CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 142Paranormal Experiences and BeliefsReligious Studies and Spiritual PracticesPain Management and Placebo Effect

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 81 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Meta-analysis of free-response studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the noise reduction model in parapsychology.

Storm, Lance, Tressoldi, Patrizio E., Di Risio, Lorenzo·2010·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/a0019457
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We report the results of meta-analyses on 3 types of free-response study: (a) ganzfeld (a technique that enhances a communication anomaly referred to as "psi"); (b) nonganzfeld noise reduction using alleged psi-enhancing techniques such as dream psi, meditation, relaxation, or hypnosis; and (c) standard free response (nonganzfeld, no noise reduction). For the period 1997-2008, a homogeneous data set of 29 ganzfeld studies yielded a mean effect size of 0.142 (Stouffer Z = 5.48, p = 2.13 x 10(-8)). A homogeneous nonganzfeld noise reduction data set of 16 studies yielded a mean effect size of 0.110 (Stouffer Z = 3.35, p = 2.08 x 10(-4)), and a homogeneous data set of 14 standard free-response studies produced a weak negative mean effect size of -0.029 (Stouffer Z = -2.29, p = .989). The mean effect size value of the ganzfeld database was significantly higher than the mean effect size of the standard free-response database but was not higher than the effect size of the nonganzfeld noise reduction database [corrected].We also found that selected participants (believers in the paranormal, meditators, etc.) had a performance advantage over unselected participants, but only if they were in the ganzfeld condition.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0019457

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 86 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 142

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Storm, L., Tressoldi, P. E., & Di Risio, L.
Affiliations
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
  • University of Padua (IT)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2010-07
Volume
136
Issue
4
Pages
471-485
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/a0019457
OpenAlex
W2138759936
Cited by
140
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 14
FWCI
1.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Religious Studies and Spiritual Practices
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
Keywords
parapsychology, ganzfeld, noise reduction, extrasensory perception, effect size, meditation, hypnosis, supernatural beliefs
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Dreams, Humans, Hypnosis, Models, Psychological, Parapsychology, Photic Stimulation, Relaxation, Research Design, Telepathy, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Meditation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review