So&PPfireed For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
Vol it ion :
In Psilab’s Volition
test,
subjects are provided
with continuous visual
feedback
as to their cumulative RNG
scores through
a graphic
line which moves across the screen,
in short segments.
Each
time the subject presses the button
of
the Apple game paddle,
a 100-bit RNG sample
is taken
and
compared
to an alternating
"target"
bit
stream}
this yields
a run-score with
a mean chance expectation
of
50 and
standard deviation
of
5.
The run-score
is added
to previous
scores and
the cumulative z-score calculated;
this
determines the direction
(upward
or downward)
and slope
of
the new feedback-line segment.
Thus,
above chance scores
tend
to direct
the feedback segment upwards,
below chance
downwards.
With the help
of
trend
lines demarcating chance,
and
plus and minus 2- and
3- standard-deviation thresholds,
the evolving feedback
line represents clearly the cumulative
performance
of
the person
at each moment.
In parallel
to the feedback RNG runs,
each
buttonpress
results
in
a 100-sample silent
run,
as well.
The designation
of relative order
(whether
the first
of
the
two samples
is
"feedback"
or
"silent")
is alternated on
a run by
run basis.
The Volition
task used
in the study was practically
identical
to
that described
in
full
in Berger
It Honorton
(1984),
and Berger
(1988).
Only two differences were
introduced.
First,
through
the Design option,
the game
length was set
at 20 100-sample RNG runs
(in contrast
to
other
investigators*
setting
of
50 or
100 runs).
Second,
at
the beginning
of each game,
subjects were only asked
if
they
prefer
' "Hi-aim"
or
"Lo-aim".
They were not offered any other
options for
"tailoring"
the feedback
to their
preferences;
these options
had been set previously
(with
"graphic
designs"
off,
and
all
other options on).
Buddha Game :
The Buddha Game was written
for
the Amiga
computer,
in the
C
language,
by a programmer who followed
the author’s
instructions.
As
in Volition,
the subject’s
buttonpress results
in
a series of
random bits;
the subject
attempts
to
"sense"
the right moment,
so as
to obtain
the
maximum run-score
possible.
Unlike Volition,
however,
the
random bits are not obtained from
a hardware RNG,
but are
derived from the built
in Amiga random function,
"reseeded"
by
a digit from the Amiga clock.
Essentially,
the game consists of
a series of digitized
images depicting
a golden Buddha statue surrounded
*>y an
electric blue
aura.
Depending on the
rancDi# score detained,
the buddha
image either grows
in size
(giving the
impression
of
an advance toward
the user)
and then turns clockwise,
or
turns counter-clockwise and then diminishes
in size
(giving
the
impression of
a retreat).
Accompanying these movements
is a digitally sampled sound,
vaguely resembling
"Ahhhh",
which decreases
in pitch with
"advances"
and
increases
in
pitch with
"retreats".
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
the
"mid-poJnt- 9 halJ^ 9ame »
the Buddha
is positin
Once the sub?I
’
f way
froi» the first aL P?
J
?ned
at
if
under
t ^ e run5Core
i s over 5
thf II* Serles
of
^dia°r?reSSeS
(runs)
- FonowTnS
1 ^
?ame oons i sts of
22 ^
At
the
time
of
the fair
+ 1
data'^
e
h
f0r
e " teri "9 subjict
P
name«
m "** not
* ini *hed.
No
controlruns"
‘”pUmen^d,
and thare’„as
Et°ri "9 expect
rs=r
- Ei-s - “ri znzvzJK
y are
ready
f or
the Veal"
test?
the pers ° r*
that
Procedure
S:':I
•«-“
,
s?*2d:
t2
iK2
,
t h
o
:
JhT
V6d
Upon arriving
at
the
t aft t
a?
S
f
ed
axplar,at ions
of
the co?te«*
W°Uld either
read
the
as
to what's going on
,?
