This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
A TEST OF PREDICTIONS FROM FIVE STUDIES ON TELEPATHIC GROUP COMMUNICATION OF EMOTIONS
Joakim Westerlund, & Jan Dalkvist Department of Psychology, Stockholm University
The purpose of the present study was to test a set of predictions from a previous series of telepathy studies, involving 337 university students. In these studies, groups of receivers were asked to discriminate between positive and negative emotional slide pictures that were being looked at by groups of senders. The senders and the receivers were sequestered in separate acoustically insulated rooms. None of the eight predictions was confirmed by data from a replication study, involving a total of 605 university students as participants. Discussed are three explanations denying that any telepathic communication occurred, either in the original series of experiments or in the new ones, and three explanations assuming that some telepathic communication did occur, after all. The three explanations denying the occurrence of any telepathic effect were: (1) All significant results obtained in the original experiments were caused by random variation. (2) The replication experiments were better controlled than the original experiments. (3) The original positive results were obtained through systematic selection. All of these three explanations were judged to be plausible. The three explanations assuming that some telepathic communication did occur were: (1) Some of the eight hypotheses were only partly true and need to be modified. (2) The distribution(s) of some critical person or situation variable(s) had changed during the six years of experimentation, which, in turn, has affected the results. (3) The replication experiments were run at less favourable times with respect to some physical factors: local sidereal time (LST) – an astronomical time and space measure, which is indirectly related to the magnitude of cosmic radiation that reaches the earth – and disturbances in the earth´s magnetic field, as measured by the ap-index. On the basis of empirical tests, the two latter explanations (changing distributions of critical personal or situational variables and changing LST or apindex) were rejected as unlikely. It was concluded that, taken together, the three explanations assuming that no telepathic communication had occurred could well account for the failure to confirm any of the predictions.
Since the spring of 1993, a series of telepathy studies has been performed at the Department of Psychology at Stockholm University, with one of us (JD) as initiator. The studies have all been concerned with transmission of emotions and have been carried out as group experiments. The series of studies consists of two parts, an initial part, containing five studies (Studies 1-5), which mainly served to generate a set of hypotheses, and a second part, in which these hypotheses were tested in a replication study. The five original studies have been published elsewhere (Dalkvist & Westerlund, 1998a,b). A less detailed description of these studies will be given below. The basic design of the present series of studies rests on two different ideas. One was to try to strengthen “weak” telepathic signals by using several senders instead of one. (Even if this idea should turn out to be wrong, using several participants has the practical advantage of permitting large amounts of data to be collected during a relatively short period of time.) In spite of its practical advantages, group ESP experiments are rare, however. One reason may be Rhine’s (1947/1971) negative evaluation of group testing as compared to individual testing:
One of the discoveries made during these years was the great disadvantage of group testing compared to individual tests. Vernon Sharp and Dr. C.C. Clark of New York University compared classroom test with private tests and found, as we did at Duke, that individual tests give much better scoring rates. In fact, the group tests were little above the average expected from pure chance…. (p. 40)
Nevertheless, quite impressive results from group experiments on ESP have been reported, most notably by Carpenter (e.g., 1988). The Parapsychological Association Convention 2004 269
Predictions from five studies on telepathic group communication Another reason why group experiments on ESP are relatively rare may be a statistical problem that is met in group testing: due to the possible occurrence of dependency among the participants´ responses in group testing, the statistical assumption of independent measures runs the risk of being violated (the so-called stacking problem). There are several ways of overcoming this problem, however, for example by simulation, a technique that has been used in the present series of studies as a complement to conventional statistical methods. The other idea on which the present design is based is that strong emotional messages – signals of danger, for instance – may be, for evolutionary reasons, easier to transmit telepathically than are more neutral messages. Given the obvious link between emotions and needs, the notion that emotional stimuli are more efficient as ESP targets than are neutral ones is implied by evolutionary theories of ESP, such as those of Stanford (1978, 1982) and Taylor (1999), positing that ESP serves the function of helping the individual to fulfill his or her needs. A direct test of the notion that emotional stimuli facilitate ESP as compared to neutral stimuli was performed by Moss and his co-workers some decades ago (Moss & Gengerelli, 1969; Moss, 1969; Moss Chang & Levitt, 1970), using a design that was quite similar to the one used in the present series of studies (although individual senders and receivers, and not groups of senders and receivers, were used). The results supported the notion that emotionally arousing stimuli favour ESP performance. An attempt by Gelade and Harvie (1975) to replicate these findings did not succeed, however.
