The source presented was trying to address more directly whether there was a difference between precognition and clairvoyance. Precognition, when speaking in terms of parapsychology, is reported skill allowing one to see, sense or feel future occurrences via an extrasensory comprehension. Clairvoyance is the ability to see things that are hidden. In addition, the authors were also trying to find whether the optimal conditions for the two types of ESP, extrasensory perception, appeared to differ. For this source, no hypothesis was presented.
Before beginning the analysis, the authors had decided on choosing specific procedures in order to further their research. The procedures included using studies only published between 1935 and 1997 …show more content…
Such as, outcomes being reported but not procedures, outcomes required a correction for having a "stacking effect" and no data was given correcting this.
In addition, specific instructions were given on how to group the data. For example, clairvoyance and precognition conditions in the same study were considered a pair. In addition to this, if precognition and clairvoyance studies were reported in separate papers, it could be used only if the author had originally intended to compare them. Also, trials that were presented as separate experiments in a single paper were treated as one study, even though trials were executed on different dates without a change in the …show more content…
By comparing clairvoyance and precognition one might have a better overview of whether parapsychological phenomena occur based on this study. Since many studies were discarded, and only 22 pairs of studies were used, this can be utilized to demonstrate how very little is known about parapsychology and further research will have to be investigated. For further research, I could possibly research some of the studies that were excluded from the overall meta-analysis to get a better image as to why they were excluded and have a better overview of the reasons as to why they were
Before beginning the analysis, the authors had decided on choosing specific procedures in order to further their research. The procedures included using studies only published between 1935 and 1997 …show more content…
Such as, outcomes being reported but not procedures, outcomes required a correction for having a "stacking effect" and no data was given correcting this.
In addition, specific instructions were given on how to group the data. For example, clairvoyance and precognition conditions in the same study were considered a pair. In addition to this, if precognition and clairvoyance studies were reported in separate papers, it could be used only if the author had originally intended to compare them. Also, trials that were presented as separate experiments in a single paper were treated as one study, even though trials were executed on different dates without a change in the …show more content…
By comparing clairvoyance and precognition one might have a better overview of whether parapsychological phenomena occur based on this study. Since many studies were discarded, and only 22 pairs of studies were used, this can be utilized to demonstrate how very little is known about parapsychology and further research will have to be investigated. For further research, I could possibly research some of the studies that were excluded from the overall meta-analysis to get a better image as to why they were excluded and have a better overview of the reasons as to why they were