Abstract

Some experimenters whose research is properly rigorous usually find significant evidence of psi; other experimenters usually find nonsignificance. Either of 2 explanations (not mutually exclusive) can account for this difference. One explanation is the psychological experimenter effect. Experimenters can, by tone of voice and other nonverbal cues, create a warm experimental climate in which Ss are at ease, interested, cooperative. This mood permits Ss to feel free and work well. Since psi is a natural ability, they are likely to show psi. Other experimenters, by tone of voice and other nonverbal cues, create a cold climate with expectation of failure. Their Ss feel inhibited and are unlikely to show psi. The other explanation is that an experimenter gifted in ESP or PK can temporarily transfer the ability to Ss, who then make high scores. These experimenters are psi-conducive; those who create a warm climate are merely psi-permissive. Psi-conducive experimenters who hop!e to support an invalid hypothesis could produce high scores that apparently confirm the hypothesis. The discussion proposes methods of damage control and suggests some research with the psi-conducive that might lead to understanding psi-inhibitory experimenters.