THE ORIGINAL STUDIES
A total of 337 participants, 222 females and 115 males, with a mean age of 26.7 yrs (range: 18-65 yrs) took part in the five original studies (Dalkvist & Westerlund, 1998a,b). Except for some 20 participants who came from other disciplines and were paid for their participation, participants were undergraduate psychology students at the Stockholm University, who chose to participate in the study as part of their course requirements. The studies comprised from 2 to 9 single experiments each, twenty-four in all; the mean number of participants per experiment was 13.75. As stimuli, 30 slide pictures, 15 with positive motifs (e.g., nature pictures and pictures of happy people) and 15 with negative ones (e.g., pictures of traffic accidents or starving children) were used (for a complete description, see Dalkvist & Westerlund, 1998a,b). When the participants arrived at the laboratory, they were (quasi)randomly divided into two groups, one sender group and one receiver group. The senders and the receivers were sequestered in two acoustically insularated rooms, with one room between them. The two experimental rooms were connected with each other by a signal device; a lamp in the receiver room could be turned on and off from the sender room. There were two experimenters in the sender room and two in the receiver room. Before the experiment started, the participants rated their belief in telepathy on a three-point scale. In Experiments 4 and 5, corresponding ratings were also made after the experiment, but on a seven-point scale, to obtain more fine-grained data (we considered the possibility of substituting the three-point scale used before the experiment with a seven-point scale, but refrained from doing so as that would have made it more difficult to make comparisons). The slides were presented in random orders, a new order for each group of senders. The senders´ only task was to look at the pictures and to “hold on to” the feelings evoked by the respective pictures as long as they were being shown. The receivers were instructed to guess whether a given picture was positive or negative (they were informed about the number of slides, but not that the number of positive and negative pictures was the same). One of the experimenters in the receiver room watched the signal lamp and reported to the receivers when a new picture was shown to the senders. Each picture was shown for 20 seconds, with an inter-stimulus interval of about 0.5 seconds. When all 30 pictures had been shown, the participants changed rooms, and those who had served as senders now served as receivers and vice versa. Thus, each experiment consisted of two separate sessions, a first one in which half of the participants started as senders and the other half as receivers and a second 270 Proceedings of Presented Papers
Westerlund & Dalkvist session in which the roles were reversed, using the same stimulus pictures presented in a different random order. With a view to obtaining a psychological description of the pictures used, they were rated on six different scales (by participants other than those taking part in the main experiments). All of the pictures were rated with respect to how (a) unpleasant/pleasant, (b) involving, (c) familiar and (d) perceptible (easy to apprehend) they were. In addition, the 15 negative pictures were rated with respect to how (a) compassionarousing and (b) repulsive they were, and the 15 positive pictures with respect to how calm or exciting they were. Moreover, on the basis of the four “emotional” scales for negative pictures, a scale of negative emotionality was constructed. Hit rate, defined as number of correct responses or proportion of correct responses (when stimulus data were analysed) was invariably used as the dependent variable in the data analyses. (No majority vote analyses have been done so far.) Hit rate was analysed as (a) a function of person or situational factors (for example, belief in telepathy and the order of the task as sender and the task as receiver) and (b) a function of stimulus factors (for example, rated characteristics of the pictures). Data analyses were made both by means of conventional statistical methods and by means of a so-called Monte Carlo method, a simulation technique, alluded to in the introduction, which in contrast to conventional statistical methods does not require that any particular statistical assumptions be satisfied. Together, the results from the five original studies seemed to support the hypothesis that telepathy exists. For example, several significant results were obtained when analysing effects of person and situational factors, the most consistent finding being that participants who believed in telepathy had a lower hit rate than that expected by chance. With respect to stimulus factors, hit rate for the first picture presented was higher than expected by chance. Furthermore, a negative correlation was obtained between negative emotionality and hit rate for the pictures with negative motifs; that is, the more unpleasant a negative picture was, the lower the hit rate tended to be. (No relationship was found between hit rate and emotional ratings for positive pictures.) Still another stimulus effect obtained was that the picture immediately preceding the current picture tended to affect the hit rate of that picture. For a more detailed presentation of the results from the original studies, see Dalkvist and Westerlund (1998b). There were some problems with the results, however. The major problem was that, for the most part, the studies were explorative in character and had not been planned to test particular hypotheses. Thus, except for an initial hypothesis of an (unspecified) effect of belief in telepathy on hit rate, all the findings were made post hoc during the course of the studies.
