Correction to storm, Tressoldi, and di Risio (2010).

Reports an error in "Meta-analysis of free-response studies, 1992-2008: Assessing the noise reduction model in parapsychology" by Lance Storm, Patrizio E. Tressoldi and Lorenzo Di Risio (Psychological Bulletin, 2010[Jul], Vol 136[4], 471-485). In the article, the sentence giving the formula in the second paragraph on p. 479 was stated incorrectly. The corrected sentence is included. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2010-12718-001.) [Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 136(5) of Psychological Bulletin (see record 2010-17510-009). In the article, the second to last sentence of the abstract (p. 471) was stated incorrectly. The sentence should read as follows: "The mean effect size value of the ganzfeld database was significantly higher than the mean effect size of the standard free-response database but was not higher than the effect size of the nonganzfeld noise reduction database."] We report the results of meta-analyses on 3 types of free-response study: (a) ganzfeld (a technique that enhances a communication anomaly referred to as "psi"); (b) nonganzfeld noise reduction using alleged psi-enhancing techniques such as dream psi, meditation, relaxation, or hypnosis; and (c) standard free response (nonganzfeld, no noise reduction). For the period 1997-2008, a homogeneous data set of 29 ganzfeld studies yielded a mean effect size of 0.142 (Stouffer Z = 5.48, p = 2.13 × 10-8). A homogeneous nonganzfeld noise reduction data set of 16 studies yielded a mean effect size of 0.110 (Stouffer Z = 3.35, p = 2.08 × 10-4), and a homogeneous data set of 14 standard free-response studies produced a weak negative mean effect size of -0.029 (Stouffer Z = -2.29, p = .989). The mean effect size value of the ganzfeld database were significantly higher than the mean effect size of the nonganzfeld noise reduction and the standard free-response databases. We also found that selected participants (believers in the paranormal, meditators, etc.) had a performance advantage over unselected participants, but only if they were in the ganzfeld condition.