Approved For Release 2003/01/09 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200480001-5 V_ RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of the meta-analysis are presented here, where possible, in quantitative analytic terms, and various interpretations are discussed in detail. In addition, items that cannot be analyzed are discussed from a qualitative perspective. The analysis proceeds in a top-down fashion in accordance with the hierarchy shown in Figure 1. A. Overall Results The overall analysis was conducted from three different perspectives: (1) All of the data, regardless of the purported skill of the subjects, (2) A subset of the data contributed by an experienced group of viewers, G/ (i.e., long-term, generally accepted expert viewers—002, 009, 131, 372, 414, and 504) (3) All of the data except for the group G/ (i.e., All-G1). Table 2 shows the number of trials n, total z score, p value, and effect size d for informational and putative causal processes and for the combination of the two. Pa Table 2 STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MAJOR CLASSES Psychoenergetics 25,449 9.37 3.69 (-21) 9,825 6.86 3.46 (-12) 15,624 6.53 3.46 (-11) Informational 24,450 9.07 §.83 (-20) 9,702 6.69 1.14 (-11) 14,748 6.25 1.96 (~10) 6.39 (-03) 1.99 (+02) 2.95 (-02) * Powers-of~ten are shown in parentheses. 11 Approved For Release 2003/01/09 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200480001-5
Approved For Release 2003/01/09 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200480001-5 The number of trials shown in Table 2 differs slightly from those shown in Figure 1. A few trials in each category were analyzed from a post-hoc point of view and therefore have not been included in the formal analysis. The heterogeneity of effect size within each group for all classes is very large (i.e., the chi-squares for within-groups were large). This is to be expected for such a global analysis and is frequently seen in meta-analyses of psychological data. The sources of the within-group variation include the psychoenergetic skill level of the subjects and fundamental differences between psychoénergetic tasks. The data, regardless of subjects or process, show strongly significant evidence for psychoenergetic functioning (» S 3.69 x 10-21). Both the informational and putative causal processes show significant evidence of psychoenergetic functioning, as well. Since p values are strongly dependent upon the number of trials, the modern trend in meta-analysis is to consider the trial-independent measure of effect size. From this point of view, the magnitude of the psychoenergetic functioning appears roughly constant for all the data shown in Table 2, and, according to Cohen's criteria for the interpretation of effect size,” corresponds to small effects.6 The method of calculating overall effect size, however, involves a weighted average (see Table 1) and thus may not provide an accurate picture of the size of the psychoenergetic functioning within a given category. To obtain more insight into the nature of the functioning, we must examine the data within each category. B. “Results for Categories Within the Informational Process Table 3 shows the number of trials, total z score, p value, and effect size for categories within the informational process. The data show strongly significant evidence for psychoenergetic functioning for all categories regardless of subjects. The effect size, however, begins to demonstrate category differences. The forced-choice effect size (d = 0.052) is equivalent to the overall effect size shown in Table 2 (d = 0.059). Since the forced-choice category accounts for 77% of the total number of trials, the effect-size averaging technique biases the overall result. For example, the effect size (d = 0.209) for the RV~Lab category is significantly larger than for the Forced-Choice case (X? = 22.70, v= 1; p <= 6.63 & 10-6). The RV-Lab effect sizes meet Cohen’s criterion for a medium-sized behavioral effect. * Values of 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 correspond to small, medium, and large effects, respectively. 12 Approved For Release 2003/01/09 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200480001-5
Approved For Release 2003/01/09 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200480001-5 Table 3 STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR INFORMATIONAL CATEGORIES Category Perspective Forced-Choice All 19,675 7.42 6.12 (-14) G1 9,487 5.82 2.92 (-09) All-G1 10,188 4.69 1.39 (-06) RV-Search All 3,790 2.61 4.53 (-03) G1 - - - All-G1 3,790 2.61 4.53 (-03) * Powers-of-ten are shown in parentheses. For the RV-Lab category, the experienced group, GJ, performs significantly better than the novice, larger group (X? = 7.63, v = 1; p < 0.0057). As in the overall analysis, the data analyzed in Table 3 show a large heterogeneity of effect size within each category. The heterogeneity of effect size, however, is significantly reduced for the experienced subjects in the RV-Lab category. This reduction may result from a more uniform skill level of the subjects in group GJ; this is in general agreement with our qualitative assessment of their abilities. Only 8.5% of the remote viewing operational trials were analyzed as a formal experiment. The effect size for these exceeds Cohen’s definition of a large effect. The intelligence requirements of operational remote viewing, however, are less dependent upon the quality of the viewing than they may be on other factors. Excellent remote viewing does not necessarily imply good intelligence information. Because of the usual sensitivities associated with intelligence data, obtaining evaluations of the operational remote viewing has continued to be difficult, Approved For Release 2003/01/09 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200480001-5
Approved For Release 2003/01/09 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200480001-5 In the RV-Search category, 91.3% of the data were collected under laboratory conditions by novice subjects. The remaining trials were conducted under conditions, and analysis is not available. The small effect size (d = 0.042) is commensurate with that found in other laboratories, and may reflect our lack of understanding about how to elicit this form of psychoenergetic functioning. Cc. Specific Results for Remote Viewing In this section we address the specific questions posed in the SOW. In any kind of an investigation where the general results fall under a statistical regime (i.e., z scores less than about 5), no hard definitions exist for definitive conclusions. The problem is confounded in behavioral science because many factors, beyond the particular independent variable in ‘question, may significantly alter the outcome of an experiment. In trying to assess a large body of literature, as more constraints are placed on the outcomes, fewer within-group trials are available for analysis; thus, statistical conclusions become more difficult. This is also true for psychoenergetic research. Yet, it is possible to describe trends, to suggest ways of improving experiments based upon earlier results, and to obtain clear insights into factors that may affect psychoenergetic functioning. To ensure the most reliable interpretations of results in what follows below, group Gl has been used for the quantitative discussion. As was shown in Section V.-B, this group possessed the most homogeneous set of data for the RV-Lab category and demonstrated a significant amount of remote viewing ability. 1” Selection/Screening The selection of individuals who are able to accomplish remote viewing both in an operational setting and in the laboratory is of paramount importance. As is shown in Section V.-B., above, group G/ provides the best results for both types of remote viewing. Throughout the history of the program at SRI, 6 individuals have been able to demonstrate consistent functioning over a long period of time. This does not mean that, after vigorous searching, only 6 have been found. Rather, given our applications-oriented charter for most of the time period in question, we had little impetus to find other viewers. During fiscal years 1986-1988, it became clear that a greater number of talented viewers was needed for both applications and research. 14 Approved For Release 2003/01/09 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200480001-5