THE REPLICATION STUDY – TEST OF PREDICTIONS Procedure
On the basis of the results of the five above studies, a number of predictions were formulated and tested in a replication study, originally consisting of two parts. These predictions were all based on statistically significant (or, in one case, marginally significant) results obtained when data from the five studies were put together. The predictions (given below) were announced in the Journal of Parapsychology (Dalkvist & Westerlund, 1998b) before the data analyses had started. The new study was an exact replication of the latest of the five original studies, except that two minor further control measures were adopted. The first one concerned the communication between one of the experimenters in the sender room and one of the experimenters in the receiver room. Previously, the experimenter in the sender room had orally informed the experimenter in the receiver room when the experiment was going to start. Because the experimenter in the sender room had just finished changing the order of pictures in the magazine and could then have noticed whether the first picture to be presented was negative or positive, it is conceivable (though highly unlikely) that this information had been unconsciously transmitted to the experimenter in the receiver room by means of body language or by the voice. This was now prevented by replacing the oral communication with communication by means of a light signal. The Parapsychological Association Convention 2004 271
Predictions from five studies on telepathic group communication The second control measure prevented a conceivable, but also highly unlikely, possibility that some of the experimenters would see the random orders before the experiments. In the previous studies, the random orders were placed in an open envelope, in the room between the two experimental rooms (Studies 4-5) or in the experimenter room (Studies 1-3). In the replication study, the random orders were instead placed in a sealed envelope, between the two experimental rooms, and it was not opened until the pictures were going to be rearranged. The random orders were put into the envelope by JD, who was blind to their content, and the envelope was opened by JW. The first part of the replication study was carried out in the autumn of 1997 and in the spring of 1998. Three hundred and thirty-five participants took part in this part of the study. Preliminary analyses suggested, however, that this number of participants might be too small for a critical test of the predictions to be made (we were uncertain about whether our failure to confirm any prediction might be due to sampling error). We therefore decided to increase our data set, using exactly the same procedure as in the first part of the study. This was done in 1999, with 270 new participants. (We were fully aware of the problem of optional stopping of data collection that was associated with this procedure.) The total group of 605 participants comprised 432 females and 173 males, the mean age being 26.45 yrs (range: 18-75 yrs). The large majority of the participants were undergraduate psychology students at the Department of Psychology at Stockholm University, who chose to participate in the study as part of their course requirements; the remaining participants came from other disciplines and were paid for their participation. There were 47 single experiments in all. The number of participants per experiment ranged from 5 to 19, with a mean number of 12.87. As far as we can see, the data from the replication study are completely free from any conceivable systematic error.
Predictions and results
A total of eight predictions were tested. Five of them concerned person or situational variables. Four of these predictions concern effects obtained in a three-way ANOVA, with belief in telepathy as measured before the experiment, gender and sender/receiver order as independent variables, repetition aversion (defined as the number of times the subject shifted from one type of response, i.e. “positive picture” or “negative picture”, to the other), number of positive responses and age as covariates, and hit rate as the dependent variable: P1.1. An effect of belief in telepathy as measured before the experiment will be obtained, with a positive mean hit rate for undecided participants, a negative mean hit rate for those participants who believe in telepathy, and a weak positive mean hit rate for participants who do not believe in telepathy. As can be seen from the table below, the direction of the prediction tended to be supported, although all mean hit rates were around the chance score of 15.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations and results from one sample t-tests (2-tailed) of deviation from 15 hits (expected by chance) for the three levels of belief in telepathy as measured before the experiment.
