I Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3 Cumulative (terminal) z-scores were examined through the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS] goodness-of-fit test, provided by the PRL analysis-software and presented in the Psilab Manual (1985), and more fully in Knuth (1981, pp.45-58). The choice of the KS was prompted by the suggestion, in the Psilab Manual, that in assessing large amounts of randomness data the KS may be preferable to other, more commonly used statistics. It seemed that, insofar as the KS is sensitive to both local and global departures from theoretical expectation, it could be simultaneously used to examine the adequacy of the RNG, and the presence of any consistent scoring patterns, on the part of the subjects. Essentially, the KS compares the distribution of the observed z-scores against their expected distribution. The degree of “fit” between the empirical and theoretical distributions is summarized by two statistics, K+ and K-, representing the average deviations of the empirical curve below and above (respectively) the theoretical distribution. Results Table 1 summarizes the results at the game-score level, based upon 118 z-scores for each of the four conditions. Depicted are the mean z-score, and the K+ and K- statistics of the KS goodness-of-fit tests. As can be seen from the p-values of Table i no significant departures from theoretical z-score distributions were obtained for feedback or silent data, in either experimental or control conditions. Following Schechter (1987), each Volition game was classified as a "miss" or a “hit" according to the feedback z-score. Using appropriate t-tests, the mean silent z-scores for each type of game were compared to chance and to each other. Both mean silent z-scores were at chance ("miss" i silent mean z=.163, t(61)=1.195, ns.3 "hit" silent mean i z=.042, t(54)=.343, ns). The difference between "hit" and "miss" silent data was not significant (t£(115)=.655, ns). The run-score results are graphically represented in Figure 1 (la and 1b for experimental data, ic and id for matched- simulation data); the frequency of each runscore is plotted against the theoretical baseline (the z=0 line). Table 2. summarizes results from the chi-square goodness-of-fit test, based upon 2360 runs (118 games x 20 runs) for each condition, and comparing the distribution of run-score values for all cells between 36-64 (inclusive) to the binomial theoretical distribution. (Given the number of observations involved, the expected frequency below 36 and above 64 was too low for a chi-square analysis; tail-end cells were collapsed, to maintain expected frequency above 5S). As may be seen from Table 2, the goodness-of-fit analysis shows significantly high variance for the silent- experimental conditions (chi-square (28 d#1] = 47.03, p= -O1). This translates to an effect size of .045 (by 47 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
0700610001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R00 more than double the magnitude of the effect Sizes of the Berger (19@a) Studies (Calculated to be .008e and .02) AS shown in Figure 2, the resurt of 100 extended Simulations for each Condition ("Feedback” and "silent") Showed no excess of Stonificant Chi-square results. When the experimental and matched Simulation data are juxtaposed against the extended Simulations, We see that, While the matched-simulations Showed good overall randomness, the experimental} Silent data lay in the tail-end of the distribution. Discussion SLSCUSS ion The PUFPOSe of this ©€xPloratory Study was to use a Well-standardized Computer-RNG task to examine subjects? psi performance ina Setting quite different from that o¢ the he ji As Suggested by the Ks analyses, there were nO significant departures from the expected distribution Of terminal 2-scores, Despite the (presumably) strong incentive value of & high end-game Score, subjects were apparently Unable to "push" the feedback line to a final result Consistent with their goals (i.e., a large 2-score). In this respect, the nul} end-game feedback results are Similar to those reported in all Previous Volition Studies. on the other hand, insofar scoring in the silent data). Nor do the results provide any Strong Support for the idea that feedback *missers” were with that reported by Schechter (1987), it did not in any Way approach Significance, (It should be noted, however, : that the Present Study’s instructional set, emphasizing i "extremeness" of Scoring, was quite different from that of the PRL study, emphasizing directional] scoring, ) Volition, the researcher Should not focus exclusively upon the €nd-game score to assess psi Performance; at the very least, run-sScore measures should be included, As Berger (1988) has argued, in tests allowing for multiple Subject~interventions, the most immediate "unit of effort” is the “buttonpress*, i.e., the run. Many Subjects who May not be able ty Maintain Consistent performance, may 48 At this point, it seems safe ty State that, in tasks such as - 2R000700610001-3 | Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-0079 |
Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3 nevertheless show short-lived performance "peaks", detectable at the level of the run-score. This, at least, is suggested by the results of the present study. As shown in Table 2, while the matched-simulation run-score data showed good fit to the theoretical distribu- tion, the experimental silent data were significantly deviated from chance. Given that the extended simulations also showed the adequacy of the RNG’s operation, it seems safe to state that the observed silent effect was probably due to psi, and not to some software or hardware artifact. The silent result thus replicates the findings of Berger (1988), who obtained similar run-score effects in the silent data of two Volition studies, as well as in two other studies (using Psi Invaders, another Psilab program). Indeed, the effect size of the silént result of the present study was considerably larger than those of the two Berger studies. Perhaps the psychic contest situation somehow created a psi-conducive dynamic (which, unfortunately, did not-manifest in the explicit task!). Also, it is possible that the screening procedure - the Buddha game - heightened the expectations of those who made it through into Volition, and thus contributed to silent scoring. In general, the present Volition results are conceptually consistent with those of a number of studies, showing more pronounced effects in silent or non-feedback RNG data than in feedback data (Berger, Schechter & Honorton, 19863; Braud, 1978; Palmer & Perlstrom, 1987; Varvoglis & McCarthy, 1986). Insofar as the present experiment took place in a social - psychological context quite removed from laboratory settings, the results lend further support to the idea that silent effects indeed reflect subjects’ experience of the task, rather than deriving from the tacit "demand characteristics" in laboratory settings. Nevertheless, much remains to be done to adequately demonstrate the independence of silent effects from psi-mediated experimenter effects. Despite the unusual testing circumstances of the present study, it clearly cannot be considered a "stand-alone" experiment: there were at least two major ways in which investigator-psi may have shaped the results. First, I myself may have contributed to the results during the unfoldment of the experiment. Of course, I was observing the progression of each game, and hoping for good outcomes. Simultaneously, there were a (highly variable) number of other observers, who, undoubtedly, were harboring mixed feelings toward high scorers (i.e., potential competitors for the first prize). Perhaps, at an unconscious level, I suspected that the only way to get a decent result out of this experiment was through the silent condition - while all the competing observers were busy focusing on the subject’s 49 . Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
40001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R0007006 feedback line. The Possibility Of unintentional experimenter-psi is certainly consistent with the fact that I accidentally Obtained the highest score in the @xperiment, x Second, if we accept the premises Of Observational theories, then we have yet someone else to blame for the silent effects: Rick Berger, Following completion Of this gatudy, and prior to any analysis or observation of the silent results, I sent duplicates of my data to Berger, who had kindly offered to do the run-score JOodness-of-$it analyseg for me, using the Programs with which he had analyzed his Volition and Psi Invaders studies, Thus, in effect, Berger Was the first observer. of the present study’s silent data. If we take the idea of retroactive-pPK Seriously, then it is Possible that the Pattern obtained in the silent data is due to Berger’s Psi, and not tg the contest Participants. In such a case, Obviously, the Current study could not be Considered an independent replication of Berger’s data - just a further confirmation a¢ his psi! In any event, insofar as this is the fifth Volition atudy showing some kind of silent effect, it encourages further exploration of such automated psi tests. The next step, it would seem, would be to collect psi data using a truly "self- standing” System (complete with instructional set, motivational devices, and no experimenter) while assessing any "observational" experimenter effects through split-data analyses, Perhaps such an approach would help us determine whether apparently systematic "errors" in Psi ~ digplace- ments, silent effects, field effects, etc. - are indeed intrinsic to the motivational/informational Characteristics of the psi task (Varvoglis & McCarthy 1986), or whether they Simply reflect investigators’ and subjects’ tacit Construction of the meaning of the experiment (Weiner, 1987), Table 1: Mean-Z scores and Ks Summary Statiatics Exper imental Table 2: Run-score distributions (2360 runs) a. ey Experimental _ Simulation _ Feedback | Silent Feedback /Silent 2 Ae ee oe ete ae ree 50 10001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R0007006 | | | 9 bene 2 eee os 9
i Pe ee Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R0007 0610001-3 Fig.i1: Feedback and Silen i run-score stributions for Experimental and Matched-simulation data FEEDBACK SILENT SIM SILENT Fig 2: Extended "Feedback" & "Silent" Simulations and corresponding Experimental & Matched-simulation results Extended “Feedbock” Simulations Extended “Silent” Simulations = rt eo : | 3 o” oO so ; i] ec} =" So 4s | _———— 3 oo 5 — og " od 20 te ‘ ad J o ' 9 3 F ! 8 . u « Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3 i on] Po