CPYRGHT
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Experimental Procedure
The basic experimental design was the same
for both «Pe"^
tS '
exceptions
to this are outlined foUowing
at
were greeted by the experimenter
® ^hev were treated
in a warm
Science Applications Internationa
‘
period/ the experiment
and friendly way. af^^f/were encouraged to ask any questions and to
imderstand^the nature of the study.
They were "2*^
ZZL
with whom theywould be woridn^ an
",e'e
randomly selected periods,
try to get their attention or wake Uiem up am
g
r.
Qf images Qr
Efforts were made during
this p
er jn order to startle or excite the
, thoughts that might be useful to
hvDOthesized direction
Observees.
Hence, the participants
of
of the effect, although they were bhn
Braud,
et.
al studies during
the sampling periods.
This
differe
, observers were instructed
which no direction of effect was
yp
rather than trying to influence
t0 simply look at
* a pre
fpeSLTdSn “ase/ on
previous
research on
remote
mental
influences reported by Braud and Schlitz (19
).
Three rooms were used for the experiment
experimental session, each v°*“nt®
d
r
eiectrodes attached to the palm
where they were seated in a
et al studies, they
of their non-dominant hand.
As
,
with their dominant hand,
were asked to complete the experimental to-jj
a video tape called
keeping their non-dominant hand as shll
P
anied by a musical
Illuminations, which provides amorphous colors «c
ad £ones in the
sound track, was played for the volunteer on toe VCR
P
constant
experimental room.
The
% connected to the
throughout the experiment. Thi
the remote observation effect.
The
experimental
camera would be on throughout the session,
Observee was told that the via
„, a 4.rv,in cr them through the monitor m
but that the remote Observer would be
. |
•
d times
The Observee
the distant room orJy at certain randomly detenmned
which
was asked not to try to guess comciously when mosej^ ^ ^ wg wgre
Observee was kept
,fblind
) might be oc
^
might be associated
exploring whether unconscious physiological reactions
g
with RO.
The experimenter (MJS) left the subject alone^n
™
om ,
and moved to the c°mPut
^
r
:h^iect^ode conductance.
Following
this, she
The experimenter checked
t
started the Illuminations videotape, and
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: (§IA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
CPYRGHT
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
influence of extraneous sounds that might influence the “se"efhp q* ewert
through the computer room, crossed the hallway, and entered
t
roomfadvising the Observer that the session was about to begin and w^hed
the Observer luck, and reminded them
to
activate the distant person
their image appeared on the experimental monitor.
She then
c ose
Observer's Room door and returned to the Computer Room.
At
this
point,
the
experimenter
started
the microcomputer
that
controlled the session events, including timing of the physiological sampling
periods and recording of data during 32 30-second penods. As such, the
experimenter was completely blind as
to the sampling periods during any
interactions with the participants.
Each of the 16 recording penods during the
. experimental (RO) conditions of the experiment was signaled to *e re”
Observer when the distant person's image appeared on the monitor m
he
Observer's Room.
During these periods, the Observer stared mtentiy_at the
television image throughout the 30-second recording period.
Dunng control
perioSTthe*Observer read a book or otherwise tried to shift their attention
from the distant person.
The Remote Observer received no feedback during the session
:about the
Observers physiological
activity.
The equipment sampled the Observee
s
spontaneous phasic skin conductance responses (SCR) once a secondJ
or *
30 seconds of a recording period. A random pause of 0 to 5
«
inserted in order to eliminate potential artifacts due to possible guessing of the
experimental sequences and to rule out possible cycles that mig
t occur m
Observers physiology.
The experimental sampling then continued with the
next block.
TOe subjects were randomly assigned to one of two experimental
sequences that were counter-balanced for time effects
The randomization sequence was generated by the second author
(
)
g
the use of a random number generator.
These consisted of blocks of four
conditions: control, observation, observation, control observation, c into,
control, observation.
