Irvin  L.  Quid  Yale  University 
ofZcoj^ep°zt 
at  Maimonides. Medical 
ruer  on  possible  extrasensory  perception  (ESP)  in 
dreams  are  used  to  illustrate  ihfpJTfhfZZZ 
merits  have  received  little  or  no  mention  in  somZre- 
th7v\t0  Wt  y   are,dear/y  Pertinent.  In  others 
they  hove  been  so  severely  distorted  as  to  give  an  en- 
T!?frr,0ne?us  session  of  how  they  were  con- 
ducted. Insofar  as  psychologists  are  guided  by  these 
reviews,  they’  are  prevented  from  gaining  accurate  in- 
about  research  that,  as  surveys  show,  would 
be  of  wide  interest  to  psychologists  as  well  as  to  others. 
In  reecm  years,  evidence  has  been  accumulating  for 
thc  occurence  of  such  anomalies  as  telepathy  and 
psychokinesis,  but  the  evidence  is  not  totally  con 
vmcing.  The  evidence  has  come  lately  from  exrcri- 
ments  by  psychologists  who  have  devoted  their  camera 
*«.  “ontalies,  but  memSsTf 
other  disciplines,  including  engineering  and  physics 
' Cn,Part-  S"*  P^ologists  not  prirS 
frorTo,ht  rapSyfh°lo£y  havc  taken  tiroTSh 
from  other  professional  concerns  to  explore  such 
in  
SS,CS  ^ themseIves- 01  th«e.  some  have  joined 
in  the  expenmentation  (e.g.,  Crandall  &   Hite  1 983- 
W   1981;  Radin,  1982).  Some  have  cSLlv 
“Vi??”  <e*-  Akers-  1»M: 
aSuk  d°ubting  that  ^e  phenomena 
J?af,d  be,  
rca1’  havc  explored  nonrational  processes 
that  might  encourage  belief  in  their  reality  (e  g.  Av 
£5* *   Abt“"-  .'”«>•  Still  others,  & 
sutetanual  enough  to  justify  a   construltive 
thj»rcpcal  effort,  have  struggled  to  relate  the  apparent 
amoTTLalics  to  better  established  knowledge  in  a   way 
that  will  render  them  less  anomalous  (e.g.,  Irwi/ 
"   no,ka"omaJou5  «t  all  (e.g.,  Blackmcre,  1 984).’ 
•bSfvSh( (*£St8  dWa’  Widc,y  “   therr  surmise 
the  evidence  «, 
^mfHlOUS  con!idcratio11  of  apparent  anomalies 
seems  an  essenual  part  of  the  procedures  of  science, 
regardless  of  whether  it  leads  to  an  understanding  of 
new  discoveries  or  to  an  undemanding  of  how  per- 
suasive illusions  arise.  Apparent  anomalies— just  like 
^„^!,nUmCTOUS  obscrval*ons  that  are  not  anom- 
£ous— can  receive  appropriate  attention  only  as  they 
b^ome  accurately  known  to  the  scientists  to  whore 
^ch^b^eiCVanLMUCh  P^wycholosical  re- 
SS  it  is^  °T  ^   
SCnoUS,y  considercd  be- 
use  it  is  either  neglected  or  misrepresented  in  writ 
thcm’ somc 
ES  £^,VCS  m   8   Pnlmc  P^hon  to  mediate 
interaction  between  parapsychologica]  research  and 
micTe”7fflS5|?SyCh0l0gical  In  this 
article,  j  illustrate  this  important  general  nnint  «„•«», 
£tS«J h^i  7  
S’ Itlsacasc  of  especially  great 
interest  but  is  not  unrepresentative  of  how  nsveho- 
logical  publications  have  treated  similar  anoi2ji«. 
