PsycNET®

Login to PsycNET to view this record

• Search APA PsycNET
• PsycALERTS
• MyAPA

[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 136(5) of Psychological Bulletin (see record 2010-17510-009). In the article, the second to last sentence of the abstract (p. 471) was stated incorrectly. The sentence should read as follows: “The mean effect size value of the ganzfeld database was significantly higher than the mean effect size of the standard free-response database but was not higher than the effect size of the nonganzfeld noise reduction database.”] We report the results of meta-analyses on 3 types of free-response study: (a) ganzfeld (a technique that enhances a communication anomaly referred to as “psi”); (b) nonganzfeld noise reduction using alleged psi-enhancing techniques such as dream psi, meditation, relaxation, or hypnosis; and (c) standard free response (nonganzfeld, no noise reduction). For the period 1997–2008, a homogeneous data set of 29 ganzfeld studies yielded a mean effect size of 0.142 (Stouffer Z = 5.48, p = 2.13 × 10 −8 ). A homogeneous nonganzfeld noise reduction data set of 16 studies yielded a mean effect size of 0.110 (Stouffer Z = 3.35, p = 2.08 × 10−4), and a homogeneous data set of 14 standard free-response studies produced a weak negative mean effect size of −0.029 (Stouffer Z = −2.29, p = .989). The mean effect size value of the ganzfeld database were significantly higher than the mean effect size of the nonganzfeld noise reduction and the standard free-response databases. We also found that selected participants (believers in the paranormal, meditators, etc.) had a performance advantage over unselected participants, but only if they were in the ganzfeld condition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)

Note: Your library may have purchased access to this information through another service provider.