Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
CPYRGHT
(Hnnnrtnn, 1092).
Additional security measures arc being developed which address
ihe psychological comfort of the involved parties while ensuring that a high level 01
experimental protocol Is met.
There are many factors that come into play within a laboratory experimental
situation that arc never covered in the protocol designed to that describe that
procedure. For example, some participants may not complete all of their forms
before arrival for the session, and may thus be asked to complete them at the lab upon
arrival, immediately prior to the ganzfeld session itself.
If, in fact, a study produces
significant results, and such participants arc among those scoring a large proportion of
hits, does ihis.mean that it is beneficial to have participants fill out formsm the
laboratory because this in some way allow them 10 become liabimaied’ to their
surrounding, and thus more comfortable with the experimental situation? Or is it
more related to the personality type that puls off completing things, such as forms,
until the last moment?
If the reverse is true, and these particular participants score
lower dian would normally be expected, was it because being asked to fill out forms
in tho laboratory silling, possibility causing a sense of 'making everyone wait on
lhem\ made them more self- conscious and thus less like to be open and receptive.
Or, ag»m, would this more likely be related to a personality correlate, such as
mentioned above? What arc the 'magic' experimentcr/subject interactions that am
most likely to help both extroverts and introverts to feel more comfortable In the
laboratory setting?
What types of ’magic' words could be incorporated into pre-
session chat that would facilitate the participants performance? Are the slight
variations in presentation of the ganzfeld experience ro receivers between
experimenters enough to influence the participants reaction to that experience? Are
there gender pairings within experimenter pairs that would prove more conducive
than others? Are men more comfortable with male experimenters, and women more
comfortable with female experimenters? Or do both sexes find it easier to 'open up
to an experimenter of the opposite sex?
It is our view that in the face of the variability of social and psychological
factors that these questions involve, the physical environment of the participant
Should be held as constant and secure as possible to aid in our understanding ot psi
phenomena. We do acknowledge that there is no such thing as a single absolutely
fraud proof experiment and would not claim otherwise. However, il is vital that
experimental protocol that provides a high measure of security be coupled with the
type of warm, encouraging and friendly environment that psi seems to deman
,
n
this way all parties concerned can proceed comfortably with the business of doing
research and learning from each session.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Reference
Honorton, C.
(1985).
Meta-analysis of psi ganzfcld research: A response to Hyman.
Journal of Paramvcholoev, 49, pp. 51 - 91.
Houuiiuu, C. (1992).
Personal communication.
Honorton, C, Berger. R., Varvoglis, M. Qua*
P^rrari
ii
nyy(i)
Psi communication tu the ganzfcld.
Experiments
SSff 2Ei£m and a ***** with a meta-analysis n. natter
studies. IsMBfll of Pai-apsvdiuloav, 54, pp. 99 - 139.
Mackenzie. D. (199».
Attanuation of atrttme sound temxn ““1 “““
Depaiuoeui of Psychology. Edinburgh
University.
Henol-Watt
University
Report No. 003/92, July 13, 1992.
Morris, R. L.
(19X7).
Minimising subject fraud in parapsychology laboratories.
fi^PUman Journal of Par&fl,syChOlQSV> 6* PP- ^7 "
Morris R L
Tavlor R
Cunningham, S., McAlpine, S.
(1993). Towardl ieplicaliuu
^andSon of a“ganoid results.
Paper presented
to.the 360. Annud
Convention of me raiapsycbological Association. Toronto, Canada, Angus
- 19, 1993.
Palmer, J. A.
(1977).
Auitudoa end pereontdigr trait, to
In B. B. Wolman
(fid.), Haadto Pf
PP- 175 ' -0L
Ne
York: Van Nosirand Reinhold.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
SAXC FINAL REPORT
Project No. 93 - DAN 75 Ganzfeld Experiment
Prepared by:
Robert L Morris
Psychology Department
University of Edinburgh
Introduction
This project report describes the completion of Task 3, the conductance of an
experimental study comparing sender and non-sender conditions using an
automated ganzfeld testing procedure.
Development of an appropriate
experimental protocol and the conductance of pilot studies has been described in
reports submitted earlier. Attached is a separate document recently prepared
by "Kathy "Dalton and myself describing in detail the steps taken to develop the
system we used in this study, to answer the reasonable questions raised hy
critics about earlier automated ganzfeld procedures.
Experimental Methods
I).
The main conditions and rationale. There are three conditions;
sender absent, with receiver blind as to sender’s presence or absence;
sender
present, with receiver blind as to sender’s presence or absence; and sender
present., with receiver and experimenter aware of sender’s presence. The first
two conditions are designed t.o provide a tidy comparison of presence and
absence Of sender. Expectation
is the same, for both conditions as no one is
aware of which condition will be used until the receiver preparation is
completed and the session underway. At that time, the sender enters the target
room and is informed by the computer whether to stay and send or leave the
target room. Experimenter and receiver do not learn whether or not the sender
stayed and was active until the session is over and the blind is broken. The
third condition is included to enable ub to examine the role of expectation, and
to provide a condition which more closely replicates the original autoganzfeld
procedures. Every third see si on is in Condition 3; the others are randomly
assigned by the computer system RNG to Condition 1 or 2. The study reported
here was terminated after 72 sessions, to enable the final report t.n he submitted
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
; CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
by the deadline » Further sessions will be conducted) However, until at least 32
have been, conducted under each condition.
