WHICH COMES 1ST, MISSING OR DISPLACEMENT

Consideration is given to three models that might account for the appa rent connection between psi-missing and displacement in forced-choice experiments. The first of these, the motivated avoidance model, seems inappropriate on several grounds. The present experiment (N = 125) was designed to test two other models: the misdirected focus model and th e unmotivated inhibition model. Using a clairvoyance design, targets w ere prepared and listed for only 13 of the 25 required responses per r un. If inhibition of the direct target is responsible for occasionally triggering displacement (inhibition model), displacement should occur only for the calls made on target-present trials. On target-absent ca lls (blank trial lines), the necessary condition for displacement woul d be lacking. However, if missing is, to some extent, due to a misdire cted focus, both kinds of calls should show displacement. Missers' cal ls on the target-present trials showed significant (p = .015) above-ch ance 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 = .0 2) below-chance displacement, with an effect size of -.0812. Control s coring 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.