John Jackson © UK-Skeptics

In 1852, psychologist William B. Carpenter identified a third category of unconscious action: ideomotor action.

What is the ideomotor effect?

Ideomotor actions are unconscious, involuntary motor movements that are performed by a person because of prior expectations, suggestions or preconceptions.

Dowsing rods

The classic example is that of dowsing. Dowsers usually hold their rods out in front of them so that they are parallel. When they come across whatever it is they are trying to detect (usually water), the rods will cross over at that point.

A complete novice who is told that water is beneath the ground at a certain point will find that as they cross the point, their dowsing rods will deflect or cross. This is because they know where the point is and they subconsciously move their hands slightly, which crosses the rods.

The important point to stress is that this is done unconsciously. The person who is crossing the rods does not realise that they are themselves doing it; in fact, it feels as if some external force is acting upon the rods, which makes the experience even more powerful.

This can be shown to be ideomotor action by:

• Blinding the test subject as to where the water is. They perform no better than chance at dowsing water if they don’t know where it is beforehand.
  
  
• Suggesting to the test subject that water lies in a certain place: perhaps with a false demonstration. It is found that if they believe water to be present, the dowsing rods will cross whether water is there or not. This shows that it is the preconception that causes the effect and not the presence of water.

The same effect is achieved by asking a pendulum to swing north-south to answer “yes” and east-west to answer “no” to a question. It is the subconscious moving of the person’s hand that dictates which way the pendulum will swing.

The scope of the ideomotor effect.

The ideomotor effect was first recognised as early as the beginning of the 19^th century, although Carpenter did not name it as such until 1852. It came to be recognised when scientists looked into 19^th century fascinations such as dowsing, pendulums, (non-fraudulent) table tipping in séances, automatic writing, Ouija boards etc. It being a non-paranormal explanation for the results of these practises.

In more modern times, the ideomotor effect has shown itself to be prevalent in medical quackery, especially in the diagnosis of ailments. Radionic devices; chiropractors’ rubbing plates; applied kinesiology; and radiesthesia, medical dowsing often with crystals; are examples of where the ideomotor effect is what is actually going on rather than real medical diagnosis.

Another disturbing area where the ideomotor effect shows up is in the pseudoscientific practise of “facilitated communication”. This is where people who are otherwise unable to communicate, due to say autism or cerebral palsy, have their hand held over a keyboard by a person known as a “facilitator”. When asked questions, the disabled person is now able to communicate with help from the facilitator by typing out answers on the keyboard.

Of course what is really going on is that it’s the facilitator who’s giving the answers; albeit unconsciously.

Summary.

1. The ideomotor effect causes small, unconscious motor movements because of the person’s expectations, preconceptions or suggestibility.
2. The person is not aware that they are causing the movements; therefore they ascribe the movement to an external force or power. The movement feels unnatural.
3. The “external forces” perceived are usually thought of as being paranormal in nature.
4. The effect is real and therefore can be repeated. This can lead to self-reinforcement of the paranormal explanation of the effect, which can create a belief in some special paranormal ability.
5. Once a belief is formed and reinforced, the believer does not usually ever give it up. Dowsers, healers, etc., who continually fail to pass objective, scientific tests do not give up their belief: they tend to make (often fantastical) excuses for their failures rather than accept a rational explanation for their “ability”.

Conclusion.

The ideomotor effect has been known for over 150 years, yet it is still not a widely known phenomenon. It tends to be used, rightly, as an explanation for dowsing and the Ouija board. Its scope however, is much wider than that and it should be a more widely known explanation for delusions, especially those of medical quacks.

The ideomotor effect is a classic example of how we can be fooled by our senses and ourselves. Many people believe in things because they have experienced them for themselves; they trust in the perceived infallibility of their senses.

The ideomotor effect is just one example of why we should use objective, scientific testing rather than rely on subjective, personal experience to work out what is real and what is not.

John Jackson © UK-Skeptics

Von Osten believed that animals possess an intelligence that is equal to that of a human. In his quest to prove this he attempted to teach animals, including a cat and a bear, how to do simple calculations; however, it was only Hans who showed any ability.

Hans’s intellectual abilities included performing mathematical calculations, telling the time, identifying musical intervals, and naming people. Before long, Hans was doing more complex calculations such as square roots. Hans was not always correct, but was correct so often that his ability required investigation.

Testing Hans.

Clever Hans

Hans had been tested by many people, one even claiming that Hans had the intellectual ability of a fourteen year old boy, but the first scientific testing was done in 1904 by Professor Carl Stumpf.

