FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W264058820> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W264058820 endingPage "204" @default.
• W264058820 startingPage "189" @default.
• W264058820 abstract "When I was working in the Netherlands, Martin Johnson and I conducted an elaborate experiment that used a perceptually based ESP test (Palmer & Johnson, 1991) inspired by a procedure of Barbara Lovitts (1981). A slide with a quasi-random assortment of the lowercase letters a-d was flashed to subjects for 150 ms, and they were asked to respond with the letter that seemed most salient to them when the slide flashed. This was probably, but not necessarily, the letter that was in the center of the visual field. The idea was that a paranormal process would guide the subject's eye movements in such a way that the fixated or otherwise most salient letter would match a randomly selected target letter being viewed by an agent. The broader purpose of the procedure was to minimize the often intellectual kind of mental activity associated with more traditional ESP tests in which subjects are required to conjure up an image or impression. There are indications in the literature that such thought processes are psi-inhibiting, especially in forced-choice ESP tests (Stanford, 1975). Immediately prior to the presentation of the letter slide, a subliminal picture was flashed to the subject. The picture was either the standard Defense Mechanism Test (DMT) slide (Kragh & Smith, 1970) in which a threatening male figure is peering down at a boy seated at a desk, or a control slide in which the countenance of the male figure in the background is pleasant and smiling. We expected more negative ESP scores when the face was threatening than when it was smiling. The hypothesis was not confirmed, but two post hoc findings suggested to us that there might have been some ESP in the data. First, there was overall tight variance, which means that the scores clustered more closely around mean chance expectation (MCE) than one would expect by chance. Tight variance has been associated with a negative mood in the literature (Rogers, 1966, 1967). The puzzling aspect of this finding was that the tight variance was present with the smiling subliminal picture as well as the threatening one. We offered two possible explanations. First, the smiling picture may not have been as benign as we originally thought; for example, we thought in retrospect that it could be construed as lecherous, especially by females. Second, we thought that a possibly negative context of the experiment as a whole could have caused the tight variance. For instance, to fulfill the requirements of a visual field manipulation, subjects had to wear uncomfortable goggles and place their chin on a chin rest during the ESP task. Second, there was a confirmation of Stanford's (1975) response-bias hypothesis. In cases where a particular letter was called six times or less out of the 40 trials, the number of hits on these undercalled trials was significantly above chance and significantly greater than on the remaining trials. Because one purpose of the perceptual ESP test is to minimize linear thought processes, I had hoped that there would be less evidence of response biases with this procedure than with a traditional forced-choice ESP test. It seemed that such biases were indeed reduced, particularly the undercalling of XX doublets, but the biases were still present to some degree. The present experiment is a partial replication of the Palmer and Johnson experiment. The intent was to reproduce the situation in which scoring on the perceptual ESP test can be influenced by the immediately prior subliminal presentation of a threatening stimulus, the standard DMT slide. It was also intended to make the test situation more pleasant for subjects than it was in the Palmer and Johnson experiment, primarily by eliminating the visual field manipulation. Also, the sample was restricted to persons genuinely interested in the research; most subjects in the earlier study participated to receive course credits in a psychology class. Thus, one alternative explanation of the tight variance effect found by Palmer and Johnson was removed. …" @default.
• W264058820 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W264058820 creator A5043238243 @default.
• W264058820 date "1992-09-01" @default.
• W264058820 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W264058820 title "Effect of a Threatening Subliminal Stimulus on the Perceptual ESP Test: A Partial Replication" @default.
• W264058820 hasPublicationYear "1992" @default.
• W264058820 type Work @default.
• W264058820 sameAs 264058820 @default.
• W264058820 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W264058820 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W264058820 hasAuthorship W264058820A5043238243 @default.
• W264058820 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W264058820 hasConcept C151496658 @default.
• W264058820 hasConcept C15491014 @default.
• W264058820 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W264058820 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W264058820 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W264058820 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W264058820 hasConcept C26760741 @default.
• W264058820 hasConcept C546668722 @default.
• W264058820 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W264058820 hasConcept C78875605 @default.
• W264058820 hasConceptScore W264058820C142724271 @default.
• W264058820 hasConceptScore W264058820C151496658 @default.
• W264058820 hasConceptScore W264058820C15491014 @default.
• W264058820 hasConceptScore W264058820C15744967 @default.
• W264058820 hasConceptScore W264058820C169760540 @default.
• W264058820 hasConceptScore W264058820C180747234 @default.
• W264058820 hasConceptScore W264058820C204787440 @default.
• W264058820 hasConceptScore W264058820C26760741 @default.
• W264058820 hasConceptScore W264058820C546668722 @default.
• W264058820 hasConceptScore W264058820C71924100 @default.
• W264058820 hasConceptScore W264058820C78875605 @default.
• W264058820 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W264058820 hasLocation W2640588201 @default.
• W264058820 hasOpenAccess W264058820 @default.
• W264058820 hasPrimaryLocation W2640588201 @default.
• W264058820 hasRelatedWork W187232121 @default.
• W264058820 hasRelatedWork W1986758163 @default.
• W264058820 hasRelatedWork W1992097073 @default.
• W264058820 hasRelatedWork W1992479996 @default.
• W264058820 hasRelatedWork W1992740679 @default.
• W264058820 hasRelatedWork W2008586478 @default.
• W264058820 hasRelatedWork W2031089316 @default.
• W264058820 hasRelatedWork W2047781941 @default.
• W264058820 hasRelatedWork W2080847790 @default.
• W264058820 hasRelatedWork W2086947836 @default.
• W264058820 hasRelatedWork W2093575223 @default.
• W264058820 hasRelatedWork W2117735483 @default.
• W264058820 hasRelatedWork W2131345423 @default.
• W264058820 hasRelatedWork W2144108638 @default.
• W264058820 hasRelatedWork W2171732775 @default.
• W264058820 hasRelatedWork W2222157309 @default.
• W264058820 hasRelatedWork W234359373 @default.
• W264058820 hasRelatedWork W2522888052 @default.
• W264058820 hasRelatedWork W2769656393 @default.
• W264058820 hasRelatedWork W3023016752 @default.
• W264058820 hasVolume "56" @default.
• W264058820 isParatext "false" @default.
• W264058820 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W264058820 magId "264058820" @default.
• W264058820 workType "article" @default.