CDntest,
or would
inquire £L* h
would briefly explain’th®
Was wom*ntar i ly available
£
ther
direct
individuals
Jo ££*
9* neral
ideal
otherwise
t’
,
to await
»u
•
ls
tD the posted e*nia««*7
W1Be »
would
«t*tr,y\lVS
Ch
P*"iip ‘ p*nut ?r:ii%o:^‘|-^."eni
he"
;;
M-
If
interested
tha
llon *
the Buddha gaie
(*3
Pom°
n
w°uld
Pay the cashier
the
*
-ceipta were nu^anadf
s one participant
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
-fin i shed with
the Buddha game,
the next one would
be called
by number,
and
sit
in
-front
of
the Amiga screen.
I
would
then explain
the Buddha game.
There were some variations
in
instructional
set,
from subject
to subject,
as some people
had already been
there
for
a while,
and
had seen several
demonstrations,
while others were newcomers.
Generally,
subjects were told
that
the Buddha game tests their
intuition,
their
ability
to
"sense"
the
right
time for
pressing
the button,
in order
to obtain high scores.
I
used
the analogy
of
a fast-spinning roulette wheel,
with numbers
on
it,
which
the subject
stops,
through his button
press;
if
they stopped
it,
say,
on
"odd"
numbers,
then
the Buddha
would
advance,
if
on
"even",
he would
retreat.
It was
stressed
that
the goal
is
to be consistent
in finding
"odd"
or
"even"
numbers,
and
that
the degree
of consistency would
be signified by
the Buddha’s progress
in one
particular-
direction
(advancing or
retreating).
I
then showed
the
subjects
how to use the
"mouse",
and
stayed
next
to them for
the first few
trials,
until
I
felt
they understood
the
relationship between the Buddha movements,
and
their
scores.
Following these
instructions,
I
would either move back,
and
join
the crowd behind
the Buddha game
player,
or would
turn
to the next Volition player,
i.e.,
the person who
had
already passed
the Buddha game,
and was waiting tor me
to
start Volition.
Meanwhile,
the Buddha game player would go
through
the
psi
task alone,
pressing the mouse-button
repeatedly until
the game ended,
and
the final
z-score was
displayed.
I marked
the score on
their
receipt,
and
then
gave
the person some feedback,
modulating my comments
according
to the absolute
z-scoire.
If
the score was below
1,
I would generally reassure subjects
that
they were
undoubtedly much more
intuitive than
the score suggests;
but
then
I
would
add
that
the contest procedure demands
a
minimum score
of
to continue.
(In
a few cases,
in which
the z-score was over
.9,
and
in which
I
sensed
the person
was greatly disappointed
that
they
had
"just missed the
mark",
I made
an exception
and
allowed
them
to enter
the
Volition test).
With absolute z-scores
of
or
higher,
I
generally created quite
a fuss
(the higher
the score,
the
greater
the fuss),
and concluded by telling subjects that
they could
now participate
in
the contest,
if
they wanted
to,
but
that
they were
not
in any way obligated
to do so.
If
they did decide
to continue with Volition,
they went
to
the cashier,
who collected
the appropriate fee
(*4.00),
and
marked
the word
"Volition"
on the receipt.
The participant
would
then wait
in
the Volition
queue,
or
come directly
to
me,
if
no one was currently playing Volition.
At this point,
I would start
the Volition session by typing
in my
three-character password
(these characters are not displayed
on the screen),
and then register
the participant by
name.
Under
"participant
ID",
I would
type
in
the absolute z-score
obtained
in the Buddha game;
this,
however,
was only done
I Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
after
the first few sessions
had
been completed
(thus Buddha
game scores
are missing for
7 subjects).
ha
I
introduced Volition by stating
that
this test was somewhat
r
?
J
han
the Buddha 9ame,
but
that
their score
?“?? ha
test shDwed
they were
“up for
it-.
I added
that Volition was also more accurate:
the person could
trace
teJt
S
m!Ti
n
?
Pftt?rns with great
precision,
and use these
to
th^Ruddh-
1^ trategies.
It was also explained
that,
whereas
ci.Tid
^
W
f
S str
' Ctly based
intuition,
here,
one
and
-ob
^ US
f
®
" rnental ^nce"
(i.e.,
PK)
approach
and
oblige
the
line
to move
in
the desired direction.
