Recalling pseudo‐psychic demonstrations

Wiseman, Richard; Morris, Robert

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1995.tb02549.x

Cited by 19 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 5 Median split analysis of paranormal belief measures is a valid way of differentiating between believers vs. sceptics (e.g. Dagnall et al, 2007;Wiseman & Morris, 1995). Whilst technically, it would have been more appropriate to refer to 'low' vs. 'moderate' paranormal believers here, the original terms 'believers' and 'non-believers/sceptics' are retained for the sake of convenience.…”

Section: Conjunction Fallaciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paranormal belief and susceptibility to the conjunction fallacy

Rogers

Davis

Fisk

2008

Applied Cognitive Psychology

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous studies have shown paranormal believers misperceive randomness and are poor at judging probability. Despite the obvious relevance to many types of alleged paranormal phenomena, no one has examined whether believers are more susceptible to the 'conjunction fallacy'; that is to misperceiving co-occurring (conjunct) events as being more likely than singular (constituent) events alone. The present study examines believer vs. non-believer differences in conjunction errors for both paranormal and non-paranormal events presented as either a probability or a frequency estimation task. As expected, believers made more conjunction errors than non-believers. This was true for both event types, with both groups making fewer errors for paranormal than for non-paranormal events. Surprisingly, the response format (probability vs. frequency) had little impact. Results are discussed in relation to paranormal believers' susceptibility to the conjunction fallacy and more generally, to their propensity for probabilistic reasoning biases.

show abstract

Section: Conjunction Fallaciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paranormal belief and susceptibility to the conjunction fallacy

Rogers

Davis

Fisk

2008

Applied Cognitive Psychology

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, the vast majority of other scales designed to measure belief in psychic ability (e.g. Blackmore & Moore, 1994; Sheils & Berg, 1977; Wiseman & Morris, 1995) contain items that are worded in a very similar way to those items making up the ASGS and PBS. For example, the Paranormal Belief Scale devised by Blackmore and Moore contains 10 statements concerning the existence of psychic ability (e.g.…”

Section: The Structure and Measurement Of Belief In Psychic Abilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Belief in psychic ability and the misattribution hypothesis: A qualitative review

Wiseman

Watt

2006

British J of Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the notion that people who believe in psychic ability possess various psychological attributes that increase the likelihood of them misattributing paranormal causation to experiences that have a normal explanation. The paper discusses the structure and measurement of belief in psychic ability, then reviews the considerable body of work exploring the relationship between belief in psychic ability, and academic performance, intelligence, critical thinking, probability misjudgement and reasoning, measures of fantasy proneness and the propensity to find correspondences in distantly related material. Finally, the paper proposes several possible directions for future research, including: the need to build a multi-causal model of belief; to address the issue of correlation verses causation; to resolve the inconsistent pattern of findings present in many areas; and to develop a more valid, reliable and fine-grained measure of belief in psychic ability.

show abstract

“…After all, it is the case that scientists have long drawn upon specific conjuring knowledge and deployed it creatively with a specific purpose in the interests of psychological research (e.g. Besterman, 1932;Hodgson & Davey, 1894;Johansson et al, 2005;Johansson et al, 2006;Jones & Russell, 1980;Wiseman & Greening, 2005;Wiseman & Lamont, 1996;Wiseman & Where science and magic meet Morris, 1995). Such an approach has been genuinely productive because, rather than being misdirected by calls for a science of magic, it has simply taken specific techniques from magic in order to carry out scientific research.…”

Section: From a 'Science Of Magic' To Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Where Science and Magic Meet: The Illusion of a “Science of Magic”

Lamont

Henderson

Smith

2010

Review of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent articles calling for a scientific study of magic have been the subject of widespread interest. This article considers the topic from a broader perspective, and argues that to engage in a science of magic, in any meaningful sense, is misguided. It argues that those who have called for a scientific theory of magic have failed to explain either how or why such a theory might be constructed, that a shift of focus to a neuroscience of magic is simply unwarranted, and that a science of magic is itself an inherently unsound idea. It seeks to provide a more informed view of the relationship between science and magic, and suggests a more appropriate way forward for scientists.

show abstract

Recalling pseudo‐psychic demonstrations

Cited by 19 publications

References 10 publications

Paranormal belief and susceptibility to the conjunction fallacy

Paranormal belief and susceptibility to the conjunction fallacy

Belief in psychic ability and the misattribution hypothesis: A qualitative review

Where Science and Magic Meet: The Illusion of a “Science of Magic”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About