Belief in Telepathy
“no” “don’t know” “yes” 272
15.10 14.98 14.91
2.84 2.77 2.27
.408 (125) -.154 (350) -.450 (115)
n.s. n.s. n.s. Proceedings of Presented Papers
Westerlund & Dalkvist
P1.2. An interaction effect between gender and sender/receiver order will be obtained, with a positive mean hit rate for the males when they start as receivers, and a positive mean hit rate for the females when they start as senders. No significant interaction effect was obtained between gender and receiver order (F1,597 < 1): Males who started as receivers still performed better than males who started as senders, but this was also true for females. Thus, instead of a significant interaction effect between gender and receiver order, as predicted, a significant main effect of receiver order was obtained in an one-way ANOVA (F1, 597 = 4.605; p < .05), with a higher hit rate for those participants who started as receivers than for those who started as senders. When entered into the above-mentioned three-way ANOVA, however, receiver order was not significant (F1, 578 = 2.354; p = .126). P1.3. An effect of repetition aversion will be obtained, with a negative correlation between hit rate and repetition aversion. In the original studies, repetition avoidance was significantly related to hit rate when entered as a covariate in the above-mentioned three-way ANOVA (F1, 310 = 3.889; p < .05), corresponding to a Pearson correlation of r330 = -.128 (p < .05). The F-ratio dropped to F1, 578 = .026 (n.s.) and the Pearson correlation to r599 = -.006 (n.s.) in the replication study. P1.4. An effect of age will be found, with a positive correlation between hit rate and age. When occurring as a covariate in the above-mentioned three-way ANOVA in the original studies, age exhibited a significant effect (F1, 310; p < .05). The corresponding Pearson correlation was only marginally significant (r330 = .097; p = .079), however. The F-ratio dropped to F1, 578 = .027 (n.s.) and the corresponding Pearson correlation to r599 = .011 (n.s.) in the replication study. The final prediction for person or situational variables is about belief in telepathy as measured after the experiment: P2. A negative correlation will be obtained between hit rate and belief in telepathy as measured after the experiment. In the original studies, a Pearson correlation of r233 = -.185 (p < .01) was obtained between hit rate and belief in telepathy as measured (on a 7-point scale) after the experiment. This correlation dropped to r598 = .034 (n.s.) in the replication study. One of the three predictions about effects of the stimulus condition is concerned with the position order of the pictures: P3. The first presented picture will exhibit a hit rate above that expected by chance. In the original studies, the first presented picture exhibited a hit rate of 58 % (Chi-square = 8.679; df =1; p < .01). In the replication study, hit rate dropped to 51.2 % (Chi-square = .372; df = 1; n.s.). We have speculated that a more general decline effect (for instance, a linear decline effect or a decline effect formed as a ski slope) might be established when more data were available. We were not able to find any decline effect at all, however. The next prediction was concerned with psychological characteristics of the pictures: P4. For negative pictures, a negative correlation will be obtained between hit rate and negative emotionality, as defined by combining the scales of pleasure, involvement, compassion, and repulsion.
The Parapsychological Association Convention 2004
Predictions from five studies on telepathic group communication In Studies 2-5, a Pearson correlation of r13 = -.581 (p < .05) was obtained between hit rate and negative emotionality, defined as in the prediction (information for calculating negative emotionality was missing in Study1). In the replication study, the correlation dropped to r13 = -.088 (n.s.). The final prediction was concerned with a particular sequence effect: P5. An effect of type of previous picture will be obtained, with a higher mean hit rate for a positive previous picture than for a negative one, irrespective of whether the present picture is positive or negative. The difference obtained in the original study, corresponding to a paired samples t-value of t332 = 2.192 (p < .05; two-tailed), was completely gone in the prediction study (t604 = -.015; n.s.; two-tailed). The prediction was thus disconfirmed. In sum, none of the eight predictions was confirmed.
POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE NEGATIVE RESULTS
There are several different conceivable explanations for why the predictions were not borne out. Three of the six possible explanations considered below deny that any telepathic communication occurred, either in the original studies or in the replication study. The remaining three explanations presume that such effects did occur, after all. The following three interpretations imply that no telepathic effects occurred: 1A. We were unlucky: all significant results obtained in the original studies were caused by random variation. A necessary condition for considering this explanation as probable is that the different significant results were statistically dependent. On the contrary assumption, that the different tests were statistically independent, it is highly unlikely that all of the results are attributable to random fluctuations, because of the large number of significant results that were obtained. But if one assumes that significant effects from different analyses were strongly statistically dependent, the likelihood that the results are attributable to random variation increases. The probability would at most – when all dependencies are at maximum – roughly correspond to the significant p-values typically obtained in the original studies, that is, it would lie between 1% and 5%. Results that appear by chance that often may, of course, be questioned, particularly in an area such as parapsychology. A reasonable guess would be that the probability in question would fall somewhere between 1% and 1‰. An argument favouring the interpretation now discussed is that the effects obtained in the original study were generally rather small. 2A. The replication experiments were better controlled than the previous experiments. This explanation means, among other things, that the additional control measures adopted in the replication study – a protection against the possibility that some experimenter could have known the picture orders beforehand and elimination of all oral communication between the experimenters in the sender room and those in the receiver room – eliminated the cause or causes of the original positive results. This explanation also means that the positive results obtained in the three first, less well-controlled, studies (which corresponds to about 1/3 of the original data) could at least in part have been due to experimental errors, which were controlled for in subsequent studies. On the present explanation, several apparently harmless experimental errors could together have resulted in the positive results of the original studies. This possibility is in line with the fact that the results tended to become increasingly weaker as the experimental control was sharpened. Alternatively, there was only one or a few, apparently innocent, but in reality fatal experimental errors. 274 Proceedings of Presented Papers
Westerlund & Dalkvist In any case, if the present explanation is correct, this is highly remarkable and of great methodological interest – not only for parapsychology but for traditional psychology as well. The uncontrolled cues that the participants had been using must have been extremely subtle and perceived at an extraordinarily low unconscious level. Such possible cues are in general ignored in traditional experimental or other psychological research (but less often in parapsychological research). But if the explanation now considered is true, controls of various subtle cues should be adopted more generally. 3A. The original positive results were found by systematic selection. It should first of all be pointed out that this explanation cannot hold for the effects obtained for belief in telepathy, as this variable was adopted already in the very first of the five original studies. Other positive results could well have been due to a systematic selection of positive results, however. For example, we would probably not have got the idea of analysing data for the first presented stimulus separately had the “first stimulus effect” not appeared as strongly as it did in our plots of hit rate against stimulus order. On the other hand, variables such as gender, age and sender/receiver order were not selected because they were found to give positive results, but because it seemed natural to look at them. It seems unlikely that any of the above three explanations alone can account for the positive results in the original experiments. Taken together, however, they may well do so. According to the following explanations, telepathic communication did occur, after all. 1B. Some of the eight hypotheses were only partly true and need to be modified. An example of a possible necessary modification of such a hypothesis is the predicted interaction effect between gender and receiver order. This may have to be modified to a prediction about a main effect of receiver order according to the present results. 2B. The distribution(s) of some critical person or situational variable(s) had changed during the six years of experimentation, which, in turn, has affected the results. One variable that we thought might have undergone a change was belief in telepathy. As a possibility, we thought that belief in the existence of telepathy might have increased among our students during the time of experimentation, perhaps as a consequence of serious parapsychological research becoming better known (due, maybe, to the attention that the present project has attracted). However, our rating data do not indicate that any substantial change in belief in telepathy had taken place. As before, about 25% of the participants fell in the category “yes”, about 50% in the category “don´t know” and about 25% in the category “no” on the 3-point “belief in telepathy” scale used before the experiment. The only noticeable tendency was a weak increment in the “don´t know” category and a corresponding decrease in the “yes” category, which might be taken to mean that our participants´ belief in telepathy had decreased somewhat rather than increased. It seems thus very unlikely that there was any change in belief in telepathy that would have changed the results in any significant way. Like belief in telepathy, none of the remaining person or situational variables showed any change that could reasonably explain our failure to replicate the original results. 3B. The replication experiments were run at less favourable times with respect to some physical factors. In a large number of different studies, Spottiswoode and May (1997) found a relationship between effect size in parapsychological experiments and so-called local sidereal time (LST) – an astronomical time and space measure, which is indirectly related to the magnitude of cosmic radiation that reaches the earth and, in turn, gives rise to disturbances in the earth’s magnetic field. It is thus conceivable that our replication The Parapsychological Association Convention 2004 275
Predictions from five studies on telepathic group communication experiments were performed during less favourable physical circumstances than were the original experiments. This possibility was tested. This was done for all studies, except for the first three, for which necessary dates were missing. Values of the ap geomagnetic index for all 3-hour intervals between 1994 and 1999 were collected from World Data Center C1 for Geomagnetism on the World Wide Web. For each single hour, the ap-index for the 3-hour interval encompassing the current hour was used. Because the distribution was markedly skewed, the values were logarithmized. The times for the ap-values were displaced one hour forward in time, in order to correct for the difference in time between UTC and Swedish time. There was, in fact, a highly significant difference (t843 = 23.92; p < 10-11) between the previous experiments and the replication experiments with respect to the average ap-index during the times of data collection, with lower values of ap-index during the replication experiments than during the original ones. However, there was no correlation between ap-index and hit rate. Likewise, there was no significant interaction effect between ap-index and any person or situational variable, as indicated by two-way ANOVA:s with hit rate as the dependent variable. These findings suggest that variations in ap-index cannot account for our failure to replicate the original positive results. Based on the findings of Spottiswoode and May (1997), showing particularly good performances around 13:30 h LST, LST was divided into two intervals, one interval of “good” LST, ranging from 11:00 h LST through 16:00 h LST and one interval of “bad” LST, covering all other hours. There was no significant difference between the time periods of the original studies and those of the new ones with respect to mean LST on the “good”/”bad” LST scale.