When
the Volition
"aim-
question came
of
-heads-
or
"tails",
in
a coin
toss
subjects could choose either
"hi-aim"
I also stressed
that
this was merely
the feedback
line
insisted
on moving
opposite
to their
choice,
they should
try 'pushing
it
even
fur ther
in
that
d
that
the winner
of
the contest
would
feedback
line departed maximally from
irrespective
of
aim.
up,
i
to
I
used
the analogy
convey that
or-
"lo-aim".
However,
a focusing device;
if
in
the direction
just
"go with
it",
and
irection.
I emphasized
be
the one whose
the baseline.
I
then would
input subjects*
"aim"
choice myself,
using
the
game-paddle,
and would
hand
them
the paddle when
the
Vol
i^ iDn dis P laV
had been drawn on
the screen.
The
uUrt
,
f
H
f
sub i ects ’
first
game was
"manual".
Subjects
till*
ged
t °
Press the button
once,
so they could
see
the
first segment
of
the feedback
line,
and understand
its
movement
in
relation
to
their
"aim"
and
the baseline.
Then
f?rl? llnl*
J
° n
.thSir
°Wn *
Fo11ow *"9 completion
of
the
Ik.Ii..?
*
comroented
or»
the score;
again
the higher
the
bsolute z-score,
the greater
the compliments.
With
low
absolute z-scores
(below
1)
I
sought
to point
to something
?n«
miS
i
n9
ln
t
l‘
e
* eedback curve and attributed declines
to
s
loss
of
concentration.
In
all
cases,
I offered
subj
stating
that
they were entit
with
the best score
of
the
t
The great majority
of
partic
a second
game.
All
were
agai
then
the subject
proceeded,
"manual" mode.
(In
the case
observed
their frustration
i
they
try
the
"automatic"
Vol
scoring would
improve).
In
c
aim;
the
absolute z-scores
(over
1.8)
they were
told
to make sure
night
of
the fair,
when
the
ects
a second opportunity,
led
to
a maximum
of
two games,
wo being used
for
the contest,
ipants did
indeed choose
to play
n
asked for
"high"
or
"low"
as
in the first
game,
using
of
2 subjects,
after having
n
the first
game,
I suggested
itioin mode,
to see
if
their
ases where subjects
had high
in either
of
the two games,
they
return
for
the closing
winners would be announced.
Toward
the end
of
each day
(around
10:00 PM)
the cashier was
instructed
to stop accepting payments for
the Buddha game.
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-F^P96-00792R000700610001-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
After
"running"
the remaining subjects,
the equipment was
turned
off,
and
the front
of
the tent
closed.
The equipment
was
left
in
the
tent overnight,
but
I
took
the Voltion
program and data disks
home with me.
Guards were present
in
the area of
the booths the entire night
(as
all
vendors
would
leave
their merchandise
there),
and one
of
the
organizers slept
in our
tent,
to ensure the safety
of
her
Amiga
(which
she
had
lent me,
for
the screening
test).
At
the end
of
the third
day,
all
z-scores and subject names
were printed
out
on
a sheet,
and
the highest absolute
z-scores singled
out.
With
the help
of
the organizers of
the
fair,
we announced
the winners
Of
the contest,
and
invited
them
to come collect
their
prizes.
In
instances where
a
winner was not
present,
the
individual
with
the
next
highest
z-score was called.
This continued until
the first prize
(a
small
Canon computer)
and
three second prizes
(some posters)
had been distributed.
A
lapse
in
protocol
occurred
in one game,
and
I
was forced
to be
the subject because
I accidentally started
the game
myself.
As mentioned earlier,
I
would
set subjects’
aim.
High aim
is selected
by turning the paddle knob fully
clockwise,
and
then pressing the paddle button.
However,
this knob setting also sets the game which follows on
"automatic"
mode,
whereby
the feedback
line
immediately
i starts moving across
the screen without
any further button
presses.
It was because
of
this that
I
always
input
the
subjects*
"aim"
preferences
(hi-aim,
in
the vast majority
of
cases)
myself.
