Skip to main content

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

📄 Original study ↗
Beischel, Julie, Boccuzzi, Mark, Biuso, Michael, Rock, Adam J • 2015 Modern Era • mediumship

📌 Appears in:

⚡ Mediumship 📖 Deep Dive Ndes Consciousness

Plain English Summary

Can psychic mediums really pick up information about deceased people? This study put twenty mediums to a tough test -- five layers of blinding that shut down every normal explanation, from cold reading to experimenter bias to fraud. Each medium got nothing but a dead person's first name over the phone. Blinded raters then tried to tell their own reading from a decoy. The results were striking: mediums scored accurate details 53% of the time versus 37% for decoys, and raters correctly identified their reading 66% of the time (chance is 50%). The effect size matched an earlier 2007 study almost exactly. The catch? All data comes from one lab, so independent replication would really strengthen the case.

Actual Paper Abstract

Context: The examination of the accuracy and specificity of information reported by mediums addresses the existence of non-local information transfer. Objective: This study was designed to replicate and extend a previous methodology achieving positive findings regarding the anomalous reception of information about deceased individuals by research mediums under experimental conditions that eliminate conventional explanations, including cold reading, rater bias, experimenter cueing, and fraud. Design: Mediumship readings were performed over the phone under blinded conditions in which mediums, raters, and experimenters were all blinded. Participants: A total of 20 Windbridge Certified Research Mediums WCRMs participated in 86 readings. Main Outcome Measures: Accuracy and specificity were assessed through item scores, global reading scores, and forced-choice selections provided by blinded sitters. Results: (1) Comparisons between blinded target and decoy readings regarding the estimated percentage accuracy of reading items (n ¼ 27, P ¼ .05, d ¼ 0.49), (2) comparisons regarding the calculated percentage accuracy of reading items (n ¼ 31, P ¼ .002, d ¼ 0.75), (3) comparisons regarding hits vs. misses (n ¼ 31, P o .0001 and P ¼ .002 for different reading sections), (4) comparisons regarding global scores (n ¼ 58, P ¼ .001, d ¼ 0.57), and (5) forced-choice reading selections between blinded target and decoy readings (n ¼ 58, P ¼ .01) successfully replicate and extend previous findings demonstrating the phenomenon of anomalous information reception (AIR), the reporting of accurate and specific information without prior knowledge, in the absence of sensory feedback, and without using deceptive means. Because the experimental conditions of this study eliminated normal, sensory sources for the information mediums report, a non-local source (however controversial) remains the most likely explanation for the accuracy and specificity of their statements. Key words: Medium, mediumship, anomalous information reception, blinding, non-local, replication

Research Notes

Most rigorously blinded mediumship accuracy study in the literature, with five levels of blinding that address all major conventional explanations. Replicates Beischel & Schwartz 2007 global score (both d = 0.57) and forced-choice (both p = .01). All data collected by Windbridge group; no independent replication exists. Funded by Windbridge Institute and BIAL Foundation.

Twenty Windbridge Certified Research Mediums performed 96 phone readings (86 usable) between 2009 and 2013 in three experiments of increasing rigor. Under quintuple-blind conditions eliminating cold reading, rater bias, experimenter cueing, and fraud, mediums were given only a discarnate's first name. Blinded sitters scored target and decoy readings. Calculated item accuracy was significantly higher for targets (52.8% vs. 36.6%, p = .002, d = 0.75), hits vs. misses showed large differences (chi-squared = 66.69, p < .0001), global scores favored targets (2.88 vs. 2.09, p = .001, d = 0.57), and forced-choice selections were significant (38/58 = 65.5%, p = .01). Results replicate the original 2007 AIR study.

Links

DOI: 10.1016/j.explore.2015.01.001

Related Papers

Replication Of

Same Research Program

Companion

Cited By

Also by these authors

On the Correspondence Between Dream Content and Target Material Under Laboratory Conditions: A Meta-Analysis of Dream-ESP Studies, 1966-2016

Storm, Lance • 2017

More in Mediumship

People Reporting Experiences of Mediumship Have Higher Dissociation Symptom Scores Than Non-Mediums, But Below Thresholds for Pathological Dissociation

Wahbeh, Helané • 2018

The measurement of regional cerebral blood flow during glossolalia: A preliminary SPECT study

Newberg, Andrew B • 2006
📋 Cite this paper
APA 
Beischel, Julie, Boccuzzi, Mark, Biuso, Michael, Rock, Adam J (2015). Anomalous Information Reception by Research Mediums Under Blinded Conditions II: Replication and Extension. Explore. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2015.01.001
BibTeX 
@article{beischel_2015_anomalous,
  title = {Anomalous Information Reception by Research Mediums Under Blinded Conditions II: Replication and Extension},
  author = {Beischel, Julie and Boccuzzi, Mark and Biuso, Michael and Rock, Adam J},
  year = {2015},
  journal = {Explore},
  doi = {10.1016/j.explore.2015.01.001},
}