Stumpf was looking for evidence of cheating or trickery to explain Hans’s ability: he found none. Subsequently, Stumpf endorsed Hans’s ability as genuine. With this scientific endorsement, Hans became a sensation and people flocked to see his demonstrations.

Other scientists, however, remained sceptical.

In 1907, Oskar Pfungst, in collaboration with Stumpf, re-tested Hans in a classic case of psychology. A group of thirteen scientists was assembled, known as the “Hans Commission”.

Hans did have an ability of some kind; the psychologists designed experiments to find out what this ability was. No evidence of cheating was found, although they did find an answer to the phenomenon.

Hans was tested inside a large tent to avoid outside distractions such as spectators. The tests were designed so that:

• A large number of questions were used to eliminate the effects of chance;
• Different questioners were used in case Hans was picking up signals from von Osten;
• The questioners sometimes knew the answers to the questions they were asking, other times they did not;
• The questioners would stand at different distances from Hans during different trials;
• Some trials would be run with Hans blinkered.

The test results.

The first thing that became apparent was that Hans needed visual contact with the questioner in order to answer correctly. The further away the questioner was, the less accurate he became. When Hans was blinkered, his ability to answer was diminished even further.

The other major finding, was that Hans could only answer correctly if the questioner also knew the answer to the question. When the questioner did not know the answer to the question, Hans could not find the answer.

The fact that Hans could only answer questions when he could see a questioner who knew the answer, led the psychologists to realise that Hans wasn’t using intelligence to work out the answers, but was responding to visual cues given by the questioner.

The questioners were not consciously giving off cues, Hans was simply responding to an increase/decrease in the questioners’ tension, facial expression, or other involuntary movements produced when they were aware that Hans had reached the right answer.

Conclusions.

What the psychologists realised, was that a person’s or an animal’s behaviour can be influenced by subtle and unintentional cueing on the part of a questioner. The effect is now known as the “Clever Hans effect”.

This effect has implications in all interactive situations. This is why scientific tests, notably clinical trials, are done “double blind” (where neither the questioner/experimenter nor the subject is aware of the information required/treatments given).

The “Clever Hans effect” is why tests, which are not done double blind, can give positive results: it is also why they should not be considered to be reliable.

Unconscious cueing from testers introduces bias into testing. The effect is an important one to appreciate.

The story.

Melanie’s mother called her one Sunday in a panic stating that she had a bird trapped in her loft or somewhere under the eaves. It must have got trapped sometime on Saturday, as that’s when it started to make a noise. Thankfully for her mum, the bird seemed to sleep until morning.

On Sunday, it was making one hell of a racket; she could hear it calling out and flapping its wings. After going outside to inspect further, Melanie’s mum could see the bird’s beak now and then as it was attempting to poke its head out from under the eaves.

Melanie contacted the RSPCA on her mum’s behalf and asked them if they could help. They wanted more specific information as to the bird’s whereabouts however, before they would send someone out; so Melanie went around to her mum’s to investigate.

When she got there, Melanie had to agree with her mother that it did make a lot of noise; only the bird sounded exactly like a smoke detector with a flat battery. Problem solved.

How did the “bird” seemingly go to sleep during the night? Answer at the bottom of the article.

The lesson of the story.

This is a classic example of how our senses can deceive us. Whenever sensory information is scant, our brain has a tendency to fill in the missing information as best it can. Melanie’s mum heard the bleeping of a smoke alarm with a flat battery. Being hard of hearing, and never having heard a flat smoke alarm before, she interpreted the sound as the squawking of a bird. As the squawking continued she assumed that the bird was trapped. That is entirely understandable.

Now, once mum thought that this bird existed, she also heard it flapping its wings and when she went outside to look for it even saw it poking its beak out. Again though, this is nothing unusual. We have an inbuilt tendency to interpret things in accordance with our expectations.

Melanie’s mum truly believed that this bird existed because she’d heard it, then seen it.

A comparison.

Many people truly believe that they have seen a ghost, a UFO, Nessie, or Bigfoot. The critical question is: did they really see what they thought they had seen or was it their brain filling in information? Either way it will seem just as real to them.

It is quite easy to accept that the “bird in the loft” didn’t really exist, as an explanation for it was found. The problem with transient sightings such as ghosts etc. is that the explanation is not usually found: it can only be speculated. Without a solid explanation, people find it hard to accept that their experience may be down to their interpretation of events rather than being real.

This humorous example shows just how easy it is to form a wrong conclusion through the unconscious misinterpretation of sensory information. People who report having seen or heard unusual things are undoubtedly sincere, but may well be mistaken.