Reexamining Psychokinesis: Comment on Bösch, Steinkamp, and Boller (2006)

H. Bösch, F. Steinkamp, and E. Boller's (2006) review of the evidence for psychokinesis confirms many of the authors' earlier findings. The authors agree with Bösch et al. that existing studies provide statistical evidence for psychokinesis, that the evidence is generally of high methodolo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psychological bulletin 2006-07, Vol.132 (4), p.529-532
Main Authors: Radin, Dean, Nelson, Roger, Dobyns, York, Houtkooper, Joop
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bias
Boesch, H
Boller, E
Cognition
Construct Validity
Effect Size
Effect Size (Statistical)
Games
Human
Humans
Intention
Item Analysis
Kinesis
Kinetics
Mental Processes
Meta-analysis
Numbers (Numerals)
Parapsychology
Psychokinesis
Psychological aspects
Psychological Studies
Psychology
Psychology - methods
Randomness
Reader Response
Review (Reexamination)
Sample Size
Simulation
Social research
Steinkamp, F
Studies
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:H. Bösch, F. Steinkamp, and E. Boller's (2006) review of the evidence for psychokinesis confirms many of the authors' earlier findings. The authors agree with Bösch et al. that existing studies provide statistical evidence for psychokinesis, that the evidence is generally of high methodological quality, and that effect sizes are distributed heterogeneously. Bösch et al. postulated the heterogeneity is attributable to selective reporting and thus that psychokinesis is "not proven." However, Bösch et al. assumed that effect size is entirely independent of sample size. For these experiments, this assumption is incorrect; it also guarantees heterogeneity. The authors maintain that selective reporting is an implausible explanation for the observed data and hence that these studies provide evidence for a genuine psychokinetic effect.
ISSN:0033-2909
1939-1455
DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.529