A Critical Discourse Analysis of Public Perspectives of Parapsychology on Facebook Utilising Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement
Claire Murphy-Morgan, Lesley-Ann Smith
Imagination, Cognition and Personality December 17, 2025 DOI: 10.1177/02762366251384885 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Qualitative study Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 250 |
| Population | Facebook comments posted in a thread asking 'is there any real evidence of psychic powers?' |
| Measures | Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement |
| Key findings | Argues that in a Facebook debate about psychic powers, Ad Hominem, Contradiction, and Responding to Tone were the most frequent types of commentary, and that participants treated educational institutions as vanguards of 'good science' while giving less consideration to scientific rigour and conceptualising scepticism poorly. |
Abstract
Examining Facebook's role in public discourse about parapsychology is important when considering how science vs pseudoscience is widely understood. Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement is used to assess an existing Facebook thread led by the question ‘ is there any real evidence of psychic powers?’ 250 posted responses are examined for type . Critical Discourse Analysis applying scientific constructivism as a theoretical approach is used to examine most frequent types of commentary. Ad Hominem, Contradiction and Responding to Tone were the 3 most frequently recorded types. Comments evidence perceptions of educational institutions as vanguards of ‘good science’ with less consideration given to scientific rigour. Scepticism is identified as desirable when assessing research but is poorly conceptualised. Further research recommends 1) comparing parapsychology across social media platforms to assess how affordances shape debate; 2) exploring the role of scepticism and 3) examining the public's understanding of parapsychology in the context of science communication.