SI Sept/Oct 2009 pgs 7/22/09 2:21 PM Page 15 COMMENTARY ‘None of This Is True’: Do Disclaimers about the Paranormal Really Work? RICHARD WISEMAN, CHRIS FRENCH, and CAROLINE WATT he last few years have seen sub- groups have urged those producing such ings to various audience members. The stantial growth in the number of shows to act responsibly. The Commit- clip ended with an eighty-word disclaimer Ttelevision programs claiming to tee for Skeptical Inquiry’s Council for explaining that the show should be seen as contain paranormal phenomena. Viewers Media Integrity has suggested that certain entertainment, that people varied in their are now routinely offered the opportu- paranormal programming should carry opinions about the nature of alleged nity to accompany teams of “ghost- “entertainment” or “fiction” labels. Like- mediumistic abilities, and that the pro- hunters” wandering through allegedly wise, the British media regulatory body gram content should not be construed as haunted buildings armed with little more Ofcom notes that any demonstrations of fact. This long paragraph was broadcast in than EMF meters, voice recorders, and paranormal phenomena “. that purport relatively small type and remained on the high hopes of a second season. Altern- to be real (as opposed to entertainment) screen for about ten seconds. atively, they can play the role of sick must be treated with due objectivity” and We showed the clip to a group of voyeur and watch mediums stand before that if a demonstration is for entertain- undergraduate psychology students and groups of recently bereaved people and ment purposes, “this must be made clear asked them to rate the degree to which pretend to channel their deceased loved to viewers.” they thought the program provided evi- ones. (“I am hearing the voice of a Program creators and broadcasters dence of “paranormal” powers, using a woman. She’s in her mid-thirties and usually attempt to comply with such scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) couldn’t care less about any of you. Oh, guidelines by presenting onscreen “dis- to 7 (strongly agree). Next, we created a I’m sorry, that’s the producer.”) claimers,” essentially informing viewers second clip by editing out the disclaimer It would be nice to think that view- that such shows may not be exactly as altogether, showed this clip to another ers are canny enough to realize that such they appear and thus should only be group of students, and had them make shows contain considerably more fiction taken seriously by the hard of thinking. the same ratings. There was no statisti- than fact and that they might use their However, such messages are often shown cally significant difference between the precognitive powers to hit the “off” but- for a very short period of time and tend two groups’ ratings, suggesting that the ton on their TV controllers before the to contain long and rather tortuously disclaimer had no effect on the way in programs begin. Unfortunately, research worded messages displayed in a relatively which the students perceived the para- suggests that a significant percentage of small font. Although such disclaimers normal content of the program.1 the public really does believe that such may satisfy legal and regulatory guide- We wondered whether the lack of any programming depicts genuine paranor- lines, we wondered whether they had any effect was due to the disclaimer being mal events and thus comes away more real psychological impact on viewers. We shown at the end of the program. After convinced than ever about the existence hypothesized that if people genuinely all, participants had probably made up of such phenomena. Perhaps because of believed that a program containing seem- their minds about the alleged paranormal this, various official bodies and pressure ingly impossible phenomena was devel- phenomena by then, and the near-sub- oped to entertain rather than inform, liminal presentation of the long paragraph Richard Wiseman is in the department of then they should be less likely to believe was unlikely to influence them one way or psychology, University of Hertfordshire, that the phenomena shown constitute another. To test this idea, we edited the U.K. Chris French is in the Anomalistic evidence for the paranormal. But do the clip yet again, this time placing the dis- Psychology Research Unit, department of types of disclaimers typically used actu- claimer at the start of the show. This new psychology, Goldsmith College, University ally affect the way people view the evi- edit was shown to another group of stu- of London. Caroline Watt is in the Koest- dential nature of the phenomena shown? dents, who again went on to rate the ler Parapsychology Unit, department of To help find out, we conducted an ini- degree to which it provided evidence of psychology, University of Edinburgh. Wise- tial study. We recorded a ten-minute