Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 75
75
TABLE 1 Meta-Analysis of Expectancy Mediation
EXPECTANCY - BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR - OUTCOME
Effect 8ESD Effect BESD
Variable Size (r) From % To ~ Size (r) From Z To %
Accepts ideas .28 36% 64% -- am_ ___
Asks questions .17 41% 59: .24 382 62:
Correc Live feedback .24 38% 62: ~
Distance .20 40Z 60% .45 28: 72%
Encourages .09 46X 54% .41 30% 70:
Eye contact .11 44% 56% .32 34: 66%
Gestures -.04 52% 48% .31 35: 66%
Input .26 37% 63% .33 33% 67:
Interaction duration .17 41% 59% .46 27: 73%
Interaction frequency .21 40% 60% .21 39% 61%
Negative climate .29 36: 64% .36 32% 68Z
Nods .20 40: 60Z - --- ---
Off-task behavior .19 40: 60% .43 29% 71%
Positive climate .21 39% 61% .40 30: 70%
Praise .12 44: 56X .12 44% 56:
Smiles .12 44% 56% .29 351 65:
Speech rate .04 48% 52% .48 26% 74Z
Wait time --- --- --- .18 41% 59%
NOTE: A positive ef feet size means that the result was in the predicted
direction (more positive behaviors shown toward high expectancy
students). Table adapted from Harris & Rosenthal (1985~.
OCR for page 76
m
5
o
A:
X
Or
5
P
~ :,
0 ~ cn
A.
. to N
_ P. (D
CD
P.
It
~ 5
P. 0
~ 0
:'
of
Y.
3 ~
as
0
B
~ A.
9: 5
Pa
rt
0
N
ED
- '0q
P ~
0q P
to - .
D
r
~3
.
(
Io
cn . .
en 0
{D ~ {D
B ~
or ~ ~
X ~
. far
o
Ah
0 5 ~
~ ~ 5
As ~ P
u, ~
P
0
m B
let 5
~ It)
o
ED
In
~-
N
tD O
~ O
-
~ _
`0 ~ :~
~ ~ C
_
_ ~
rt
5
~D
1 1
_ · · -
_
co
_ _
£
u,
1, o 0
~.
s
3
'
p
~D
r'
N
i'
~-
~r
P.
~-
N
1~
11
.
.
· · · ~
O ~ ~ ~
cr~ ~n
~ O O
O X
&
B
~:
~ ~c ~
~ 0
O - ~&
ta) X
~r rt
- e ~ - .
0 5 0
~w
rt ~
B5
- -
- ~n~
~ ~ _ cs~
~ ~,
~ e
S
0
0
oo
o
c
-
p
x
o
C) C~
P
^
_
P
-
- ~
~ p
c~ ~
-
tn
5
e
cn
. ~ .
~ _
C tn
a, ~
5
e
· · · · · · ~
1 ~s
~D O ~ ~ O
— _ ~n
o 0 ~__ _ _ 1tz
~:
0 0 0 0
oo ~
~ cn
~ r
o
rt
o
c
p
u, cn
:- :e
oo r r
~ ~ ~3
P,
00 0
0
- - ~
CX}
_ ~
5
~ ~-
#0
B
&
0 ~
C "s
~ 0
0 ~
0
~D
(D
~ X
~ 5 9,
P ~ ,~.
0 ~ 0
~ P
0
oo
~s
~:
~ P ~ ~
{D e ~ c
P —. ~ —
~r 0 ~r 0
- e - . - . -
O ~ O ,t
O O
P
~S
. ~
P
~ X
0q -
o
0
0q
0
o
W
~ _~ t.~~ O~ ~ 0` _ O
m~ ~ ~ ~n ~
~ ~ ~ 0O ~ C~ ~ ~n _l ~ CO _ CX)
~n ~ ~ O ~ ~
~3
D
p
:-
0
0
- -
oo
~ 0
~ a
tD
c
a,
o
C~
.
x
w
tn
X
B
:,
C
P
"s
P ~
(D
t
P
w
~ P
0
OCR for page 77
77
TABLE 3 Stem-and-Leaf Plot and Statistical Sugary of Ganzfeld Studies
Employing Criterion of Direct Hits
Cohen' ~ h
S_ Leaf Sugary Statistics
1.4 4 . Maximum 1.44
1.3 3 Quartile (Q ~ .42
1.2 Median 3 (i] ~ .32
1.1 Quartile1 (Q11 .08
1 . 0 Min imum - . 93
9 Q ~ Q .34
.8 ~3: [.~5(Q3 ~ Q1) .26
.7 3 S .45
.6 Mean . 28
.5 8 N 28
.4 0 2 2 2 4 Proportion positive sign .82
.3 1 2 2 4 4 7 8 Z of proportion positive 3.40
.2 2 Combined Stouffer Z 6.60
. 1 3 8 8 t tes t of mean Z 3.23
.0 7 7 9 Correlation between h and Z .86
-
-.0 5 Correlation between h and raw i 98
-.1 0 Number of studies with mean Z = 0.00
-
-.2 required to bring combined results
-.3 2 to ~ > .05 423
-.4 0 *
Confidence Interval s
-.6 f _ t
-.7 80% .17 .39
-.8 95X .11 .45
-.9 3 99% .04 . .52
99.9: -.03 ·59
*
where N = 28 studies
Unweighted; weighted mean = . 23
OCR for page 78
78
TABLE 4 Proportion of Studies Reaching Critical Levels of Significance
for Two Research Areas
-
Expected Expectancy Gansfeld
Interval for Z Proportion Researcha Research Difference
.
Unpredicted
Direction
-1.65 and below .05 .03 .07 +.04
__ Significant
-1.64 to +1.64 .90 .60 .50 -.10
Predicted Direction
_
+1.65 and above .05 .36 .43 +.07
3
..
+2.33 and above .01 .19 .25 +.06
+3 . 09 and above .001 .12 .18 +.06
+3.72 and above .0001 .07 .04 -.03
a N = 345 studies; from Rosenthal ~ Rubin (1978).
N = 28 studies ; from Honorton (1985~.
OCR for page 79
Table 4a
Ef feet on Effect Size (h) of Removing Studies by Sargent
Me an
Median
Sargent ' s Studie s (N=9 ~ . 3 0 . 37
Analysis by Studies
Including Sargent (N=28) .28 . 32
Omitting Sargent (N=19) .26 . 32
Dif f erence . 02 . 00
Analysis by Investigators
Includi ng Sargent (N=10) .23 . 32
Omitting Sargent (N=9) .22 . 34
Dif ference . 01 - . 02
OCR for page 80
79
TABLE 5 Situational Taxonomy of Human Performance Technologies
Human Performance Techno logy
Mental. Biofeed-
SALT NLP Prac t ice back ESP
Mean effect
size (r) .2g .~7 .~3 .~3 .~4
N of studies on which our
analysis is based 6 8 60 20 28
Approximate number of
studies in population 30 15 100 2300 28
Exogenous Factors
Random assignment no yes yes yes yes
Es blind to condition no rarely no rarely yes
Adequate comparison
groups or values no yes sometimes sometimes yes
Mean length of inter- 32 1 hr 9.4 ses-
action per study hours signs
Endogenous Factors
26 30
days trials
Self-expectancies
important? yes no yes yes maybe
Climate of E/S very warm/ neutral thera- neutral
interaction warm therapeutic peutic
Overall quality rating _
~ 10
very poor fair fair
9
13 19
good very good
"Residual' effect size .00 .16 .18 .10 .09
Representative terms from entire chapter:
effect size