2).
Participant population Our participants have been recruited from
the local artistic community, including musicians, visual artists, writers, actors
and dancers, primarily the first two categories. Many were students from local
art schools or the Reid School of Mu6ic, as well as other local individuals with
creative skills who had contacted us through word of mouth, or having seen a
poster, or having taken evening courses with us. All were selected
to have a
positive attitude toward the topic and to have had at least one experience that
they felt might have been psychic in nature. Of the 72 participants, 34 were
males and 38 were females. Ages ranged from 1 7 to 61 , with most in their early
and mid 20’s. Although the earlier ganzfeld participants were on average over
ten year6 older, the highly successful Julliard series as well as the successful
Cunningham pilot study completed in Edinburgh in winter of 1993 hoth drew
from creative sludenL populations.
8).
Targets
All targets were drawn from eighteen target pools of four
targets each, All were dynamic film clips lasting sixty seconds each, a blend of
targets from the earlier pools used in the Honorton autognnzfdd scries, as well
as new material selected and edited by ourselves and described in an earlier
report.
4)
.
Physical Environment.
All sessions have been conducted in the
suite of rooms plus target room that have been previously prepared and
acoustically tested, as described in a previous report and in the accompanying
Dalton report, The target room is 20 meters from the receiver’s room and the
receiver's room is acoustically shielded.
5)
.
Measures of individual differences. All potential participants
filled out a 72-item Personal Information Form (PIF) modelled after the one
used in Honortnn's Psychophysical Research Laboratories. Those selected to
participate also completed the NEO Personality Inventory, plus a six-item open-
ended creativity questionnaire. The NEO has five scales:
Ne.urotici6m,
Extroversion, Openness, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Each has six
subscales.
6)
.
Procedure. The procedure is as described earlier. Participants are
met by the member of staff serving as experimenter (E) and taken to a greeting
room within our suite of rooms. Any questionnaires remaining to be filled out
and/or collected are taken care nf. The member of staff serving as sender (S) is
introduced and participates in an informal chat, followed by explanation ofthe
procedure by E.
S explains the targets and target room, and takes a more
active role under the Honorton Replication Condition, noting that they will
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
definitely be sending. The participant (P) is then shown the Target Boom and
further explanation given by S. In the Sender/No Sender condition, P is told
that, we expect success either way. P is then shown E’s room and taken to the
Ganzfeld room itself, where P settles in to a comfortable reclining chair.
Further instructions are given by E, the microphone and headphones are
attached (checked by P for comfort of sound level), and the eye shields are
attached. E and S give final words of encouragement to P, and then depart.
S proceeds to the target room.
If in the Sender/No Sender Condition, S waits
until the computer system randomly determines which of the two it is and aBks
S on *.ho video screen either to remain and send or leave the room.
If the latter,
S goes elsewhere and engages in some quiet activity,
if S i9 actually sending,
then S reclines in a comfortable chair, dons headphones and goes through the
relaxation procedure that P is experiencing. The sending period follows next,
for just under a half hour. During this time S watches a minute-long film clip
QiaL lias just been randomly selected by the computer system.
It is shown eight
times, with approximately two minute intervals in between. S becomes
absorbed in the contents of the clip and may draw scenes from the clip to
facilitate focussing on it. S can hear P’s impressions and may attempt to
reinforce mentally those impressions that seem to be accurate. S can hear
anything that P says, during both the sending period and the judging procedure
that follows. Once judging is completed and the data entered into the computer,
S rejoins E and P in the experimental suite to discuss the session.
Meanwhile, once E and S have left P. E goes to the experimenter room and
plays a 13-mlnute relaxation tape that is heard by both F and S (if there is an S
for that session).
Following this, P hears while noise and attempts to gain
impressions of the target film, P has been encouraged to speak out loud any
impressions or other mentation that occurs during this time.
All such
mentations as
well as the judging process arc tape recorded for future
reference. E can hear P and write down as much of P’s description as possible.
At the end ofthe impression period (same as the sending period) if there is an
S), E asks P how long the period seemed to last, and then reads aloud P’s
impressions, to remind P and to allow P the opportunity to elahnrate. K then
asks P several questions about their impressions, e.g. any that were surprising,
vivid, unusual, or frequent, asks whether P felt there was a sender, and asks for
an estimate of how deeply into an altered state P felt they had been. E also
rates Fa impressions for abundance, amount of cognitive references, proportion
of impressions that is judgcablc, bizarreness of impressions, lability of
impressions and E’s own expectation of success.