ThSse sequences were randomizedjnjlocks of
6,, with
equal numbers of the twS^ondiliortracross the experiment: This was done tq^-
assure a balance of two conditions and to control for any temporal driftrn *e
autonomic activity of the participant.
Digitized data were stored on disk for
later analysis and copied over to the SUN system for backup security and
transport
via modem
to
the
second
author.
The mean va ue
of skin
conductance activity for each 30-second period was used in the analyses.
RESULTS
For each experimental session, a total score was calculated for aU 32
recording periods (16 observation and 16 control). A chi-square goodness of fit
est indicated that the scores of these sessions did not differ significant y from
normality;
therefore, parametric
statistics were used m their evaluation. A
single mean t-test was calculated with 23 degrees of freedom for each of the
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: £lA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
CPYRGHT Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
two experiments.
In Experiment One, the obtained t-value was 1.878, p<.036
(1-t), es=.36.
In Experiment Two, the obtained
t value was 2.360, p<.014 (1-t),
es=.44.
As
a
pre-planned
analysis,
the
combined
results
of
the two
experiments were combined, yielding a significant t-value of 2.652, p<.005 (1-t),
es=.36, with 47 degrees of freedom.
These results supported our two primary
hypotheses, providing
significant differences
in the autonomic
activity of
Observees during RO and non-RO conditions in the direction of autonomic
nervous system activation.
Secondary analyses were computed for the psychological data collected
on the basis of the NEO and SAD assessments for experiment
1 and on the
SAD assessment for experiment 2.
Linear correlation coefficients (Pearson r’s)
/ were calculated but no significant relationships were found.
To assess the
ROE-SAD
relationship,
Pearson
r's
were
computed
for
the
percent
electrodermal activity occurring during the RO versus the SAD scores.
Again,
no significant relationship was found.
In the
first experiment,
it was noted
that there was
a
relationship
between
the gender
of "Observer" and
of
the
"Observee"
in
the remote
observation experiment. As such,
it was decided
to analyze
this sex pair
relationship across the two experiments.
This was done through the use of a
2x2 ANOVA (see Figure 2).
Results yielded a significant interaction across sex
pairs (pc.Ol, 2-t).
Opposite sex pairs showed a larger experimental effect than
same sex pairs.
ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES
Various
alternative
hypotheses
to
remote
observation may
be
considered to account for the obtained results.
These are described below, as
well as the rationale for discounting each of them.
(1)
The
results
are due
to
internal rhythms
that may
have
influenced
the
Observee's
autonomic
nervous
system
activity
.
This
potential
artifact has
been ruled out by
utilizing
a random and
counter-balanced schedule
of
experimental and control periods.
(2)
The
results are due
to sensory cues or other uncontrolled external
stimuli.
Based on the experimental design, this alternative hypothesis can be rejected.
There were no known or obvious
factors
that could have influenced
the
Observee based on the random schedule of experimental and control periods.
(3)
The
results
are
due
to
chance
correspondences
between
the
Observer's
observations
and
the
Observee's
physiological
responses.
The use
of
conventional statistical techniques, as well as the existence of effect sizes in the
predicted direction, minimize the likelihood of coincidence.
Of course, such a
coomddencg is expected to occur once in 200 experiments, according to our
statistics.
o
7i
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 :°CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
CPYRGHT
re“cordedTo^ ZZ?*'
eliminated human error in data recording.
(5)
Ob*™**
"-e
'"'S','
ruled out this potential artifact.
^
recorded data that fell within the experimental protocol.
CONCLUSIONS
This research provides an in
<J
ep^
remote observation experiments conduct*ed
J
'between
experimental
ctasrr?rts^ TjSr **«
•*.
Braud and Schlitz 1989; May and Vilenskaya, 1994).
As is often the case in
answers.
More research
is nee
e
studv designed
to systematically
play in this work.
