Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

A Methodological Critique of a Test of the Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field

Philip A. Schrodt
The Journal of Conflict Resolution
Vol. 34, No. 4 (Dec., 1990), pp. 745-755
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/174187
Page Count: 11
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($40.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
A Methodological Critique of a Test of the Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field
Preview not available

Abstract

The test of the effects of the "Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field" by Orme-Johnson et al. which appeared in the December 1988 issue of the Journal of Conflict Resolution contains several substantial methodological problems. First, the measurement of the critical independent variable governing whether an effect should be found does not correspond to the most obvious interpretation of the theory, an interpretation used in later studies of the same theory. If population is measured using geographical radius rather than political boundaries, the observed effects should not have occurred, yet the study finds them anyway. In addition, the study did not adequately control for the possibility of reverse causation (the effects causing the treatment) or properly test for the possibility of spurious relationships. Because validation of the theory would contradict virtually the whole of contemporary understanding of causality in social behavior, insistence on such additional measurement specifications, controls, and statistical tests prior to publication would not have constituted unreasonable "censorship" of the research in question.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
745
    745
  • Thumbnail: Page 
746
    746
  • Thumbnail: Page 
747
    747
  • Thumbnail: Page 
748
    748
  • Thumbnail: Page 
749
    749
  • Thumbnail: Page 
750
    750
  • Thumbnail: Page 
751
    751
  • Thumbnail: Page 
752
    752
  • Thumbnail: Page 
753
    753
  • Thumbnail: Page 
754
    754
  • Thumbnail: Page 
755
    755