...
首页> 外文期刊>Psychological Bulletin >Reexamining psychokinesis: Comment on Bosch, Steinkamp, and Boller (2006)
【24h】

Reexamining psychokinesis: Comment on Bosch, Steinkamp, and Boller (2006)

机译:重新检查心理运动:评论博世,斯坦因坎普和博勒(2006)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

H. Bosch, F. Steinkamp, and E. Boller's (2006) review of the evidence for psychokinesis confirms many of the authors' earlier findings. The authors agree with Bosch et al. that existing studies provide statistical evidence for psychokinesis, that the evidence is generally of high methodological quality, and that effect sizes are distributed heterogeneously. Bosch et al. postulated the heterogeneity is attributable to selective reporting and thus that psychokinesis is "not proven." However, Bosch et al. assumed that effect size is entirely independent of sample size. For these experiments, this assumption is incorrect; it also guarantees heterogeneity. The authors maintain that selective reporting is an implausible explanation for the observed data and hence that these studies provide evidence for a genuine psychokinetic effect.
机译:H. Bosch,F。Steinkamp和E. Boller(2006)对精神运动学证据的回顾证实了许多作者的早期发现。作者同意Bosch等人的观点。现有研究提供了精神运动的统计证据,该证据通常具有较高的方法学质量,并且效应大小分布不均。 Bosch等。假定异质性可归因于选择性报告,因此“精神动力学”尚未得到证实。然而,博世等。假设效应大小完全与样本大小无关。对于这些实验,这种假设是不正确的。它还保证了异构性。作者坚持认为,选择性报告对于观察到的数据是不切实际的解释,因此,这些研究为真正的精神动力学作用提供了证据。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号