The  Maimonides  Research 
November  1985  •   American  Psychologist 
% Jt nUT™  A”oa“-- 
ooouxAKrti/uxni 
The  experimental  evidence  suggesting  that  dreams 
Mui cr* by  Kp  ™ 
tirely  from  a   research  program  carried  out  at  the 
Maimonides  Medical  Center  in  Brooklyn,  New  York 
Among  scientists  active  in  parapsychology  this  pro- 
gram ,s  widely  known  and  greatly  respited.  It  has 
had  a   major  indirect  influence  on  the  recent  course 
ofparapsycholpgicaJ  research,  although  the  great  ex- 
oniy  P^'hie  exception"  ta«  a 
man  ^ fHonortorl’  ^iPPner,  &   UH- 
man  1972]  appeared  in  convention  proceedings  of 
e  men  can  Psychological  Association.)  Much  of  it 
^   
published  in  the  specialized  journals  of  p^a^y- 
chdogy.  The  rest  was  published  in  psychiatric  or  other 
medical  journals,  where  it  would  not  be  noticed  by 
SaSSf"?08^'  Mw°fit  ^   summari^d  in 
‘V  i°°k  (UUman’  ^PPn'r,  & 
,3"'  I973)  “   whlch  *-0  of  the  researchers  were 
joined  by  a   popular  wnter  whose  own  writings  are 
clearly  not  m   the  scientific  tradition,  and  the  book 
departs  from  the  pattern  of  scientific  reporting  that 
characterizes  the  original  research  reports 
1219 
Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08  :   CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08  :   CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 
How,  then,  would  this  research  come  to  the  at-  explained  in  detail  unless  the  percipient  was  a   repeater 
tention  ofpsychologists,sothatits6rKiingsoritserTors  for  whom  that  step  was  not  necessary.  When  ready 
might  in  time  be  evaluated  for  their  significance  to  to  go  to  bed,  the  percipient  was  wired  up  in  the  usual 
the  body  of  systematic  observations  upon  which  psy-  way  for  monitoring  of  brain  waves  and  eye  move- 
cbology  has  been  and  will  be  built?  The  experiments  ments,  and  he  or  she  hid  no  further  contact  with  the 
at  Maimonides  were  published  between  about  1966  agent  or  agent's  experimenter  until  after  the  session 
and  1972.  In  the  years  since — now  over  a   decade —   was  completed.  The  experimenter  in  the  next  room 
five  books  have  been  published  by  academic  psy-  monitored  the  percipient's  sleep  and  at  the  beginning 
chologists  that  purport  to  offer  a   scholarly  review  and  of  each  period  of  rapid  eye  movements  (REM),  when 
evaluation  of  parapsychological  research.  They  vary  it  was  reasonably  certain  the  sleeper  would  be  dream- 
in  the  extent  to  which  they  seem  addressed  to  psy-  ing,  notified  the  agent  by  pressing  a   buzzer, 
chologists  themselves  or  to  their  students,  but  they  The  agent  was  in  a   remote  room  in  the  building, 
seem  to  be  the  principal  route  by  which  either  present  provided  with  a   target  picture  (and  sometimes  acces- 
or  future  psychologists,  unless  they  have  an  already  sory  material  echoing  the  theme  of  the  picture)  ran- 
established  interest  strong  enough  to  lead  them  to  domly  chosen  from  a   px>l  of  potential  targets  as  the 
search  out  the  original  publications,  might  become  message  to  be  concentrated  on.  The  procedure  for 
acquainted  with  the  experiments  on  ESP  in  dreams,  random  choice  of  a   target  from  the  pool  was  designed 
I   propose  to  review  how  tiiese  five  books  have  pre-  to  prevent  anyone  else  from  knowing  the  identity  of 
sented  knowledge  about  the  experiments.  First,  how-  the  target.  The  agent  d   d  not  open  the  packet  con- 
ever,  I   must  offer  a   summary  of  the  experiments;  laining  the  target  until  isolated  for  the  night  (except 
without  that,  my  review  would  make  sense  only  to  for  the  one-way  buzzer  communication).  Whenever 
readers  already  well  acquainted  with  them.  signaled  that  the  percip  ent  had  entered  a   REM  pe- 
The  experiments  at  Maimonides  grew  out  of  riod,  the  agent  was  to  concentrate  on  the  target,  with 
