Linda Walsh wrote:
> I, like Mark, am looking at Intro texts for next fall, and would appreciate
> hearing reactions from any of you who have used Karen Huffman's Psychology in
> Action. Thanks!
>
> Linda Walsh
> University of Northern Iowa
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear Linda,
Our textbook adoption committe considered Psychology in Action, by Karen
Huffman, Mark Vernoy, and Judith Vernoy (published 2000, John Wiley). I read
three chapters, and I identified seven or eight areas in which I thought the
scholarship was poor. I presented these areas to the committee, and they agreed
with me. We did not adopt the book.
The area that prompted the most discussion was the topic of ESP. Huffman et
al. described J. B. Rhine's study on ESP. They wrote:
"Rhine's findings were impressive, but critics have since found fault with his
scientific methodology" (page 128).
I disagree. I do not think that Rhine's findings were impressive. He found
nothing; all he found was that about 5 percent of his subjects scored above
chance, using the .05 level as the definition of chance. To my mind, to call his
findings impressive is misleading. What's more, there is the issue of
presentation. Rhine is clearly named. His opponents are merely anonymous
critics. This style of writing strikes me as giving subtle favoritism to Rhine.
Later in that same paragraph, Huffman et al. write:
"Later experiments that used controls, such as double-blind procedures,
reported contradictory results (Hansel, 1980)" (page 129).
Again, I think this is misleading. The evidence is overwhelmingly against the
existence of ESP. So I was curious to find these contradictory results. I
looked up the reference to Hansel, and it is not in the references. Rhine is
clearly there, but not Hansel. So Rhine's studies are impressive; those of his
critics are contradictory. Rhine's research is referenced; the research of his
critics is not.
Later, Huffman et al. write:
"Rhine himself stated that he never found a person whose ESP power did not
disappear over time (Rhine, 1972)" (page 129).
This statement suggests that ESP powers exist, but when found, the ESP powers
tend to fade over time. Sure, we can suppose that ESP exists. We can also
suppose that psychologist have anti-ESP that causes the abilities to fade. We
can suppose lots of things. But we don't need those suppositions. If five
percent of subjects showed ESP ability at the .05 level, we can safely conclude
that it was due to chance. How can we test this conclusion? We measure the ESP
again. If the results were due to chance, the performance on retesting should
fade. And that is what happens. This lower performance on retesting is a good
example of regression to the mean.
After my sampling of three chapters, I am wary of the level of scholarship in
the book.
However, I will say this. The book does have pretty pictures.
Dave Kerby
Department of Psychology
University of Louisiana at Monroe
Monroe, Louisiana