For
;
e*^
le^ec
‘,
®
ould J useful Another promising
manipulate the dnechon of th
*
role rf influence as compared with
area of research would address the p
information exchange
process,
information
acquisition
in an
ostensible
3^ 0^(1986), this
Following the work of May, Radm,
'
td f r b„ a distant influence
leads us to ask whether the results can be account^ to^y ^ ^
of the
on the part of the Observer or to a pas
P
jhe degree
to which
Observee.
Lastly, more research
is
shielded. Such questions
"ssrr
(Lakatos, 1978).
,
i
rpvt
of
previous
research by
independent
This
work, m
the
context
o
p
understanding
of human
researchers, has
significant imp>ica ic
’
luation of a WOrldview
in which
communication processes an
Furthermore
the results suggest the need
humans are seen as
than
that held by
the
for
a broader approach
to human
(Harman
1991).
conventional, reductionists, scientific paradigm (Harman, 1991)
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: £IA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
CPYRGHT
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
m2.W
a
P
rS £"VSa
N.J.: Scarecrow, 266-268.
Schlitz, Marilyn.
1994.
Psychokinesis on Biological Systems.
Fact Sheet.
Society for Psychical Research.
London.
n
i
a qq£
Rpiki Plus Natural Healing. An
Schlitz, MarUyn and Stephen Branch
19f ^hA:39A9 .
Ethnographic and Experimental Study,
rs
Sheldrake, Rupert.
1994.
The
Seven
Experiments
that
Could
Change
the
'
' World.
London: Fourth Estate.
Solfvin, Jerry.
1984.
Mental Heahng in
*
Parapsychology, Volume 4.
Jefferson, N.C.. McFarlana an
, _
,
log?
Attitudes and beUefs about, and reac^°ils
S“g “d wt"ed at
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 58.
380-385.
Titchener, E.B. 1898. The feeling of being stared at.
Science, 8: 895-897.
a TJripnd R
1969
Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety.
Watson, D. and Friend, k.
ivoy.
__
Jonmal V Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33. 448 457.
Utts, Jessica, ad.
personal communicatioa
uLOf
—
A
j* _ nf flip regard of others. The feeling
Williams, L. 1983.
Minimal cue percep
Annual Conference of the
Carrollton, GA.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: (BA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Target and SAWW®§fWr«teReteS»se 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003¥Od»MflF?to'l994
CPYRGHT
Target and Sender Dependencies
in
Anomalous Cognition Experiments
by
Nevin D. Lantz, Ph.D
Wanda L. W. Luke
and
Edwin C. May, Ph.D.
Science Applications International Corporation
Cognitive Sciences Laboratory
Menlo Park, CA
Abstract
The ganzfeld experiments as summarized by Bern and Honorton (1994) suggest that using dynamic tar-
gets produces stronger results than using static ones. Bern and Honorton, however, only analyzed ganz-
feld studies that included the use of a sender. Since it is known that a sender is not a necessary require-
ment in forced-choice trials (Honorton, 1975), we designed and carried out a study to see if a sender is
required in non-ganzfeld, free-response trials. In the first of two experiments, five experienced receiv-
ers participated in 40 trials each, 10 in each condition of a 2 x 2 design to explore sender and target type.
We observed significant effects for static targets (i.e., exact sum-of-rank probability ofp < 0.0073, ef-
fect size = 0.248, n=100), chance results for dynamic targets (i.e.,p < 0.500, effect size = 0.000, n =
100), and no interaction effects between sender and target-type conditions. One receiver slightly fa-
vored the no sender condition {F(l,36) = 4.43, p < 0.04), while another slightly favored static targets
(F(l,36) = 5.47, p < 0.04). We speculate that these surprising results (i.e., favoring static over dynamic
targets) arose, in part, because of the difference between a topically unbounded dynamic target pool
and a topically restrictive static pool. In a second experiment, we redesigned the dynamic pool to match
more closely the properties of the static pool. Four of the receivers from the first study participated in at
least 20 trials each, 10 in each target-type condition. No senders were used throughout this experiment.