Montague  UUman’s  observations,  in  his  psychiatric  the  aim  of  communicating  it  telepathically  to  the  per- 
practice,  of  apparent  telepathy  underlying  the  content  cipicnt  and  thus  influenring  the  dream  the  percipient 
of  some  dreams  reported  by  his  patients — observa-  was  having.  The  percipient  was  oriented  toward  trying 
tions  parallel  to  those  reported  by  many  other  p>sy-  to  receive  this  message.  'But  of  course  if  clairvoyance 
chiatrists.  He  sought  to  determine  whether  this  ap>-  and  telepathy  arc  both  possible,  the  percipient  might 
parent  phenomenon  would  appear  in  a   sleep  labora-  have  used  the  former — tiat  is,  might  have  been  pick- 
tory  under  controlled  conditions  that  would  seem  to  ing  up  information  directly  from  the  target  picture, 
exclude  interpretations  other  than  that  of  ESR  He  without  the  mediation  c  f  the  agent’s  thoughts  or  ef- 
was  joined  in  this  research  by  psychologist  Stanley  forts.  For  this  reason,  the  terra  general  extrasensory 
Knppner,  now  at  the  Saybrook  Institute  in  San  Fran-  perception  (GESF)  would  be  used  today,  though  the 
cisco,  and  a  little  later  by  Charles  Honorton,  now  head  researchers  more  often  tsed  the  term  telepathy. 
of  the  Psychophysical  Research  Laboratories  in  Toward  the  approx  mate  end  of  each  REM  pe- 
Princeton,  New  Jersey.  Encouraged  by  early  findings  riod,  the  percipient  was  awakened  (by  intercom)  by 
but  seeking  to  improve  experimental  controls  and  the  monitoring  experimenter  and  described  any 
identify  optimal  conditions,  these  researchers,  assisted  dream  just  experienced  (with  prodding  and  question- 
by  numerous  helpers  and  consultants,  tried  out  var-  ing,  if  necessary,  though  the  percipient  of  course  knew 
ious  modifications  of  procedure.  No  one  simple  de-  in  advance  what  to  do  on  each  awakening).  At  the 
senption  of  procedure,  therefore,  can  be  accurate  for  end  of  the  night’s  sleep,  the  percipient  was  interviewed 
all  of  the  experiments.  But  the  brief  description  that  and  was  asked  for  impressions  about  what  the  target 
follows  is  not,  I   believe,  misleading  as  an  account  of  might  have  been.  (The  interview  was  of  course  double- 
what  was  generally  done.  blind;  neither  percipieni  nor  interviewer  knew  the 
The  Experimental  Procedure  identity  of  the  target.)  The  dream  descriptions  and 
. 
 morning  impressions  ana  associations  were  recorded 
A   subject  would  come  to  the  laboratory  to  spend  the  and  later  transcribed. 
night  there  as  would-be  percipient  in  a   study  of  pos-  The  original  research  reports  and  the  popular 
sible  telepathic  influence  on  dreams.  He  or  she  met  book  both  present  a   nura  ber  of  very  striking  similar- 
and  talked  with  the  person  who  was  going  to  serve  as  ities  between  passages  in  the  dream  transcripts  and 
agent  (that  is,  the  person  who  would  try  to  send  a   the  picture  that  happens  to  be  the  night’s  target, 
telepathic  message),  as  well  as  with  the  two  experi-  These  similarities  merit  i  ttention,  yet  thev  should  in 
menters  taking  pan  that  night,  and  procedures  were  themselves  yield  no  sense  of  conviction.  Perhaps  any 
  . 
   transcript  of  a   night’s  dreaming  contains  passages  of 
Requests  for  reprints  should  be  sent  to  Irvin  L.  Child  at  the  Dc-  striking  similarity  to  any  picture  to  which  they  might 
partmem  of  Psychology,  Yaic  University,  p.Q  Box  I   ia.  New  Haven,  be  compared.  The  Maimonides  research,  however, 
Connecticut  06520-7447.  consisted  of  carefully  planned  experiments  designed 
1220Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08  :
Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08  :   CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 
to  permit  evaluation  of  this  hypothesis  of  random 
similarity,  and  1   must  now  turn  to  that  aspect. 
