Experimenter effects and the remote facilitation of attention focusing: Two studies and the discovery of an artifact

Journal of Parapsychology, The, March, 2002 by Caroline Watt, Claire Brady

**********

Some researchers have noted that certain parapsychologists have a tendency to get positive psi results whereas others tend to obtain chance results (e.g., Kennedy & Taddonio, 1976; Palmer, 1997). Several different mechanisms have been proposed to account for this effect. For example, experimenter personality and other physical characteristics may vary so that participants will respond differently to different experimenters. Some experimenters may be better at eliciting psi from their participants than others, by creating a more psi-conducive atmosphere (e.g., Honorton, Ramsey, & Cabibbo, 1975; Schneider, Binder, & Walach, 2000). In addition, if the participant believes in the possibility of psi, perhaps they are more likely than the disbelieving participant to respond to positive suggestions of success from the experimenter. It is also possible that experimenter effects may reflect experimenter psi. Also, some experimenters may use different methods, some of which are more psi-conducive than others. lastly, some experimenters may be more adept than others at selecting participants likely to be able to demonstrate psi in experiments (Parker, Frederiksen, & Johansson, 1997).

Clearly, the question of experimenter effects in parapsychology is a complex one. Careful research is needed to untangle these possible contributory factors. One notable attempt to do this is with the collaborative studies of skeptic Richard Wiseman and psi proponent Marilyn Schlitz. Each had conducted studies into remote detection of staring, using electrodermal activity (EDA) as the dependent variable. Wiseman had obtained null results, whereas Schlitz had obtained positive results. Aware that there might be differences in how they conducted their experiments and in the kind of participants they recruited that might contribute to this apparent experimenter effect, Wiseman and Schlitz conducted a series of joint studies in which they used the same experimental equipment and procedures and the same pool of participants, thus controlling for these factors. Each acted as remote observer for their participants. Their findings continued to replicate the pattern of their earlier research, with Wiseman obtaining nu ll results and Schlitz obtaining positive results (Wiseman & Schlitz, 1997, 1999).

The experimenter effect obtained by Wiseman and Schlitz could be due to experimenter psi or differences in experimenter--participant interaction (or a combination of both), as the two differ in their personality, physical characteristics, and their prior beliefs about psi while their studies controlled for differences in participant population and methods. The two also differ in their prior reputation as having a track record of positive psi results versus a record of null psi results, and this too may have been a factor in their experimenter effect.

The present research aims to build on Wiseman and Schlitz's work by eliminating differences in experimenter/influencer variables by using a single experimenter and influencer (Caroline Watt [CW]) throughout. CW has a mixed research track record of occasional positive and more often null psi results, and she regards herself as on the positive shade of neutral in attitude towards psi. The studies aim to restrict any possible experimenter effect to one factor: the participants' prior perception of the psi research "track record" of their experimenter. This was achieved by asking participants to read a short article that either portrayed CW as having a previous history of positive psi results (positive expectancy condition) or as having a track record of null psi results (negative expectancy condition). This attempt to influence participants' expectancies about their experimenter's previous psi research track record is similar to several previous parapsychological studies in which participants' expectancies and a ttitudes have been varied. For instance, Layton and Turnbull (1975) exposed participants to either a positive or a negative evaluation of ESP prior to ESP testing and found, for one of their two experimental series, that the positive group had higher ESP scores than the negative group. Prior to ESP testing, Taddonio (1975) gave participants written instructions that included suggestions about the past performance of participants on the task. As predicted, the group that expected to score above chance scored significantly better than the group that expected chance scoring.

In the present study, during the presession chat, CW attempted to treat the participants identically, with the exception that for the positive expectancy condition she suggested to participants that she had previously been successful with this kind of research and was optimistic for a positive outcome. This suggestion was not made in the negative expectancy condition. The aim was to simulate what probably goes on in the majority of parapsychology experiments. That is, all experimenters, even skeptical ones or those with a track record of null results, presumably attempt to be friendly and set their participants at ease. It is likely, however, that proponents or those with a history of positive results are more likely to make implicit or explicit positive suggestions for success than skeptics or those with a history of null results.