We observed a significant increase in anomalous cognition for the new dynamic targets (
2 = 9.942, df
= 1,p<1.6x. 10
), and an increase in anomalous cognition for the static targets (X2 = 3.158, df=\p
< o. 075). We conclude that a sender is not a necessary requirement for free-response anomalous cogni-
tion. A rank-order analysis showed no target-type dependencies in the second study (X2 = 0,df=\,p<
0.5), but a rating analysis revealed some difference favoring dynamic targets
(r = 1.32, df — 68, p <
0.096) for the significant receivers. Based on an analysis by May, Spottiswoode, and James (1994b), we
believe a fundamental argument suggests that in free-response anomalous cognition experiments, dy-
namic targets should be better than static ones.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Target and S^P^fetf«fitete3se 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003M02MMIWI 1994
CPYRGHT
Introduction
The ganzfeld database has received considerable attention since Bern and Honorton’s (1994) publica-
tion. They report a significant difference between static and dynamic targets, although they do not re-
port significant hitting with static targets.* None of the 355 ganzfeld trials analyzed by Bern and Honor-
ton were done in a clairvoyant mode—all of these trials used senders.
These data inspired two questions:
(1)
Is a sender a necessary or sufficient participant in the process?
(2)
Is target type dependency real?
The answer to the first question is settled for forced-choice. Clairvoyant ESP card studies (Honorton,
1975) show significant hitting—senders are not necessary. But what is the situation for free-response?
As part of a cooperative effort between Psychophysical Research Laboratories and the Cognitive
Sciences Laboratory, we asked Honorton to conduct a meta-analysis of the ganzfeld database to deter-
mine the answer (Honorton, 1992). In that review, Honorton examined the ganzfeld studies that were
published in the English-language parapsychology literature between 1974 and 1991.
Besides pub-
lished reports, the meta-analysis also included doctoral theses and abstracts of otherwise unpublished
studies. Honorton found that only 12 of 73 studies reported not using a sender, and their combined
results did not reach statistical significance (Z = 1.31, p < 0.095). The difference was in favor of the
sender protocol (Zdiff = 1*49,
p
< 0.137).
We agree with Honorton’s criticism that the studies do not attempt a differential comparison between
sender and no sender. As a result, none of the studies were blind to the sender condition. In parallel to
the experiments we report here, we asked Honorton to design and conduct such a study.
Dr. Robert
Morris and the research group in the Psychology department at the University of Edinburgh have taken
over that task.
This paper reports on two non-ganzfeld experiments that we conducted in 1992 and 1993 to address
sender and the target dependencies.
The 1992 Experiment
We used a 2x 2 design to study the effects of sender vs no sender and static vs dynamic target type, on
the quality of anomalous cognition (ACrf
.
The details of the design, results, and conclusions from the
study are described in this section.
•
It may be that this difference will vanish when other factors are accounted for. In private communication with Professor
i
Jessica Utts, she reports that she did not find a significant difference between target condition when receivers brought
their own sender.
t The Cognitive Sciences Laboratory has adopted the term anomalous menialphenomena instead of the more widely known psi.
Likewise, we use the terms anomalous cognition and anomalousperturbation for ESP and PK, respectively. We have done so
because we believe that these terms arc more naturally descriptive of the observables and are neutral in that they do not imply
mechanisms. These new terms will be used throughout this paper.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Target and SfepdeO'OS^&OdAtdfeSse 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R00320D20CW0ilcb 1994
CPYRGHT
Target-pool Selection
The static targets were 50 of the 100 National Geographic magazine photographs that have been used in
our laboratory for many years. By design these targets had the following characteristics:
• Tbpic homogeneity. The photographs contained outdoors scenes of settlements (e.g., villages, towns,
cities, etc.), water (e.g., coasts, rivers and streams, waterfalls, etc.), and topographical features (e.g.,
mountains, hills, desserts, etc.).
• Size homogeneity. Thrget elements are all roughly the same size. That is, there are no size surprises
such as an ant in one photograph and the moon in another.