Results 
To  evaluate  the  chance  hypothesis,  the  researchers 
obtained  judgments  of  similarity  between  the  dream 
content  and  the  actual  target  for  the  night,  and  at  the 
same  time  obtained  judgments  of  similarity  between 
the  dream  content  and  each  of  the  other  potential 
targets  in  the  pool  from  which  the  target  had  been 
selected  at  random.  The  person  judging,  of  course, 
had  no  information  about  which  picture  had  been 
randomly  selected  as  target;  the  entire  pool  (in  du- 
plicate) was  presented  together,  with  no  clue  as  to 
which  picture  had  been  the  target  and  which  ones  had 
not.  That  is,  in  the  experimental  condition  a  picture 
was  randomly  selected  from  a   pool  and  concentrated 
on  by  the  agent,  and  in  the  control  condition  a   picture 
was  left  behind  in  the  pool.  Any  consistent  difference 
between  target  and  nontarget  in  similarity  to  dream 
content,  exceeding  what  could  reasonably  be  ascribed 
to  chance,  was  considered  an  apparent  anomaly. 
The  data  available  for  the  largest  number  of  ses- 
sions came  from  judgments  made  by  judges  who  had 
no  contact  with  the  experiment  except  to  receive  (by 
mail,  generally)  the  material  necessary  for  judging 
(transcripts  of  dreams  and  interview  and  a   copy  of 
the  target  pool).  For  many  sessions,  judgments  were 
also  available  from  the  dreamer,  he  or  she,  of  course, 
made  judgments  only  after  completing  participation 
in  the  experiment  as  dreamer  (except  in  some  series 
where  a   separate  target  pool  was  used  for  each  night 
and  the  dreamer's  judgments  could  be  made  at  the 
end  of  the  session).  For  many  sessions,  judgments  were 
made  far  the  dream  transcripts  alone  and  for  the  total 
transcript  including  the  morning  interview;  for  con- 
sistency 1   have  used  the  latter,  because  it  involved 
judges  who  had  more  nearly  the  same  information  as 
the  subjects. 
The  only  form  in  which  the  data  are  available 
for  all  series  of  sessions  is  a   count  of  hits  and  misses. 
If  the  actual  target  was  ranked  in  the  upper  half  of 
the  target  pool,  for  similarity  to  the  dreams  and  in- 
terview, the  outcome  was  considered  a   hit.  If  the  actual 
target  was  ranked  in  the  lower  half  of  the  pool,  the 
outcome  was  considered  a   miss.  The  hit-or-miss  score 
is  presented  separately  in  Table  1   forjudges  and  for 
subjects  in  the  first  two  data  columns.  Where  infor- 
mation is  not  supplied  for  one  or  the  other,  the  reason 
is  generally  that  it  was  impossible  for  the  researchers 
to  obtain  it,  and  for  a   similar  reason  the  number  of 
cases  sometimes  varies.1 
Of  course,  usable  judgments  could  not  be  obtained  from  the 
■ubject  in  precognitive  sessions,  because  at  the  time  of  judging  he 
or  she  would  already  know  what  the  target  had  been.  For  Lidc  F, 
the  single  subject  was  unable  to  give  the  extra  time  required  for 
judging,  and  for  Line  O   one  of  the  four  subjects  failed  to 
Each  data  row  in  Tabic  1   refers  to  one  segment 
of  the  research,  and  segments  for  the  most  part  arc 
labeled  as  they  were  in  the  table  of  Ullman  et  al.  ( 1 973, 
pp,  275-277).  Segments  that  followed  the  general 
procedure  I   described — all-night  sessions,  with  an 
agent  concentrating  on  the  target  during  each  of  the 
