be biased against true randomness, including a lack of repetitions, the SGE may be an artifact of belief-induced response bias statistically matching a biased target series (Brugger, Landis & Regard 1990). Subjective estimations of randomness are typically inaccurate (Blackmore & Troscianko 1985, Blackmore 1992), and ESP believers and non-believers might possibly be differentiated by their degree of perceptual shift, with believers predicted to perform worse than non-believers (Brugger et. al. 1990). Illusions of control Similarly, Langer and Roth (1975) predicted that skill-attribution in an apparently random task would be greater for both actors (participants making the predictions) than observers, and when correct predictions were reinforced at the beginning of a trial (the actual sequence of success at prediction was predetermined). Skill-attribution was significantly more likely in both conditions, demonstrating an illusion of control (Blackmore 1992) and positive self-attribution. Specific investigations into the relationship between the sheep-goat effect (SGE) and subjective random generation (SRG) have had mixed results, however. Repetition avoidance bias in subjective random generation tasks Blackmore and Troscianko (1985) found some evidence that believers performed worse on subjective probability tasks, but few of their results were significant. Specifically, there was no significant difference between believers and non-believers in numbers of consecutive doubles produced in a five digit SRG task, and an overall repetition avoidance bias (RAB). Brugger et. al. (1990) studied repetition avoidance as a function of belief in ESP, but based on a simple operationalisation of ESP belief, found nothing significant in a telepathy experiment, and an overall repetition avoidance bias or RAB. In a paced subjective random generation or SRG experiment however (experiment 2), believers had a significantly greater RAB, and in a further experiment, made significantly more incorrect guesses of probability, again based on a simple operationalisation of belief (Brugger et. al 1990). Ideologically driven experimenter bias confounds operalisation of belief in ESP? However, this operationalisation of belief in ESP seems inadequate, and perhaps a general ideologically driven experimenter bias is revealed by the puritan-like apocalyptic gospel allusion conventionally used as labels of the independent variable (IV): The Bible: Matthew 25:3: “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats.” [emphasis added] The null hypothesis Therefore, employing a more sophisticated operationalisation, the Belief in the Paranormal Scale (BPS) (Jones, Russell & Nickle 1977), and replicating Brugger et. al.s (1990) second subjective random generation or SRG experiment, it is hypothesised that belief in the paranormal does not predict repetition avoidance bias (RAB) in SRG tasks, and that repetition avoidance bias is a general effect in subjective random generation tasks. Experimental method Participants. A sample of first year psychology students (N=366) was recruited. Materials used in the experiment were: a response sheet (for subjective random generation of imagined die rolls; a pencil; a ruler; and, the Belief in the Paranormal Scale questionnaire (BPSQ; see appendix). Design and Procedure. A quasi-experimental, independent groups design was used. Participants were allocated to groups of three, and assigned one of three roles: the experimenter, the participant and the scribe. The experimenter instructed the participant to imagine a die rolling with their eyes closed, and to report the die rolls in time to the experimenters tapping of the ruler at approximately 1 second intervals. The scribe recorded the participants die rolls on the response sheet and instructed the participant to stop after 66 responses. Subjects then swapped roles and repeat the procedure, until every subject has participated in each of the three roles. Subjects then completed the BPSQ. The independent variable was operationalised at two levels by selecting the scores below the 10th and above the 90th percentile of the BPSQ score distribution (non-believers and believers, respectively). The dependent variable or DV was operationalised as number of digit repetitions per 66 die responses. Results and statistical analysis Overall, the mean number of repetitions was much lower than expected by chance (3.74>10.8) and lower than reported by Brugger et. al. (1990). The IV was approximately normally distributed. The DV was highly positively skewed with high positive kurtosis. The elimination of five outliers shifted this distribution towards more normality [emphasis added] (see Appendix for raw data). Mean score on the Belief in Paranormal Scale Questionnaire or BPSQ was 70.22, with a standard deviation of 16.18, in a range from 32 to 116. Mean number of subjective random generation (SRG) repetitions was 3.74, with a standard deviation of 3.38, in a range from 0 to 14. In order to strongly operationalise the BPSQ variable at two distinct levels, the top and bottom ten percentiles of the frequency distribution of raw Belief in Paranormal Scale Questionnaire scores were defined as believers and unbelievers, respectively (see Appendix for the raw data). The mean number of SRG repetitions for believers was 3.89, standard deviation: 2.65; for unbelievers; 4.39, standard deviation: 3.7.; overall 3.74, standard deviation 3.38. An independent groups t-test was applied to the difference in mean SRG repetition scores of the two groups but the result was highly insignificant (t[70]=0.66, p>.05), as this data set is a highly probable snapshot of the null hypothesis (p=.51). Less than one percent of the variability in the DV is attributed to the IV (eta squared=0.006; see Appendix E). Is psychology a crock of shit? As predicted, the null hypothesis was supported. The operationalisation of the IV may have had an effect in this study as compared to Brugger et. al.s (1990) construct of belief, and could account for the present contradiction of their results. Certainly, this result offers little support to artifactual origin of the sheep-goat effect (SGE) theory, as almost none of the variability in subjective random generation (SRG) repetition avoidance bias (RAB) was attributed to Belief In Paranormal Scale Questionnaire (BPSQ) score. Overall, the strong mental misrepresentation of probabilities indicated by the high degree of repetition avoidance in this sample may be an important issue in the psychology of gambling addiction, and other high-risk behaviour syndromes. Biased constructs and instrumental artifacts? There are clear implications for the validity so-called sheep-goat effect (SGE) in ESP research: operationalisation of construct variables are seemingly fraught with the possibility of bias, and perhaps, rather than the sheep-goat effect (SGE) being a cognitive artifact, it may be an artifact of the survey instruments design. Obviously, the validity of the IV construct is questionable. Although the BPSQ represents an advance in measuring paranormal belief over earlier efforts in sheep-goat effect (SGE) research, it is also subject to serious criticism, as, e.g. no questions concerning conventional religious belief in miracles, for example, are posed, systematically excluding organised (i.e legitimate, socially normative religious) belief in paranormal phenomena. At the present stage of research, operationalisation of the belief construct variable is a crucial issue. It may be that as the construct of belief is refined into a genuine psychological variable, the sheep-goat effect (SGE) will virtually disappear, but this question is an object for further research. References Blackmore, S. (1992) Psychic experiences: psychic illusions Skeptical Inquirer 16 pps. 367-376 Blackmore, S. & T. Troscianko (1985) Belief in the paranormal: probability judgements, illusory contro, and the chance baseline shift. British Journal of Psychology 76. Pps. 459-468 Brugger, P., T. Landis & M. Regard (1990) A sheep-goat effect in repition avoidance: extra-sensory perception as an effect of subjective probability? British Journal of Psychology 81. Pps. 455-468 Jones, W., D. Russel & T. Nickel (1977) Belief in the Paranormal Scale: an instrument to measure beliefs in magical phenomena and causes. JSAS Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology 7:100 (Ms no. 1577). Langer, E. & J. Roth (1975) Heads I win, tails its chance: the illusion of control as a function of the sequence of outcomes in a purely chance task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32 (6) Pps. 951-955 Appendix: raw data IV: BPSQ scores (ranked, ascending): 32 32 33 33 33 34 34 36 36 37 38 38 38 40 40 41 41 41 41 42 42 43 43 43 44 44 44 44 45 45 45 46 47 47 47 48 48 49 49 49 49 49 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 51 51 51 52 52 52 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 54 55 55 55 55 55 56 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 59 59 59 59 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 61 61 61 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 64 64 64 64 64 65 65 65 65 65 65 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 68 68 68 68 68 68 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 72 72 72 72 72 72 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 75 75 75 75 75 75 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 78 78 78 78 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 8181 81 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 83 83 83 83 83 83 84 84 84 84 84 84 85 85 85 85 85 86 86 86 86 87 87 87 87 88 88 88 88 89 89 89 89 89 89 90 90 90 90 90 91 91 91 91 91 91 92 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 94 95 95 95 95 96 96 96 96 97 97 97 97 98 98 98 98 99 100 100 103 104 110 116 DV: Number of SRG Repetitions (paired with IV above): 5 6 2 3 9 0 6 3 8 6 4 14 26 2 3 0 0 2 5 0 4 0 1 3 0 3 7 8 0 3 10 11 1 3 7 9 10 2 2 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 3 4 4 4 1 2 6 1 2 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 13 14 2 2 2 4 6 9 9 0 1 2 2 3 4 4 8 8 9 0 0 1 4 6 6 6 1 2 4 6 0 0 2 4 9 9 11 0 1 4 5 7 12 0 0 0 1 1 3 4 10 11 0 0 0 2 2 2 5 0 0 1 1 4 0 2 4 7 9 11 1 1 2 3 4 9 11 13 0 0 1 2 3 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 10 0 0 0 3 5 6 11 0 1 1 3 3 3 4 7 0 0 0 2 3 5 5 8 8 13 0 1 5 7 9 12 0 0 1 1 2 3 4 4 5 5 5 9 9 13 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 16 0 0 1 5 7 12 0 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 5 5 6 13 0 0 0 1 1 2 5 6 7 7 7 8 1 2 5 9 1 1 2 2 3 5 6 7 8 13 0 0 1 2 2 3 3 3 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 5 5 5 5 7 8 8 8 19 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 5 5 0 2 5 6 7 8 1 1 3 4 5 25 0 3 4 4 12 0 1 1 5 3 3 4 5 0 2 9 10 0 3 4 5 5 7 0 2 3 8 9 1 3 3 4 5 6 8 2 2 4 4 6 7 8 4 0 3 3 9 0 3 6 7 0 3 4 8 0 0 1 3 0 3 8 3 20 4 6 Believers and unbelievers (the top and bottom ten percentiles of the BPSQ score distribution [IV]) SRG repetition scores [DV]: Believers: 3 3 4 5 6 8 2 2 4 4 6 7 8 4 0 3 3 9 0 3 6 7 0 3 4 8 0 0 1 3 0 3 8 3 4 6 Unbelievers: 5 6 2 3 9 0 6 3 8 6 4 14 2 3 0 0 2 5 0 4 0 1 3 0 3 7 8 0 3 10 11 1 3 7 9 10
Posted on: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 02:40:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015