WHAT IS IT? ANSWER THIS ON A MINI- WHITEBOARD WITHOUT LOOKING IT UP. Psychokenesis (PK)

Note: You don’t need to make notes on this power-point but you do need to concentrate as it will help you to understand this topic area and to answer questions later on.

Types of Psychokinesis (PK) Macro PK is where the mind is able to affect an object in the environment (e.g. spoon-bending) and you do not need statistics to see the effect – it’s obvious it has happened. Micro PK requires statistical analysis e.g. influencing the roll of a dice through the power of the mind

Macro PK Watch this Are you convinced by this demonstration of macro PK? Do you think macro PK has been demonstrated under controlled conditions? It hasn’t. Some people who claim to have PK powers have refused to be tested under controlled conditions; others have been exposed as frauds; others have failed to show any PK power under lab conditions

Micro PK Early micro PK experiments focused on the ability to influence the roll of a dice by mental intention. Early studies showed promising results, but dice can be manipulated by sleight of hand – a skilled dice thrower can throw a chosen number even if the dice are not loaded. Micro PK is appealing since it is easy to analyse statistically. For instance, the statistical likelihood of a chosen number being thrown three consecutive times by chance alone is P = 0.005, which is highly statistically significant, so if a dice could be influenced by PK statistically significant effects should be found

Micro PK Random event generators (REG) have been used – they produce random numbers. In one standard trial (there are several) the participant tries to influence the generator to produce a higher or a lower number than the previous one. By chance alone, how often should the participant be correct that the next number is higher? P = 0.5 By chance alone, how often should people be correct in their decisions that the first 5 numbers would go up or down? P=0.03 In pairs – decide who will be the participant and who will be the researcher and record the results

Micro PK experiment Instructions to participant: you will see one number to start with. After this you have to state whether the next number will be higher or lower and use the power of your mind to influence the random number generator to produce this outcome. You will then make nine further statements about the nine following numbers. Instructions to researcher – the participant has 10 attempts to influence the REG. Record how often the participant is correct in saying whether the random number will go up or down Look at this – the first box must be set at one - and participant to begin when the first number is visible

Analysis of results – probability of being correct by chance Correct all 10 times p=0.001 Correct first 9 times p=0.002 Correct first 8 times p=0.004 Correct first 7 times p=0.008 Correct first6 times p=0.02 Correct first 5 times p=0.03 Correct first 4 times p=0.06 Correct first 3 times p=0.12 Correct first 2 times p=0.25 Correct once p=0.5 Never correct p=0.001

Methodological issues with PK studies Macro: A, because there is little basis for the idea that PK inhibition occurs yet if a sound study is designed, fraudulent PK should be ruled out

Methodological issues with PK studies Micro: (box 1) Possible to bias the throwing of a dice by sleight of hand so the difference in hit rate could be due to this. Dice are also usually slightly biased – for instance if the numbers are indents, a six is more likely to be thrown since that side is lighter. These biases could account for the higher hit rate in the experimental studies above. Significantly lowers the validity

Methodological issues with PK studies Micro (Box 2) Small sample= cannot generalise the results Possibility of bias in the study/lack of objectivity Poor control = lack of validity. All of these would be improved upon with replications, hence less significant results.

Methodological issues with PK studies Micro: (box 3) The studies available for meta-analysis are biased. It makes them support PK more strongly than would be the case without the publication bias.

Methodological issues with PK studies Micro: (box 4) They may commit fraud, whether knowingly or not. Final question on Occam’s razor: Caused by methodological flaws since this is the most simple explanation; PK is a complex affair!

Past questions on PK 1.Describe one way in which researchers have studied psychokinesis. (4 marks) 2.Outline two methodological issues involved in the study of psychokinesis. (4 marks) 3.Discuss methodological issues in the study of psychokinesis. (4 marks + 6 marks) (NOTE: this is an old question, before the specification changed so it is unlikely but still possible for this style of question on PK)

Q1: model answer – 4/4 marks Psychokinesis is the movement of objects by purely intention alone, and fits into micro and macro. Macro is the movement of larger objects where change can be visibly seen e.g. spoon bending and micro manipulation of smaller objects such as roll of a dice. Psychokinesis has been measured in many ways but an example is the use of dice rolling studies comparing the difference between when PK has been used and by purely chance alone. For example the probability of rolling 3 of the same number is p = 0.05 so there is a 5% chance, therefore it is possible. By comparing the hit rate of rolling the same number multiple times or rolling a particular number, comparing use of PK and when PK wasn’t used can establish if PK has any affect. Radin and Ferrari did a meta-analysis of 1200 dice rolling studies comparing just that and found 50.02% hit rate when PK not used and 51.2% when PK was used, small difference but significant due to sample size.