seg- paranormal powers. The results? Once man can be contacted via his website at ment from a well-known television show again, there was no significant difference www.richardwiseman.com. in which an alleged medium gave read- between their ratings and the ratings of SKEPTICAL INQUIRER September / October 2009 15 SI Sept/Oct 2009 pgs 7/22/09 2:21 PM Page 16 COMMENTARY those who didn’t see the disclaimer.2 group seeing it before the show and wording and presentation that really Undaunted, we toyed with the notion another after. Did this have any effect? gets the message across. Until then, the that perhaps the disclaimer was simply too No. Once again, there was no statistical situation remains grim. Next time you vague and so produced our own shorter, difference between the ratings of these see a paranormal program briefly pre- more strongly worded, version: groups and the ratings of those that saw senting one of those long “for entertain- no disclaimer at all.3 ment only” disclaimers you might be The alleged mediumistic abilities of At present, we don’t know why the the individuals featured in this pro- tempted to think, “Oh well, I guess it’s gram have not been subjected to con- type and position of the disclaimers better than nothing.” Our research sug- tested have no significant effect on the trolled scientific investigations. In gests that you are wrong. ! addition, some scientists have sug- way in which people view the evidential gested that anecdotal evidence in sup- nature of the alleged paranormal phe- Notes port of such abilities could be due to nomena in the program. It could be, for 1. Original disclaimer at end (N=25), mean several psychological techniques, such example, that our participants couldn’t evidentiality rating = 2.71; no disclaimer (N=25) as use of general statements and feed- be bothered to read the disclaimer or mean evidentiality rating = 2.59; t(51df) = .255, p back from people’s verbal and non- = .80. verbal behaviour. that any influence it had was out- 2. Original disclaimer at start (N=29), mean weighed by the much more dramatic evidentiality rating = 2.59, t(54df) = .014, p = .99. Once again, this was placed onscreen for material in the rest of the clip. Either 3. New disclaimer at start (N=31), mean evi- dentiality rating = 2.83, t(57) = .510, p = .61; new ten seconds. We showed this version to way, the results suggest that there is a disclaimer at end (N=26), mean evidentiality rat- two more groups of students, with one pressing need to develop a form of ing = 3.2, t(52df) = 1.247, p = .22. Can a Reasonable Skeptic Support Climate Change Legislation? STUART JORDAN CFI vets list of 687 ‘dissenting scientists’ in Senate minority report; 80 percent haven’t published peer-reviewed climate research. keptics are rightly challenged to action are now arming themselves for a carbon credits—allowances to produce assess claims made by all parties major political fight. Proponents have carbon dioxide—to industries that gen- Swhen an issue of major public collected a large body of scientific evi- erate this known greenhouse gas. importance arises. This is especially true dence predicting that maintaining the President Obama has endorsed this when any action taken may have unpre- status quo will consign the world to cli- approach, which has been in place for dictable economic consequences for the mate disaster. Opponents are arguing several years in the European Union. entire country. Questions related to that an economic collapse could result Not surprisingly, there are opposing global warming, climate change, and from expensive, dramatic action. Some views on how well cap-and-trade has national energy policy represent such an opponents also argue that we need more worked in Europe. issue today. research. In light of this, a continuing In response to this legislation, propo- Both proponents and opponents of effort for objective assessment is needed. nents and opponents have embarked on This year, the current administration a major effort in Washington to pass, Stuart Jordan is a senior staff scientist in Washington is preparing legislation modify, or defeat it. Nearly every envi- (retired emeritus) at the NASA Goddard that would, if fully implemented, man- ronmental organization, the majority of Space Flight Center. He has a PhD in date significant reductions in carbon scientific organizations, and most physics and astrophysics and is science dioxide emissions and also collect sev- Democrats support the legislation; most advisor for the Center for Inquiry’s Office eral hundred billion dollars in carbon spokespersons for the energy industry, of Public Policy in Washington, D.C., taxes over a ten-year period. These taxes some scientists, and the more conserva- where he works on science-related policy would be collected through a mecha- tive Republicans tend either to oppose it issues, such as climate change.