However,
in
this one
instance,
I must
have
been somewhat
fatigued,
because
I
forgot
to
immediately
turn
back
the paddle
knob,
counter-clockwise,
just after
inputing
the subject’s
aim.
The Volition display came
on,
and,
as
I
was preparing
to hand over
the paddle,
I
saw
(dumbfounded)
the feedback
line move
all
by
itself.
I
immediately
turned
the knob counter-clockwise,
but
the damage
had already been
done,
and
a few runs
had definitely accumulated,
moving the
feedback
line
in
the wrong direction.
Passing this situation
over
to the subject
(who was dreaming about
the first
prize)
would
have been
in
poor
taste,
so
I
was forced
to complete
that game myself.
It
turned
out
to yield
the highest
absolute z-score
in
the experiment
(-2.68).
Simulations
Simulation qames:
The second
night after
the closing of
the
psychic
fair,
I
initiated
a series of matched
"simulation"
games,
provided with
all Psilab
II
software.
Generally,
these simulate sampling and timing conditions of
the game,
but without
a player pressing
the button,
and with no
image
on
the screen.
The Apple and RNG were situated
in the room
in which
I was staying,
and
the simulation,
involving a
total
of
118 games
(the number
of
contest games accumulated
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
(1985)
,
of
the
Manual
,
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
Cumulative
(terminal)
z-scores were examined
through
the
Kolmogorov-Smi rnov
tKSl
goodness-of -f i t
test,
P^ov
|
d ® d ^
the PRL analysis-software
and presented
in
the Psilab Manual
*d more fully
in Knuth
(1981,
pp. 45-58).
The choice
KS was prompted
by
the suggestion,
in
the Psilab
,
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.
Resui ts
Table
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 -f i t
tests.
As can
be seen from the
p-values
of
Table
no significant departures from
theoretical
z-score distributions were obtained
for feedback
or
silent
data,
in either experimental
or control
cond i t i ons.
Fol lowi
classif
z-score
for eac
other
si lent
z= . 042
,
•miss"
ng Schechter
(1987),
each Volition game was
ied
as a
"miss"
or
a
"hit"
according
to
the feedback
.
Using appropriate t-tests,
the mean silent z-scores
h type
of
game were compared
to chance
and
to each
Both mean silent z-scores were
at chance
("miss"
mean
z=.163,
t(61)=1.195,
ns.;
"hit"
silent mean
t (54)=. 343,
ns).
The difference between
hit
and
silent data was not significant
( t
( 1 15) =. 655,
ns).
The run-score results are graphically represented
in Figure
(la and
lb for experimental
data,
lc
and
Id
for matched-
simulation
data)!
the frequency
of each runscore
is plotted
against
the theoretical
baseline
(the
z=0
line).
Table
f
.
summarizes results from
the chi-square goodness-of -f it
tesr,
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
observations
involved,
the expected frequency be ow 36 and
above 64 was too
low for
a chi-square analysis,
tail-end
cells were collapsed,
to maintain expected frequency above
5).
As may be seen from Table
2,
the goodness-of -f it
analysis shows significantly
high variance for
the silent-
experimental conditions
(chi-square
128 dfl =47.03,
p
-
.01).
This translates to an effect size
of
.045
(by
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
converting
the
then dividinTthe°^abiUty value
to a one-tailed
„
"Ore
than <oubJe\hi *ann,?V
he
SI,ua^ *™f M
2 'Score -
r9ef
-
,i988 '
n).
This
is
Sizes
of
the
and
.02)
A _
.
— -wo «na
.02).
As shown
in Figure
=^rs^-^srs^““-
distribution.
S ‘
"•*«
>*y
in
the
ta! , ^nTS?*^
tf>*
Discusefn^
laboratory? ^1*%^ tT
during testing.
‘"‘erections,
and general
imbience
As suggested by the
k'c
»
as thire
r::;°“;
-*i5?«r*o;
i° ths
se
the cumulative%!sr
nCe
tor
a *‘lent liffKt'Zt
?!!*’ ,‘
r"iD< *''
scoring
^^r^^sj^£S?Sr
wsy approach siom a <L?f
«^87),
it „ij „oi
i
nnf ^ J
'
the snt-
n
;amt%t:‘r-
h-
a
Stould Lt^au^
noJF ^‘‘°upts«-?’i?t
e
“te
effort-
ot
be ab,e
tD
»i.^..T^s^i«i:y^":iy
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
Psi lab program).