• Affectivity Homogeneity. As much as possible, the targets include only material which invokes neutral
affectivity.
This set was divided into 10 sets of five photographs that were determined to be visually dissimilar by a
fuzzy set analysis (May, Utts, Humphrey, Luke, Frivold, and Trask, 1990) and fine-tuned by inspection.
For the dynamic targets, we digitized and compressed 30 videodips from a variety of popular movies or
documentaries.
With the exception of cartoons and sexually-oriented material, the clips contained
nearly anything. Examples included an indoor motor bike race and a slow panoramic scan of the statues
on Easter island.
The overall intent of these dynamic targets was to control for cognitive surprise, to provide target ele-
ments that are easily sketched, and to mimic the content of the successful ganzfeld dynamic targets.
Receiver, Sender, and Monitor Selection
We chose five experienced receivers that had produced significant/lC effect sizes in previous investiga-
tions. The sender for all of the trials was the principal investigator (PI), located in Lititz, Pennsylvania.
All trials were unmonitored.
Protocol
Each of the five receivers contributed 10 trials in each of the conditions shown in Table 1. Although 10
trials seems too few for such a study, we computed that the statistical power within a cell was 80%, given
the “known” historical effect sizes of approximately 0.8 for these receivers.
Thble 1.
Experiment Conditions
Thrget Type
Sender
Static
Yes
Static
No
Dynamic
Yes
Dynamic
No
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Target and
2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R0032WaWaMeft 1994
CPYRGHT
Target Preparation
Prior to beginning the study, an experiment coordinator randomly generated a unique, counterbal-
anced set of 20 static and 20 dynamic targets for each of the five receivers.* Within each target type, a
counter-balanced set of sender/no sender conditions was also generated. A copy of each target (i.e.,
either a color photograph or a short clip on video tape) was placed in an envelope and a trial number,
1-40, was written on the outside.
Those envelopes containing targets from the no-sender condition
were sealed and those for the sender condition remained unsealed. Each set of 40 targets were pack-
aged separately and shipped to the PI.
Trial Schedule
TWo of the five receivers resided in California, and the others resided in Kansas, New York and Virginia.
The experiment was conducted over a five-month period. Individual schedules were developed so as to
cause as little inconvenience to the receiver’s daily routine as possible. Not more than one trial per day
or three trials per week were conducted.
Session Sequence
For each trial and for each receiver:
(1) The PI selected the appropriately numbered envelope from the box of targets for the receiver.
(2) In the sender condition, he looked at the selected target for 15 minutes and attempted to “trans-
mit" it to the intended receiver during a prearranged trial period.
(3)
In the no-sender condition for the static targets, he placed the sealed envelope on his uncluttered
desk for the 15 minute trial period.
(4)
In the no-sender condition for the dynamic targets, he played the video repeatedly for 15 minutes
without sound, and with the TV monitor located in an unoccupied room.
(5) At the conclusion of the 15-minute trial period, and after the receipt of the receiver’s response by
FAX, he sent a copy of the target material (i.e., either a photograph or video tape) to the receiver by
mail.
During each trial:
(1) At the prearranged time, the receiver withdrew to a quiet room in his or her home and sat at a desk.
(2) For a period lasting up to 15 minutes, the receiver wrote and drew his or her impressions of the
intended target material.
(3) At the end of the trial, she/he sent a copy of the response to the PI by FAX machine.
(4) By return mail, she/he obtained a copy of the target as feedback for the trial. The target copy and
original response were subsequently sent to the experiment coordinator in Menlo Park, California.
We did not provide specific instructions beyond logistical information to the receivers, because they
were all experienced at this type of task. They were, however, knowledgeable about the general charac-
teristics of the two target pools.
When the experiment coordinator received the receiver’s response,
all identifying information
(i.e.
name, date, and time of trial) was removed.
Periodically during the course of the experiment, the ex-
* All randomizationswere done with astandard computer algorithm, which is basedon a shift-register algorithm by Kendell and
has been shown to meet the general criteria for “randomness” (Lewis, 1975).