percipient's  REM  periods — are  gathered  together  in 
the  first  eight  lines,  A   through  H   
(in  five  of  these  seg- 
ments, all  but  A,  C,  and  H,  a   single  percipient  con- 
tinued throughout  a   series,  and  in  four  of  these  the 
percipient  was  a   psychologist).  Other  types  of  segments 
are  presented  in  the  rest  of  the  table.  Lines  1,  J,  and 
K   summarize  precognitive  sessions;  here  the  target 
was  not  selected  until  after  the  dreaming  and  interview 
had  been  completed.  The  target  consisted  of  a   set  of 
stimuli  to  be  presented  directly  to  the  percipient  after 
it  had  been  selected  in  the  morning.  Lines  L   and  M 
represent  GESP  sessions  in  which  the  percipient’s 
dreams  were  monitored  and  recorded  throughout  the 
night,  but  the  agent  was  attempting  to  transmit  only 
before  the  percipient  went  to  sleep  or  just  after,  or 
sporadically.  Line  N   refers  to  a   few  clairvoyance  ses- 
sions; these  were  like  the  standard  GESP  sessions  ex- 
cept that  there  was  no  agent  (no  one  knew  the  identity 
of  the  target).  Finally,  Line  O   reports  on  some  GESP 
sessions  in  which  each  dream  was  considered  sepa- 
rately; these  formed  a   single  experiment  with  four 
percipients,  comparing  nights  involving  a  different 
target  for  each  REM  period  with  nights  involving  re- 
peated use  of  a   single  target. 
Regardless  of  the  type  of  session  (considering  the 
five  types  1   have  described),  each  session  fell  into  one 
of  two  categories:  (a)  pilot  sessions,  in  which  cither  a 
new  dreamer  or  a   new  procedure  was  being  tried  out; 
these  appear  in  lines  H,  K,  and  N,  or  (b)  sessions  in 
an  experimental  scries,  planned  in  advance  as  one  or 
more  sessions  for  each  of  two  or  more  subjects,  or  as 
a   number  of  sessions  with  theaame  dreamer  through- 
out. Most  of  the  researchers’  publications  were  de- 
voted to  the  results  obtained  in  the  experimental  se- 
ries, but  the  results  of  the  pilot  sessions  have  also  been 
briefly  reported. 
A   glance  at  the  score  columns  forjudges  and  for 
subjects  is  sufficient  to  indicate  a   strong  tendency  for 
an  excess  of  hits  over  misses.  If  we  average  the  outcome 
for  judges  and  for  subjects,  we  find  that  hits  exceed 
misses  on  every  one  of  the  15  independent  lines  on 
which  outcome  for  hits  and  misses  differs.  (On  Line 
E   hits  and  misses  occur  with  equal  frequency.)  By  a 
simple  sign-test,  this  outcome  would  be  significant 
beyond  the  0.000 1   level.  I   would  not  stress  the  exact 
value  here,  for  several  reasons.  There  was  no  advance 
judgments.  In  a   few  of  the  pilot  sessions  (Lines  H,  K,  and  N)  only 
the  subject's  judgment  was  sought,  and  in  some  sessions  only  that 
of  one  or  more  judges;  in  a   few  the  mean  judges'  rating  was  neither 
a   hit  nor  a   miss  but  exactly  at  the  middle. 
November  1985  *   American  Psychologist 
1221 
Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08  :   CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2
Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08  :   CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 
Table  1 
<o  B.  Judged  M»  Urn  Target 
6ub*»ct»‘ 
lorfuKAngfronj 
Mtei  Htt 
fiirfijjrf 
Gomwi 
GESP:  Dreams  monitored  and  recorded  throughout  night;  agent  "transmitting '  during  each  REM  period 
A.  1st  screening  7  5  10  e 
         
... 