The major results from the present study are unusually clear: we were not able to confirm even one of the eight predictions being tested. In other words, the results from the original experiments could not be replicated, not even partially. The most plausible general interpretation of this failure is that no telepathic communication had occurred in the present series of studies, neither in the original studies nor in the replication study, and that the discrepancy between the original studies and the new one must be attributed to statistical fluctuations or bias in the original studies. Perhaps Rhine (1947/1971) was correct in his evaluation that group testing is inferior to individual testing in ESP research (or perhaps telepathy does not exist). With regard to the no-ESP interpretation, there is probably more than one explanation for the presumed false positive results in the original studies. A major probable explanation is selection of positive results, commonly called “data-snooping”. Another probable explanation is that the three first studies were insufficiently controlled. In addition, chance may have played a joke on us. Together, two or all of these three explanations may well account for our failure to replicate the original findings. The outcome of the present series of experiments may be seen as a typical example of a well-known and much debated phenomenon within parapsychology: the so-called decline effect, meaning in this context that initial studies of a certain type give positive results, which thereafter become weaker or disappear completely as attempts are made to replicate the initial positive findings (e.g., Milton & Wiseman, 1999) Among parapsychologists, a common attempt to explain this decline effect is to assume that researchers tend to lose their initial motivation as the same study is repeated, and, as a consequence, also their ability to create a psiconducive mood on the part of the participants. (For sceptics, on the other hand, the decline effect proves that psi does not exist.) We do not believe that the declining motivation explanation is applicable to the present series of experiments, partly because we changed some of the experimenters during the original experiments as well as during the new ones.
Proceedings of Presented Papers
Westerlund & Dalkvist
We would like to acknowledge the financial support of John Björkhem Memorial Foundation.
Carpenter, J.C. (1988). Quasi-therapeutic group processes and ESP. Journal of Parapsychology, 52, 279-304. Dalkvist, J., & Westerlund, J. (1998a). Four experiments on telepathic group communication of emotions. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 12, 583-603. Dalkvist, J., & Westerlund, J. (1998b). Five experiments on telepathic communication of emotions. The Journalof Parapsychology, 62, 219-253. Gerlade, G., & Harvie, R. (1975). Confidence ratings in an ESP task using affective stimuli. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 48, 209-219. Milton, J., and Wiseman, R. (1999). Does psi exist? Lack of replication of an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 387-91. Moss, T., & Gerandelli, J.A. (1968). ESP effects generated by affective states. Journal of Parapsychology, 32, 90-100. Moss, T. (1969). ESP effects in “artists” contrasted with “non-artists,” Journal of Parapsychology, 33, 57-69. Moss, T. , Change, A.F., & Levitt, M. (1970). Long-distance ESP: a controlled study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 76, 288-294. Rhine, J. B. (1947/1971) The Reach of the Mind. New York: William Sloane. Spottiswoode, J., & May, E. (1997). Anomalous cognition effect size: Dependence on sideral time and solar wind parameters. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Convention, 399-409. Stevens, P. (2003). A feedback-reinforcement model. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association 45th Annual Convention, 273-81. Stanford, R.G. (1978).Toward Reinterpreting Psi Events. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 72, 197214. Stanford, R.G. (1982). An experimentally testable model for spontaneous extrasensory events. In I Grattan-Guiness (Ed.), Psychical research: a guide to its history, principles and practices (pp. 195-205). Wellingborough, UK: Aquarian Press. Taylor, R. (1999). Evolutionary Theory and Psi: Reviewing and Revising some Need Serving Models in Psychic Functioning. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association 42nd Annual Convention, 398-414.
Address for correspondence: Joakim Westerlund, Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm. E-mail: email@example.com
The Parapsychological Association Convention 2004
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?