Searching for the impossible: Parapsychology's elusive quest.

Recently, American Psychologist published a review of the evidence for parapsychology that supported the general claims of psi (the umbrella term often used for anomalous or paranormal phenomena). We present an opposing perspective and a broad-based critique of the entire parapsychology enterprise. Our position is straightforward. Claims made by parapsychologists cannot be true. The effects reported can have no ontological status; the data have no existential value. We examine a variety of reasons for this conclusion based on well-understood scientific principles. In the classic English adynaton, "pigs cannot fly." Hence, data that suggest that they can are necessarily flawed and result from weak methodology or improper data analyses or are Type I errors. So it must be with psi effects. What we find particularly intriguing is that, despite the existential impossibility of psi phenomena and the nearly 150 years of efforts during which there has been, literally, no progress, there are still scientists who continue to embrace the pursuit. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Childhood trauma and the development of paranormal beliefs.

Belief in the paranormal is fairly prevalent in the general population. Previous research has shown a link between several personological characteristics and paranormal beliefs. The current study attempted to further investigate this link by replicating previous models that have shown a link between childhood trauma, fantasy proneness, and paranormal beliefs. In addition, the study attempted to expand on this model by including other variables such as stigma, resiliency, and coping style. The study used a sample of 198 undergraduate students. A significant correlation between trauma and paranormal beliefs was found. Partial correlations and path analyses revealed that fantasy proneness and avoidant coping style fully mediate the relationship between trauma and paranormal beliefs. The results imply that researchers need to take into account how a person responds to trauma via the development of coping strategies to accurately understand any observed relationship between trauma and paranormal beliefs.

Correcting the past: failures to replicate ψ.

Across 7 experiments (N = 3,289), we replicate the procedure of Experiments 8 and 9 from Bem (2011), which had originally demonstrated retroactive facilitation of recall. We failed to replicate that finding. We further conduct a meta-analysis of all replication attempts of these experiments and find that the average effect size (d = 0.04) is no different from 0. We discuss some reasons for differences between the results in this article and those presented in Bem (2011).

Feeling the past: the absence of experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on text processing.

In two self-paced reading experiments, we investigated the hypothesis that information moves backward in time to influence prior behaviors (Bem Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100:407-425, 2011a). In two of Bem's experiments, words were presented after target pictures in a pleasantness judgment task. In a condition in which the words were consistent with the emotional valence of the picture, reaction times to the pictures were significantly shorter , as compared with a condition in which the words were inconsistent with the emotional valence of the picture. Bem Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100:407-425, (2011a) interpreted these results as showing a "retroactive priming" effect resulting from precognition. To test the precognition hypothesis, we adapted a standard repetition priming paradigm from psycholinguistics. In the experiments, participants read a set of texts. In one condition, the participants read the same text twice. In other conditions, participants read two different texts. The precognition hypothesis predicts that readers who encounter the same text twice will experience reductions in processing load during their first encounter with the text. Hence, these readers' average reading times should be shorter than those of readers who encounter the target text only once. Our results indicated that readers processed the target text faster the second time they read it. Also, their reading times decreased as their experience with the self-paced reading procedure increased. However, participants read the target text equally quickly during their initial encounter with the text, whether or not the text was subsequently repeated. Thus, the experiments demonstrated normal repetition priming and practice effects but offered no evidence for retroactive influences on text processing.