2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.explore.2015.01.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Anomalous Information Reception by Research Mediums Under Blinded Conditions II: Replication and Extension

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
34
0
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
34
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Data from experiment 2 of the study of Kelly & Arcangel 33 was also excluded from this review because of lack of strict adherence to triple-blind protocol (mediums received pictures from the deceased individuals, many of the sitters were colleagues or friends of one of the investigators, and this investigator knew some of the deceased individuals). Altogether the results of the well-controlled studies included in this review show: (a) in two studies 30,34 (totaling 28 mediums and 102 readings) the sitters' accuracy ratings of specific information from target readings were statistically higher than for decoy readings; and (b) in three 33,35,36 studies (totaling 10 mediums and 44 readings) there was no statistical difference in the fit scores assigned by sitters for the target or decoy readings.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…Data from experiment 2 of the study of Kelly & Arcangel 33 was also excluded from this review because of lack of strict adherence to triple-blind protocol (mediums received pictures from the deceased individuals, many of the sitters were colleagues or friends of one of the investigators, and this investigator knew some of the deceased individuals). Altogether the results of the well-controlled studies included in this review show: (a) in two studies 30,34 (totaling 28 mediums and 102 readings) the sitters' accuracy ratings of specific information from target readings were statistically higher than for decoy readings; and (b) in three 33,35,36 studies (totaling 10 mediums and 44 readings) there was no statistical difference in the fit scores assigned by sitters for the target or decoy readings.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…Although mediumship has been examined scientifically by such great minds as William James and Oliver Lodge since the 1880s (reviewed in Blum, 2006), the current body of research involving mediumship (reviewed in Rock, 2014) includes studies of the accuracy of mediums' statements under controlled conditions (e.g., Beischel, Biuso, Boccuzzi, & Rock, 2011;Beischel & Schwartz, ASSISTED ADC AND BEREAVEMENT / 177 2007; Kelly & Arcangel, 2011;Roy & Robertson, 2004) as well as examinations of their psychology (e.g., Roxburgh & Roe, 2011), physiology (e.g., Beischel, 2013a, Chapter 5), phenomenology (e.g., Beischel & Rock, 2009), and neurobiology (e.g., Hageman, Peres, Moreira-Almeida, Caixeta, Wichramasekera, & Krippner, 2010). This research has demonstrated that certain mediums are able to report accurate and specific information about the deceased using research protocols that eliminate fraud, cold reading, and similar "sensory" explanations for the source of their information (e.g., Beischel, 2007).…”
Section: Mediumship Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Luckily scientific research on control of the source of information and its accuracy from mediums had produced interesting results that show some mediums able to garner information in an unconventional manner and that this information cannot always be acquired through mental connection (telepathy) with those seeking consultation (for a summary see Bastos Jr. et al, 2015;Beischel & Zingrone, 2015). A large part of scientific results in this field can be attributed to Julie Beischel and Mark Boccuzzi of the Winbridge Research Center (Beischel, Boccuzzi, Biuso, & Rock, 2015;Beischel, Mosher, & Boccuzzi, 2017).…”
Section: Acquisition Of Information From Discarnate Identities or Entmentioning
confidence: 99%