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Target and
2002/05/1Jp^-^P96-00789R0032ira22n)M»^ 1994
periment coordinator provided an analyst, who was blind to the target choice, with a set of responses
and associated target packs for analysis.
Analysis
We conducted two different analyses in this study:
(1) Our standard l-of-5 rank-order technique to construct effect sizes and p-values.
(2) An analysis of variance (ANOVA) to address the 2x2 questions.
Rank-Order
For each trial, there was a single response and its associated target pack (i.e., either static or dynamic).
An analyst, who was blind to the condition and target for the trial, was asked to rank-order five targets
(i.e., the intended target and four decoys) within the given pack. This was a forced ranking, so regard-
less of the quality of match between the response and targets, he/she had to assign a first place match, a
second place match, and so on for each of the five targets. The output from this part of the analysis was a
rank-order number (i.e., one to five, one corresponding to a first place match) for the correct target.
For each receiver, target type, and condition, there were 10 such rank-order numbers which constituted
a block of data. A rank-order effect size was computed for a block as:
where Tfy is the average rank for target type i and sender condition;', and 7
is the expected average
rank, which for this study is equal to three for all cases. N is the number of possible ranks and is equal to
five throughout this study. The effect size reduces to:
3 — Kjj
*u "
J2
‘
Analysis of Variance
A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed for each receiver. The two primary variables
were target type and sender condition (i.e., ANOVA main effects). Each of these variables possessed
the two states shown in Table 1 above.
Hypotheses
The overall null hypothesis was that
will not be significantly different from zero.
Using an F-test, we hypothesized that the quality ofAC does not depend upon a sender regardless of
target type.
Similarly, we used an F-test to test the hypothesis that the quality ofAC does not depend
upon target type, regardless of the sender condition.
The ANOVA also tests for potential interactions between the target and sender conditions. For exam-
ple, it might be that a sender is required for dynamic targets and not for static ones. We did not hypothe-
size with regard to interactions.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Target and
2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R00320O2a0(M*reh 1994
CPYRGHT
Combining results across receivers, theANOVA showed no significant main effect for the sender condi-
tion. The main effect for target type, while not significant, was strongly in favor of the static targets
(F(1,196) = 191, p < 0.09). We found no significant interactions for the combined data (F(l,196
)
=
0.02, p < 0.89).
Since there were no significant interactions, we combined the data for static targets regardless of the
sender condition (i.e., 100 trials). The sum-of-ranks was 265 (i.e., exact sum-of-rank probability otp <
0.007, effect size = 0.248). The total sum-of-ranks for the dynamic targets was 300 (i.e.,/? < 0.50, effect
size “ 0.000). From these data, we concluded that static targets may be better than dynamic targets.
Discussion and Hypothesis Formulation
Static targets being better than dynamic ones is surprising not only because it fails to support the ganz-
feld result, but also because it actually suggests the opposite. There are a number of possible contribut-
ing factors for this outcome. They include statistical artifacts, idiosyncrasies of our receivers compared
to the ganzfeld participants, and procedural differences.
Another possibility may be that rank-order
statistics were used, as they were in the ganzfeld. We find absolute measures ofAC are better than
relative measures in process-oriented research, and since the target-type inference was based on rela-
tive measures, perhaps this accounts for some of the result.
Please see an expanded discussion of this
point in the 1993 experiment below.
We propose, however, a different explanation: the fundamental differences between the target pools in
this experiment are, in themselves, a source of noise and confound the interpretation.
lb understand this noise source, we must first assume thatAC data are weak and difficult to recognize.
Target pools which contain a large number of differentiable cognitive elements, in conjunction with re-
ceivers who believe that this is the case, are a source of noise. Receivers are encouraged to report any
imagined impressions, since those impressions might be part of the target.
SinetAC is assumed to be
weak, most ofwhat is generated is more from the receiver's imagination than from the signal. This noise
is generated from an active imagination coupled with an agreement not to edit the internal experience.