Then P is asked to remove the eye shields and turn on the TV monitor in their
room. The computer then displays all four film dips in the judging pool, to E on
E's monitor and to P on P’s monitor. E and P discuss the four clips, with P
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
noting any correspondences end E then suggesting for P’s consideration any
additional possible correspondences that E noticed but P did not mention. P can
review each clip as often as desired.
H then rates all four dips from one to 99,
doublechecks them, and E enters those ratings into the computer data disk. E
also rates all four clips without telling P. and enters those into the computer as
well. Once the data are stored, the computer reveals the correct target ana
prints out four copies of the data for the session, including all the conditions, the
judgings and the target identity. Thus the data axe stored permanently both on
disk and on immediately generated multiple hard copies. E, P and S convene at
the end ofthe session (even ifthere was no sender) to discuss how it went.
7).
Results
At present, 72 trials have been completed, 24 in the Replication Condition, 25 in
Bend and 23 in No Send. The results for direct hits as rated by the participants
were as follows:
Overall, 32% lriLa, p=.112, h=.15; Replication, 37.5% hits,
p=.121, h=.27; Send, 2G% hits, p=,53, h=.02; and No Send, 32% hits, p-273,
has.16. Although not statistically significant, these results are encouraging.
The Replication Condition results are comparable in percent hits and effect sire
to the earlier Honorton work with Dynamic Targets (40% hits, h=,32). Our
Sender - No Sender Conditions differed from his conditions, so it is difficult to
draw direct comparisons. In general, our overall results compared favourably
with his overall results (34% hits, h=.20). Thus, with even tighter conditions,
we still appear to be obtaining the ganzfeld effect although at this stage not
quite so strongly as Honorton’s group.
Strength of results did not differ significantly among the Lliree sending
conditions either by direct hit or sum ofranks measures. For both measures the
Replication Condition (sender known by all to be present) had the best results
but by a slender margin, with the No Sender Condition next best by direct hit
tally and Sender next best by sum of ranks. With larger N these small
differences might become meaningful, or might disappear entirely.
A second component of our analysis was to compare the Send - No Send direct
hit sessions Lu see if there was any indication that any information coming
through would do so in different ways. Ab described earlier, certain
assessments of the characteristics of the session by P or E were gathered after
the impression period was over but before the judging period began. Two
emerged as significant or nearly so.
P’s were asked to estimate the duration of
the impression period. When the sonder wob present, P’s estimated duration
was 24.17 minutes on average; when there was no sender, the estimate was
only 12.19 seconds CU=3, p<.005, 2-tail). Thus when there was no sender, P's
felt tlie time had paBBed more quickly.
Additionally, E rated each session as to
how mundane or bizarre the impression had seemed to them, with respect to
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
ganzfeld sessions in general, on a seven-point scale. When sender was present,
E rated the bizarreness at 2.5 on average; when sender was absent, E rated
bizarrenftftfl higher, at 3.38 on average. (U«9, p*.06. 2-tail). Thus the absence
ofthe sender seemed to allow more unusual or ‘idiosyncratic imagery tocome
through. With regard to other measures, E’s rating of the lability of
impressions was nonsignificantly higher in the absence of the sender, E s rating
of mentation abundance was nuusignificantly lower in the absence of the
sender; and Ps rating of depth of state achieved was essentially the same
whether or not thee was a sender.
Finally we had asked P to comment on
whether or not they felt a sender had actually been present during the session.
Results were right at chance both when sender wbb present and not present.
Discussion
The above findings suggest that we are obtaining an effect with our
autoganzfeld procedure, despite having taken various measures to tighten the
procedure over those used in previous research. There is evidence as well that
when the sender is present the participant subjectively feels that the experieiiee
is lasting longer and there is more mundane mentation reported. There is also
very weak evidence that when sender is present the impressions are more
abundant and the themes are more consistent, less labile. Combining these
themes, it. may be that when interactive with a sender, more information comos
into awareness but it tends to have a greater component of safe, cohesive,
business as usual imagery, which is added on and may make the session seem
longer.
If there is no sender, at some level one is freer to be off on one’s own and
let fresh
unusual impressions emerge mure naturally. Further data are
needed to examine these trends in more detail,
Future research
The present series will be extended through 96 cessions, ending in mid-June, at
which time the existing trer»d6 will be reanalyzed and a fuller analysis done of
the data as a whole, including an examination of individual differences
correlates both overall and within each condition. Experimenter ratings will be
analysed descriptively as well;
at present E ratings appear slightly more
positive than P ratings, but are not included here as they were not part of a
preplanned analysis. More detailed examination of the mentation reports under
the three conditions will also be done. A followup study building on these
findings is intended, resources permitting. We will also be exploring certain
modifications of the technique to Btreamline it and facilitate replication
attempts hy other researchers, such as shortening the mentation period and
modifying the blind judging protocol. We continue to be impressed by the
ganzfeld as a technique for producing reasonably consistent effects, hut it is
labour-intensive and somewhat expensive to do with proper safeguards.
.5
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
SG1B Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0 Next 18 Page(s) In Document Exempt Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0