Anderson2012.Pdf (3.953Mb)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: • This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. • A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. • This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. • The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. • When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. _____________________________________ Nonintentional Behavioural Responses to Psi: Hidden Targets and Hidden Observers ____________________________________________________________________ Mary-Jane Charlotte Anderson University of Edinburgh PhD Psychology 2011 II Abstract Psi is the phenomenon of apparently responding to or receiving information by means other than the recognised senses. Psi information may influence human behaviour, without the individual intending this or even being aware of it. This thesis seeks to investigate nonintentional behavioural responses to psi. We present five empirical studies that investigated nonintentional behavioural responses to psi information. In each study, the psi information was hidden from participants, in that the participants neither had sensory access to it, nor did they know that it existed. Two different combinations of psi information and a behavioural response were examined. The first was the influence of hidden psi information on psychological task performance. The second was the influence of covert, remote observation by hidden observers on the social facilitation effect. In all the studies, the effects of individual differences in participants’ personalities were also considered. In Experiment 1 we investigated whether hidden targets influenced participants’ judgements of the lengths of lines. There was no overall psi effect, but we found a replication of a response bias effect and a significant correlation between psi and participants’ extraversion. In Experiment 2 we investigated whether hidden targets influenced participants’ speed on a maths task. There was no overall psi effect and no correlations between personality and psi scores. We reviewed previous research literature on social facilitation from the novel angle of investigating whether being watched can, in and of itself, lead to the social facilitation effect. Experiments 3, 4, and 5 developed the paradigm of testing for a social facilitation effect from remote observation, investigating whether remote observation leads to the same behavioural changes as knowingly being observed by a physically present person. We compared participants’ performance on psychological tasks under different observation conditions: alone, remotely observed by a hidden observer, and observed by a physically present observer. The expected social facilitation effect was not found in these experiments, leading to a series of improvements to the sampling, methodology, and tasks over the course of these experiments. As the social facilitation effect from a physically present observer was not reliably replicated, these experiments were not conclusive tests of whether there is a social facilitation effect from remote observation. However, there was an indication in Experiment 3 that remote observation does not exert a significant behavioural effect. Considered together, our studies explored novel approaches to examining nonintentional behavioural responses to psi. The significant correlation between participants’ extraversion and psi is, to our knowledge, the first time this effect has been found in a nonintentional psi experiment. This, and the replication of the response bias effect, represent important advances in parapsychology. Our experiments are also the first to test the assumption, inherent in many research designs, that covert observation does not affect participants’ behaviour. Overall, our findings did not support the psi hypothesis. III IV Declaration I have composed this thesis and the work is my own. Mary-Jane Anderson Dedication to Arthur and in memory of Uncle Jack V VI Acknowledgements This thesis took a long time, and I have accumulated a debt of gratitude to many people. I had more supervisors than I did driving instructors, my supervisory team included Bob Morris, Caroline Watt, Andy MacKinlay, Michelle Taylor and Tim Bates. I also would like to thank Martin Corley, Sarah Haywood-Sykes, Micha Dewar and Jo Brooks for their help, and the unsung hero of my experiments who helped with the programming, Lorenzo Vigentini. I am also grateful to Jools Simner whose kind encouragement helped me to complete. My thanks also go to staff at the university, to Katie Keltie, Karen Fleet, Alan Marshall, Roy Welensky, Cedric MacMartin and Ronny Wiegland and to my unnamed participants, who deserve more acknowledgement than being mere statistics. In addition to my official supervisors I had my parapsychology partners in crime, with whom I discussed all my experimental ideas: Marios Kittenis “Trust me I’m a doctor”; Richard Harrison “Dr Dick”, who sent me a motivational text message every day of my writing up time – thanks Richard; and Dave Luke. I also thank my PhD- ing pals: Annabel Harrison, Elvina Gountouna, and especially Eve Bird “Dr Evil”, my study buddy who made the thousands of hours of work and endless Sunday mornings in the lab - dare I say it? - kind of fun. Thanks and a bottle of whiskey might still be due to Topher Dagg for critical and useful proof-reading. Thanks also go to all my other friends for putting up with me moaning talking about the thesis and reminding me that time was ticking on by occasionally asking, “What? That! Haven’t you finished it yet?” I also had amazing support from my family. My mother “Dr Mum” provided wonderful emotional support and good advice, and also proof-read my whole thesis. My brother “Mr Doctor” who, having risen to the dizzy heights of being a Mr among medics is now also doing a PhD, said “I told you so” when I finally passed. I am grateful for the funding I received from the Koestler Parapsychology Unit chair and the Society for Psychical Research. I also worked throughout much of my studying time, and I have Julie Kidd, Dave Bailey, Matt Sutton, Jane Chisholm, and Nadiya Choudhry at the NHS Information Services Division to thank for their encouragement, advice, and flexibility around working arrangements to enable me to complete my studies. I would also like to thank my examiners, Chris Roe and Alison Lenton. Although I was not at all grateful at the time when they announced that I should submit a major re-write as if they were giving me a Christmas present, I humbly acknowledge that my thesis is vastly improved for being redone. Lastly, a special thanks to Bob Morris, who we fondly call the grandfather of parapsychology in the UK, who gave me a place at the University of Edinburgh when I had no masters degree, no funding, and only some very vague ideas about what to do. I’m sorry you aren’t around to know that I finished it – thanks Bob. VII Table of Contents ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………………...III DECLARATION AND DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………….V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……..…………………………………………………………………………VII 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. WHAT IS PARAPSYCHOLOGY, AND WHY SHOULD IT BE STUDIED? ....................................... 3 1.3. PSI PHENOMENA AND TERMINOLOGY ................................................................................... 4 1.4. METHODS OF INVESTIGATING PSI ......................................................................................... 6 1.5. EVIDENCE FOR PSI ................................................................................................................ 8 1.6. THEORIES OF PSI ................................................................................................................. 10 1.7. OUTLINE OF THESIS AND CONTRIBUTIONS .......................................................................... 20 2. LITERATURE REVIEW OF NONINTENTIONAL PSI AND PERSONALITY .............. 23 2.1. OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 23 2.2. INTENTIONAL AND NONINTENTIONAL PSI-TESTING PARADIGMS ........................................ 23 2.3. RANDOMISATION ................................................................................................................ 24 2.4. NONINTENTIONAL PSI IN PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS .............................................................. 25 2.5. NONINTENTIONAL PSI AND TIMING OF WORD ASSOCIATION RESPONSES ........................... 32 2.6. NONINTENTIONAL PSI IN AFFECTIVE JUDGEMENT TASKS ................................................... 36 VIII 2.7. NONINTENTIONAL PSI IN EXAMS ....................................................................................... 39 2.8. INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PSI