Abstract

This paper reviews one of the most methodologically rigorous studies of mediumship conducted to date. On the surface, the statistical procedures used by Julie Beischel and Gary E. Schwartz in the study seem to support the existence of anomalous information reception (AIR), but in fact have been misapplied. Other methodological flaws are fatal, including unaccounted for researcher degrees of freedom, which completely calls into question Beischel and Schwartz’s conclusion regarding AIR. We conclude by proposing an experimental design more appropriate for the small sample sizes typically used in experimental mediumship research. 1. Methodology -- 2. Results (Data and Statistics) - 2.1 Arizona Whole Reading Rating Scale Data (t-Test) - 2.2 Forced-Choice Data (Binomial Test) - 2.3 Item-by-Item Ratings (Untested) - 2.4 Researcher Degrees of Freedom - 2.5 The Source of Bias -- 3. Recommendations -- 4. Mechanisms -- 5. Conclusion