— nm CO me OB Ba ‘Approved For Release 2000{ MEE} -007e9R002200310001. IV DISCUSSION (U) a RV has been demonstrated to be a weak phenomenon such that success on any | : P given stud) <annot be expected 100 percent of the time. The following discussion focuses on three other possibilities for failure to achieve positive results in this study. Wl x. first possibility is that the hypnotic trance was disruptive to the usual RV processes. Since each of the viewers had participated in well over 100 previous RV trials, their particular methods of producing an RV response were relatively habituated. The viewers received no particular training on how to perform under trance, how the RV experience would differ while in trance, or extensive practice with hypnosis RV sessions. It seems reasonable to conclude that the addition of a training period prior to the taking of experimental] data may have produced more positive results. Conversely it may be that the demands of the RV production process are such that the trance state is not at all conducive to producing high-quality RV. If this is so, then a decrease in performance over time might be expected as the viewers become accomplished at trance induction and deepening. Both viewers showed a tendency in the direction of decreasing performance as the study progressed (r = 0.510 with 15 df for viewer # 372, r = 0.348 with 15 df ‘for viewer # 137). In the pilot work mentioned above the viewer produced his responses while in the: waking state using a stimulus word that served as a post-hypnotic suggestion. Further experimentation may show this to be the more efficient protocol, since it dovetails nicely with our standard stimulus-response method of conducting an RV session. A second possibility is that the viewers chosen for this study were not the optimal individuals for this work. While ranking relatively high on the scale of hypnotizibility, these particular viewers were not hypnotic virtuosos. Demonstration of an effect using hypnosis may require the most highly susceptible subjects, corresponding to a score of 12 on the Stanford Hypnotizability Scales. THE A third potential source of interference in the hypnosis task could have been what is known in the parapsychology literature’? as “displacement.” In this instance the term refers to the inability of the viewer to distinguish accurately between elements of the target and elements of its decoys in the target packet. The division of the target pool into 20 packets of five was done arbitrarily for simplicity of judging in another experiment. In prior years a given target 8 Approved For Release 20004 96-00789R002200310001-3 * ve
was randomized with decoys from orthogonal target clusters for judging purposes after the RV session was concluded instead of before the session. Displacement into the other targets in the packet may have occurred, such that the viewer was confused about exactly what constituted the target. To check this possibility, a new set of decoys for each target was randomly chosen from orthogonal target clusters and a second judging was performed by a different judge. The second judging produced marked variability in the ranks assigned and a decline in the sum-of-ranks, with a p-value for the difference in means between the two judgings of 0.08. While this result does not achieve significance at the usual 0.05 level and may be due to judging differences, it could also suggest displacement effects. | In order to address these issues, future experiments should be designed to eliminate these potential difficulties. Specifically, an attempt seems warranted to replicate the results of the successful pilot work mentioned above, where hypnosis was used as a memory aid and targets were randomized with decoys after the viewing. 9 Approved For Release _ ies