Indeed,
the effect
size
of
the silent
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 -man i f est
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
6t Honorton,
1986?
Braud,
1978}
Palmer
Jk Per lstrom,
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
i nvest igator-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
f£r
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
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
°f unint»"tion»l
*£”"» haveVt^ep^ ^\Tb?l
r\*‘ l0"* 1 ‘h«ri„
effects:
Rick Beroer
cm 71 7
to blam® +or
the silent
and
prior
to any anaiysi^or ^Sb«°mP
i
?
tion
° f
thl « study,
results,
i
sent duplicates o/™; 7fU
?
n
°*
th* iUnt
kindly offered
to do the run-scored
Ber9* r *
who had
/or
me,
using the programs with
9oodness-o+-fit analyses
Volition
and
Psi
Invaders sturtio^
ha
had
anaI y*sd his
was
the first observer. of
the Dreselt^i
in
a+ * ect *
Berger
I*
wa take the
idea of
retroactive M study's silent
data,
possible that
the pattern obtai^d"?
f* riouB ly.
then
it
is
to Berger’s
psi,
and
not
to the rt
l
^ he sllent data
is due
such
a case,
obviously,
th£ curreni
te
f
t
w PartlClp* r' lM *
ln
considered
an
independent
Study could
not
be
iust
a further caTiT^Ti ‘hU
B*^’ 3 da * a
-
showing some\indd
r
s?rent
effect
he
it Hth Volltlon study
exploration
of
such automated m?**.*? ^ourages further
would
seem,
would be
to collect
osi
def»
Th
?
ne><t
* t#p * U
self-
standing"
system
(tnmnim
P**
, ??ta usln 9 a truly
motivational
devices
and
no i!
? lth
lr»»tructional
set,
any
"observat iona?" Expert men ter ^ef fort
er
*
1# “••"^9
analyses.
Perhaps suchlll!!
effects through split-data
whether apparertVsyst^STwr
hel P «
ments,
silent effects
fiain
P®i
~ displace-
intrinsic
to
the motivational n
" ara
°*
the
psi
task
(Varvoglis
L
Mr-rl
f!"ational
characteristics
simply reflect
i nvest i|ators’ "and ^
?
6)
’
or whether
they
construction
of
the melnina
subjects’
tacit
V
ne meaning
of
the experiment
(Weiner , 1987)
.
Table
is
Mean-Z scores and
KS Summary statist! cs
Experimental
[
f-eedback
Silent
mean-Z
-.016
.092
P
.648
.323
Kt
.57
.22
P
.517
.906
K-
.37
.89
P
. 762
'
.207
Simulation
Feedback
. 108
.233
.21
.917
.89
.203
Si lent
-.014
.632
.70
.378
.78
.295
————
ibutions
(2360
runs)
chi -sq (28
df)
P
Experimental
Feedback
26.47
.55
Si lent
47.03
.01
Si mu 1 a t i on
Feedback
24.08
.43
Si lent
28.37
.68
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
sq[28
dfj
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R00070061Jp001-3 i
Fig.l:
Feedback
and Silent
run-score distribute
for Experimental
and Matched -simul at i on data
FEEDBACK
SILENT
a333444444444488S8&68S&666666
67680123486766012340676601234
333344 4 444 44 4 4000983880836366
67660123486769012346676801234
Hun Score
Fig. la
SIM FEEDBACK
Run Score
Fig. lb
SIM SILENT
raniiMffii
33334444444444888808883666666
67680163486766012346676601234
33334444444444888888888066666
67660123466766012348676801234
Run Score
Fig.lc
Run Score
Fig. Id
Fig
2:
Extended
"Feedback"
k
"Silent" Simulations and
corresponding Experimental
k Matched-simulation results
ExUndtd "Foidbock" Simulation*
Ext«nd*d "SlUnl” Simulation*
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
it tit** tstut