/
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200620001-9
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
the refrigerator except when needed for the measurements. The comple-
tion of the hemolysis measurements for the 20 tubes of an experimental
session required one hour.
When the 20th and final tube had been measured, and the results had
been printed, the experimenter notified his assistant that the session was
over. While the assistant went to the subject’s room, the experimenter
made photocopies of the data sheets and of his tube-number schedule.
When the assistant returned with the subject, the assistant photocopied the
subject’s control/protect period sequence sheet. The assistant and the ex-
perimenter then exchanged copies of their respective sequence sheets and
data printouts. These duplicate records were filed for safekeeping by the
assistant and by the experimenter.
^
,
,
The experimenter and the subject then went to the experimenter s of-
fice
and the subject described the techniques used to attempt to influence
the blood cells. After this interview, the experimenter calculated die re-
sults for the experimental session and provided the subject with informa-
tion about the session outcome. This information consisted of verbal and
numerical feedback about the hemolysis rates for the 20 tubes. The exper-
imenter thanked the subject for his or her participation, and the subject left
the laboratory.
Results
When
all 32 experimental sessions had been completed,
the blood
source information was decoded so that a determination could be made of
which subjects attempted to influence their own blood and which
at-
tempted to influence blood from another person. For each session, cfuuige
scores were calculated for each of the 20 blood sample tubes (trials). For
each tube
(trial), the mean of the
initial five AID converter values was
subtracted from the mean of the
final
five A/D converter values. This
change score represented the change in percent hght transmittance from
the first 5 seconds to the last 5 seconds of the
1 -minute trial and provided a
quantitative measure of the rate of hemolysis for a specific blood samp e
tube. For each subject, change scores were available for 10 control tubes
and
10 influence
(protect)
tubes;
for each tube condition,
scores were
available for either 2- or 8-tube measurements during each 15-minute pe-
riod. Using these change scores, a three-factor analysis1
used to test the major hypotheses of the study. In this ANOVA, the three
factors were: blood Source (own
vs.
another’s,
between);
Subjects,
random and nested under Source; and Condition (protect vs.
control,
within). The three experimental questions explored in this formal study
were the following:
,
1. Would the rate of hemolysis (change scores) for the protect tubes
differ from that for the control tubes? Such an effect would be indicated,
in the absence of a significant Condition X
Subjects interaction, by a
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200620001-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200620001-9
Distant Mental Influence of Hemolysis Rate
significant Condition main effect in the ANOVA. Should the Condition x
Subjects interaction effect prove significant, the condition effect would be
examined separately in each of the individual subjects, using appropriate
within-subject error estimates.
2. Would the degree of influence of hemolysis rate differ for the two
blood sources (own cells vs.
another’s cells)? Such an effect would be
indicated by a significant interaction of the Source and Condition factors
of the ANOVA.
3. Would results for the two-tube measuring periods differ from those
for the eight-tube measuring periods, and would the function describing
this two- versus eight-tube effect match more closely the RA or the IDS
prediction?
For the statistical tests, any probability value found to be less than or
equal to .05 would be deemed significant.
The summary table for the ANOVA is given in Table
1, and means and
standard deviations for the various groups and conditions
are given
in
Table 2. The main effects for Condition and Source did not reach signifi-
cance, nor did the Source x
Condition interaction. However, the main
effect for Subjects and the Condition x
Subjects interaction were highly
significant. The former effect, of course, indicates significant variability
in outcome among the 32 subjects of the experiment. The significant Con-
dition x Subjects interaction indicates that the effect of Condition (protect
vs. control) differed from subject to subject; therefore, an interpretation of
the Condition main effect was inappropriate, and individual subject by
subject condition comparisons were called for.
These individual comparisons were made by means of matched
t tests,
computed for each of the 32 subjects. These were calculated by comparing
the hemolysis (change) scores for a subject’s 10 protect tubes with the
scores for his or her 10 control tubes. Individual
t tests were calculated
using separate estimates of variance, instead of using the combined esti-
mate of error variance from the ANOVA, because of the wide spread
among the variances across subjects. The
t scores for the individual sub-
jects are presented in Table 3. The independently significant subjects (i.e.,
those with
|f|
[18] > 2.101, p <
.05,
two-tailed) are indicated by
as-
Table
Analysis of Variance Summary Table
Source
df
SS
MS
F
P
Source (own vs another's)
.
0.3480
0.3480
o.oot
.981
Condition (protect vs control)
2.2278
2.2278
0.461
.503
Subjects
18078.7369
602.6247
297.626
CIO ' 16
Source x Condition
,1
2.6061
2.6061
0.539
.469
Condition x
Subjects
145.1072
4.8369
2.389
.000063
Error
576
1166.2668
2.0248
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200620001-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200620001-9
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for the Percent Change Scores for the
Various Conditions
Blood Source
Control
Protect
Overall Mean
Own
X = 43.63
SD =
5.07
X = 43.36
SD =
5.10
X = 43.50
SD =
5.08
Another’s
X = 43.45
SD =
5.94
X = 43.45
SD =
5.73
X = 43.45
SD =
5.83
Average %
Own/Another’s
X - 43.53
SD =
5.57
X = 43.41
SD =
5.46
X = 43.47
SD m
5.51
terisks.4 The condition effect was significant in 9 of the 32 subjects. This
is to be compared with the 1.6 significant scorers expected on the basis of
chance alone. The probability of observing 9 or more independently sig-
nificant scorers among 32 subjects is 1.91 x
10” 5 (exact binomial test).
In seven of those subjects, scoring was in the direction of psi hitting
(i.e., slower hemolysis
in the protect than in the control tubes);
in two
subjects, scoring was in the direction of psi missing (i.e., faster hemolysis
in the protect than in the control tubes).
In order to determine whether
these nine independently significant subjects show a general tendency to-
Table 3
Scoring Rates (
t
Tests) for Individual Subjects
Subject
-2.17*
1.47
3*
0.31
4*
-1.26
5*
-0.51
1.28
0.39
-1.15
-0.51
10*
-0.25
-0.84
12*
2.52*
2.96*
0.17
-2.79*
16*
-1.52
* Independently significant (p <
.05)
• Indicates “own blood” condition
Subject
19*
20*
21 *
23*
25*
26*
30*
31*
t
1 24
-0.98
2.14*
- 0.68
-1.04
-1.14
3.39*
0.26
3.04*
1.96
-1.46
-0.70
3.08*
2.53*
-1.24
1.10
4 In older to identify significant scorers, a two-tailed test was used, allowing for the possi-
bility of significant psi missing. This was done because the pilot study had yielded a consid-
erable number of scores in the missing direction.
If one wishes to predict only psi hitting, a
enseal
t _
i.73 (p < .05, one-tailed) could be used. By such a hitting-alone criterion, eight
independently
significant
hitters may be
identified (Subject No.
26 now reaches
signifi-
cance). The probability of observing 8 out of 32 independently significant hitters
is 1.39 x
10- 4
.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200620001-9