ESP research has depended almost exclusively on measures of accuracy. Such measures are much less sensitive than reaction time measures, which have never been used to evaluate claims for ESP. In this paper we describe the use of a reaction time paradigm in the investigation of ESP. In spite of the greater sensitivity of this dependent measure, no evidence for ESP was found.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlcockJ. E. (1981) Parapsychology: Science or magic. New York: Pergamon.
2.
HamselC. E. M. (1980) ESP and parapsychology: A critical re-evaluation. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.
3.
HymanR. (1985) The ganzfeld psi experiment: A critical appraisal. Journal of Parapsychology, 49, 3–49.
4.
MarksD.KammannR. (1980) Psychology of the psychic. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.
5.
MorrisR. L. (1978) A survey of methods and issues in ESP research. In KrippnerS. (Ed.), Advances in parapsychological research. Vol. 2. Extrasensory perception. New York: Plenum. Pp. 7–58.
6.
MorrisR. L. (1982) An updated survey of methods and issues in ESP research. In KrippnerS. (Ed.), Advances in parapsychological research. Vol. 3. New York: Plenum. Pp. 5–40.
7.
PalmerJ. (1978) Extrasensory perception: Research findings. In KrippnerS. (Ed.), Advances in parapsychological research. Vol. 2. Extrasensory perception. New York: Plenum. Pp. 59–243.
8.
ShobenE. J. (1982) Semantic and lexical decisions. In PuffC. R. (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in human memory and cognition. New York: Academic Pp. 288–314.
