Ertel, Suitbert

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","424"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Psychological Bulletin"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","433"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","127"],["dc.contributor.author","Storm, L."],["dc.contributor.author","Ertel, Suitbert"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:08:48Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:08:48Z"],["dc.date.issued","2001"],["dc.description.abstract","J. Milton and R. Wiseman (1999) attempted to replicate D. Bern and C. Honorton's (1994) meta-analysis, which yielded evidence that the ganzfeld is a suitable method for demonstrating anomalous communication. Using a database of 30 ganzfeld and autoganzfeld studies, Milton and Wiseman's meta-analysis yielded an effect size (ES) of only 0.013 (Stouffer Z = 0.70, p =.24, one-tailed). Thus they failed to replicate Bern and Honorton's finding (ES = 0.162, Stouffer Z 2.52. p = 5.90 x 10(-3), one-tailed). The authors conducted stepwise performance comparisons between all available databases of ganzfeld research, which were argued not to be lacking in quality. Larger aggregates of such studies were formed, including a database comprising 79 ganzfeld-autoganzfeld studies (ES = 0.138, Stouffer Z = 5.66, p = 7.78 x 10(-9)). Thus Bern and Honorton's positive conclusion was confirmed. More accurate population parameters for the ganzfeld and autoganzfeld domains were calculated. Significant bidirectional psi effects were also found in all databases. The ganzfeld appears to be a replicable technique for producing psi effects in the laboratory."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.424"],["dc.identifier.isi","000170928300007"],["dc.identifier.pmid","11393304"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/26115"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Amer Psychological Assoc"],["dc.relation.issn","0033-2909"],["dc.title","Does psi exist? Comments on Milton and Wiseman's (1999) meta-analysis of ganzfeld research"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","73"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","JOURNAL OF PARAPSYCHOLOGY"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","82"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","66"],["dc.contributor.author","Storm, L."],["dc.contributor.author","Ertel, Suitbert"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T10:31:29Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T10:31:29Z"],["dc.date.issued","2002"],["dc.description.abstract","Most researchers in parapsychological circles and beyond are familiar with the ganzfeld debate, which was revived in a series of articles that appeared in Psychological Bulletin This article is a response to J. Milton and R. Wiseman's (2001) reply to L. Storm and S. Ertel (2001), who took issue with J. Milton and R. Wiseman's (1999a) claim that the evidence for psi in the ganzfeld was not replicable. The authors (Storm & Ertel) argue that in their reply, J. Milton and R. Wiseman (2001) misrepresented the issues raised in R. Hyman and C. Honorton's (1986) joint Communique to their advantage. Milton and Wiseman wrongly took the standards of the Communique as implying low quality of all previous studies and downplayed the accumulated evidence that doubts about the credibility of pre-Communique ganzfeld researchers were unwarranted. They wrongfully belittled statistical significance, an important contributor to empirical evidence, and on mere circumstantial grounds, they ignored the necessity of the bidirectionality test, which is acknowledged as a unique psi indicator. The authors reassess the effect sizes for the various ganzfeld databases and conclude that Milton and Wiseman's critique is essentially out of place. For future ganzfeld and psi research in general, the authors recommend a process-oriented strategy."],["dc.identifier.isi","000174592800004"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/44123"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Parapsychology Press Rhine Research Center"],["dc.relation.issn","0022-3387"],["dc.title","The Ganzfeld debate continued: A response to Milton and Wiseman (2001)"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]