B.  1st  Erwin 
C.  2nd  screening 
D.  Posin 
E.  Grayed 
F.  2nd  Erwin 
G.  Van  de  Castle 
H.  Pitot  sessions 
T   -   0.71*  2   -   7.  33* 
*   -   2.53*  z   *   1.90* 
*   -   “.25*  z   m   7.77* 
z   -   1.05e  2   -   lise 
z   -   -.63°  z   «   0.1  >3* 
f-  4.93* 
/  “   2.8V 
t  *=  2.74* 
14  42 
Z   =   4.20*  Z   -=  2.2 76 
Ullman,  Krippner,  & 
Fetostetn  (1966) 
Ullman  et  al.  (1966) 
UUman  (1969) 
UMman  (1969) 
Ullman,  Krippner,  & 
Vaughan  (1973) 
UUman  &   Knppner 
(1969) 
Krippner  &   Ullman 
(1970) 
Ullman  et  ai.  (1973) 
Precognition:  Dreams  monitored  and  recorded  throughout  night;  target  experience  next  day 
i.  1st  Bessent  7 
 i 
 -  ^ 
J.  2nd  Bessent 
K.  Wot  sessions 
t  -=  2.01* 
t  -   2.27* 
y 
a:  «   0.67* 
Krippner.  Ullman.  & 
Honorton  (1971) 
Krippner,  Honorton,  & 
Ullman  (1972) 
Ullman  et  al.  (1973) 
GESP;  Dreams  monitored  and  recorded  throughout  night;  agent  active  only  at  beginning  or  sporadically 
L.  Sensory  bombard-  8  0  4  4  z   =   3.11b  -   _   « J.. 
M.  Grateful  Dead 
z-0.61c  z   *=  0.81 
Krippner,  Honorton. 
.Ullman,  Masters,  & 
Houston  (1971) 
Krippner,  Honorton,  & 
Ullman  (1973) 
Clairvoyance:  Dreams  monitored  and  recorded  throughout  night;  concealed  Urget  known  to  no  c*>e 
N.  Pitot  sessions  5 
 r>  A 
 c   •   « 
~     
   
   
 5  z   -   0.98  z   -   0.00*’  Ullman  et  al.  (1973) 
O.  Vaughan,  Hams*  105 
Paris© 
GESP:  Single  dreams 
74  79  z   *   0.63* 
z   «   -.3: 
*»«  p^-rv.  . 
Supwidpt*  indiciB  ^   unrtom’  •ntwwJ  in  mis  uwe.  and  rnmac 
• 
 WtWCh  WftS  *V*Ut*>.  #1  OTd#T  Of  pOOfttV. 
R*t*^*'  flankn^t.  Score  (count  of  hrta  end  rrts***). 
Honorton,  Krippner,  & 
Uttman  (1972) 
**noe  of  judgments  In  •   mom 
J   ieboniory  reports  were  efso 
plan  to  merge  the  outcomes  for  judges  and  subjects. 
oreover,  the  various  senes  could  be  split  up  in  other 
ways.  Although  l   think  my  organization  of  the  table 
is  very  reasonable  (and  I   did  not  notice  this  outcome 
until  after  the  table  was  constructed),  it  is  not  the 
organization  selected  by  Ullman  et  al.  (1973);  their 
c,  i  evaluated  statistically  in  this  same  way,  would 
not  yield  so  striking  a   result.  What  is  clear  is  that  the 
cn  cncry  toward  hits  rather  than  misses  cannot  rea- 
sonably be  ascribed  to  chai 
atic — that  is,  nonrandom- 
semblance  of  dreams  to  ta 
Despite  its  breadth,  thi 
to  vary  greatly  in  streng 
dreams — Line  O — suggest 
other  extreme,  some  separi 
impressive.  I   will  next  con 
mately  evaluate  the  relative 
ice.  There  is  some  system- 
“Source  of  anomalous  re- 
rget. 
s  “hitting’’  tendency  seems 
th.  The  data  on  single 
no  consistency.  At  the 
ite  lines  of  the  table  look 
sider  how  wc  may  legjii- 
statistical  significance  of 
Approved  For  Release  2000/08/08  :   CIA-RD^V§^