Mind Over Matter? Textbooks Still Shun Telepathy
On this page
How do psychology textbooks teach students about ESP?
Imagine you're a psychology student opening your textbook to learn about the human mind. You flip to a chapter on perception, memory, learning—and then stumble upon a few pages about ESP and telepathy. How did parapsychology end up in mainstream psychology textbooks, and what are professors actually teaching about these controversial topics? In 1991, researchers decided to find out by examining 64 introductory psychology textbooks from the 1980s. What they discovered reveals a fascinating tension between scientific skepticism and academic curiosity.
Most psychology textbooks mention ESP but present outdated, error-filled information.
In the late 1980s, researchers wondered how the next generation of psychologists was learning about parapsychology. Were introductory textbooks—the gateway to the field—giving students accurate, up-to-date information about ESP research? Three researchers decided to find out by systematically reviewing every major psychology textbook they could find.
Two-thirds of psychology textbooks included parapsychology, but most coverage was outdated and superficial, suggesting the field struggled for accurate representation in mainstream academia.
Key Findings
- About two-thirds of the textbooks mentioned parapsychology, but the coverage was disappointing.
- Most discussions were brief and superficial, often just a paragraph or two.
- Worse, the information was outdated—authors were citing research from the 1960s and 70s while ignoring more recent, rigorous studies from the 1980s.
- Many textbooks contained factual errors, apparently because authors were copying information from other textbooks rather than consulting original research papers.
What Is This About?
The researchers collected 64 introductory psychology textbooks published between 1980 and 1989—essentially a decade's worth of the books that shaped how college students first learned about psychology. They carefully read through each textbook, looking for any mention of parapsychology, ESP, or psychic phenomena. For each mention, they analyzed how much space was devoted to the topic, what specific claims were made, how current the research cited was, and what overall attitude the authors took toward the field.
Researchers analyzed 64 introductory psychology textbooks published between 1980-1989 to see how they covered parapsychology topics.
Two-thirds of textbooks discussed parapsychology, but most coverage was superficial, outdated, and contained errors from relying on secondary sources.
How Good Is the Evidence?
67% of textbooks covered parapsychology—a surprisingly high rate showing the topic was considered relevant to psychology education, though the quality of coverage was poor.
Educators argue this reflects responsible skepticism—textbooks should emphasize well-established findings over controversial claims, and brief coverage prevents giving undue credibility to fringe topics. Parapsychology advocates counter that students deserve accurate, current information about ongoing research, not outdated caricatures that misrepresent the field's evolution. Both sides agree that factual errors are problematic, though they disagree on how much space controversial topics should receive.
Mainstream: Textbooks appropriately minimize coverage of unproven phenomena while maintaining scientific skepticism. Moderate: Better coverage would serve students by presenting current research accurately, even if briefly. Frontier: Systematic exclusion of recent parapsychology research represents academic bias rather than scientific judgment.
Many people assume psychology textbooks provide balanced, current coverage of all topics they mention. This study shows that's not always true—textbook authors sometimes rely on outdated secondary sources rather than reviewing the latest research themselves.
To settle questions about educational coverage, we'd need updated analyses of current textbooks, surveys of what students actually learn and retain, and studies comparing different approaches to teaching controversial topics. This study provides a valuable baseline for the 1980s but would need replication with modern textbooks to assess current educational practices.
Two general attitudes pervaded most authors' summary statements on the subject—skepticism about the existence of ESP and open-mindedness—with the hope that future research will resolve the question.
Stance: Mixed
What Does It Mean?
The fact that parapsychology appeared in most psychology textbooks during the 1980s shows how this controversial field once occupied a surprisingly mainstream position in academic psychology. Yet the widespread reliance on outdated secondary sources suggests a curious academic blind spot—authors included the topic but didn't engage seriously with current research.
It's like learning about smartphones from a textbook that only mentions flip phones—technically covering the topic, but missing all the important recent developments that would help you understand what's really happening in the field.
If these patterns reflected broader academic bias, it could suggest that emerging or controversial scientific fields face systematic barriers to fair representation in education. This might influence which research directions students consider legitimate and worthy of pursuit. The study also raises questions about how scientific consensus forms and whether textbook coverage shapes or merely reflects academic acceptance.
Content analysis reveals how scientific information gets filtered through educational materials—what students learn may depend as much on textbook authors' choices as on the underlying research quality.
Understanding Terms
What This Study Claims
Findings
Textbook authors showed both skepticism about ESP existence and open-mindedness toward future research
moderateMost coverage was cursory and did not represent current parapsychological research from the past 10-15 years
moderateApproximately two-thirds of introductory psychology textbooks discussed parapsychology
moderateVarious errors in presentation appeared to result from overreliance on secondary sources
moderateThis summary is for general information about current research. It does not constitute medical advice. The scientific interpretation of these results is debated among researchers. If personally affected, please consult qualified professionals.