Abstract

Consideration is given to three models that might account for the apparent connection between psi-missing and displacement in forced-choice experiments. The first of these, the motivated avoid ance model, seems inappropriate on several grounds. The present experiment (N = 125) was designed to test two other models: the misdirected focus model and the unmotivated inhibition model. Us ing a clairvoyance design, targets were prepared and listed for only 13 of the 25 required responses per run. If inhibition of the direct target is responsible for occasionally triggering displacement (inhi bition model), displacement should occur only for the calls made on target-present trials. On target-absent calls (blank trial lines), the necessary condition for displacement would be lacking. However, if missing is, to some extent, due to a misdirected focus, both kinds of calls should show displacement. Missers' calls on the target-present trials showed significant (p = .015) above-chance displacement. The trial-based effect size (.0846) was larger than that found in a recent meta-analysis of favorable testing conditions. Missers' calls on the target-absent trials showed significant (p = .02) below-chance dis placement, with an effect size of -.0812. Control scoring of the calls against alternative target sets gave no indication of an artifact. These results, along with other considerations, lend support to an inhibition model for the psi-missing displacement effect and disconfirm the misdirected focus model.