| Abstract/Results: | ABSTRACT:
Parapsychological research findings suggest that the motivations of believers in
psi (sheep) and skeptics (goats) tend to be antithetical. According to Reactance Theory
(Brehm & Brehm, 1981), when an individual’s freedom is threatened through some form
of coercion, reactance usually sets in, which is “a motivational state aimed at restoring the
threatened freedom” (Silvia, 2005, p. 277). Reactance even leads to ‘boomerang effects’
(i.e., noncompliance). It is proposed that sheep comply with experimenter’s instructions,
whereas goats do not, which may explain the so-called sheep-goat effect (i.e., sheep tend
to psi-hit; goats tend to psi-miss). In this study, the effects of reactance on psi
performance is sought in Ertel’s (2005a,b) Ball Selection Test. Specifically, it is proposed
that a reactance treatment (an opinionated communication meant to evoke a reactance
response) affects goats more than sheep, so that goats psi performance will be more
adversely affected than sheep. This proposition is based on the hypothesis that sheep are
less reactant than goats in psi tests because goats are predisposed to disproving the psi
hypothesis which requires noncompliance. The sheep-goat measure to be used in the
study is the Australian Sheep-Goat Scale (Thalbourne, 1995). The opinionated
communication is an adapted text used succesfully by Silvia (2005). In a laboratory setting,
in a single session, participants each complete up to four runs (60 trials/run) of
paranormal target-seeking (i.e., calling numbers prior to selecting unseen numbered ping
pong balls from a black bag). Psi effects will be statistically determined as a percentage of
succesful calls (where PMCE = 20%). Total number of participants to be tested is 150.
Interim results only (N = 53) are as follows: (i) Hit rate was significant for the whole sample
at 21.41% (p = .0002; ES = .04); (ii) Mean hit rate for sheep (21.76%) was higher than goats
(21.23%), but not significantly, F(1, 49) = 0.43, p = .257 (one-tailed); (iii) Reactance
affected scoring in the hypothesised direction, but not significantly, F(1, 49) = 1.19, p =
.140 (one-tailed); and (iv) against our hypothesis, goats were less reactant than sheep, but
not significantly, F(1, 49) = 0.70, p = .204 (one-tailed). The groups are too small, and
therefore they lack power, so no firm conclusions can be made at this stage.
|
Reference:
| Storm, L., Ertel, S., & Rock, A. J. (2010). The Sheep-Goat effect as a matter of compliance vs. noncompliance: The effect of reactance in a forced-choice ball selection test. In Aquém e além do cérebro. Behind and beyond the brain. Proceedings of the 8th Symposium of Fundação Bial (p. 250). Porto: Fundação Bial.
|