A full description of these points can be found in May, Spottiswoode, and James (1994a).
~"
The receivers in our experiments have learned the natural limitations of our usual National Geographic
target pool by experience and by instruction. They have become skilled at internal editing and do not
report impressions that they know are absent from the overall target pool, thus there is less incorrect
material in their responses.
We conclude, therefore, that in this experiment, receivers were unable to produce significant evidence
ofAC with dynamic targets. They produced, what is for us, significant reduced functioning with static
targets. We speculated that this drop of functioning in both target conditions arose because the proto-
col would not allow the receivers to edit their internal experience. They were told that the dynamic
targets could be virtually anything, and since they were blind to the static-vs~dynamic target condition,
they were unable to edit their imaginations, even for the static targets.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0
Target and fif^rffeptotctateiMe 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-OO789ROO32(Xfc30(Mt|C©h 1994
CPYRGHT
Based on this speculation, we developed the following hypotheses for our replication study in 1993:
(1) A significant increase ofAC will be observed for dynamic targets if the dynamic pool is designed
with a similar set of topics that match the static pool from the 1992 study.
(2) An increase ofAC will be observed for static targets because the receivers will be able to edit their
internal experience.
The 1993 Experiment
In this experiment, we included a static vs dynamic target condition to replicate the findings from the
ganzfeld, but dropped the sender condition, since it appeared not to influence the results of our 1992
investigation. All trials were conducted with a monitor but without a sender.
Target Pools
We redesigned both the static and dynamic targetswith the constraint that they all must conform to the
topic, size, and affectivity homogeneity of^he original static targets. Weadentified a large number of
videos that could be edited to produce 50 National GeogmphicAikt segments. A single frame from with-
in each video clip, which was characteristic of the entire clip, acted as its static target pool equivalent.
Thus, we improved the target pools from our 1992 experiment in two ways:
(1) The new dynamic pool
possessed
a reduced number of differerentiable
cognitive elements
compared with the dynamic pool we used in 1992.
(2) The content of the dynamic and static pools were nearly identical, by design.
During the experiment, the targets were chosen randomly and were counter-balanced with regard to
static and dynamic target types, within receivers.
All static frames were digitized (Le., 640x480 pixels) for 24 bits of color information, compressed by
JPEG, and stored on-line for feedback and display purposes. The dynamic targets were digitized at
near real-time rate and stored on three magneto-optical read/write diskettes. The “video” clips could
then be displayed on our full-color, Sun Microsystems computer monitor in real-time.
Receiver, Monitor, and Sender Selection
For the new experiment, we chose four of the five experienced receivers who had participated in our
1992 study. All trials were conducted without a sender and were monitored by the PI, who was blind to
target type and content for each trial.
Protocol
Three receivers contributed 10 trials in each of the two target conditions, and a fourth
(i.e., receiver
372) contributed 15 trials in each condition.
Trial Schedule
The experiment was conducted over a seven-month period, and all trials were conducted at our labora-
tory in Menlo Park. One of the four receivers (i.e., Receiver 009) lives locally, but the others traveled to
our facility for one-week visits. All viewers participated in no more than one trial per day.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDf>96-00789R003200240001-0
Target and SApikmCtepenidtfi&stose 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003M?02ft(WVF-fe 1994
CPYRGHT
Session Sequence
Before the session began, and after the receiver and monitor were sequestered in outAC laboratory, an
assistant, who was otherwise not involved in the experiment, randomly generated a target in accordance
with the target selection criteria (i.e., counter-balanced for type within receivers and randomly within
type).
During the session:
• The monitor provided the following tasking statement to the receiver: "There is a scene that needs a
description. Access to that scene is through the word target.”
• For a period lasting no longer than 15 minutes, the receiver wrote and drew his or her impressions of
the intended target material, with the monitor asking for clarification on specific response elements.
• When the monitor and receiver agreed that the data was complete, the monitor halted the session,
copied the response material, and secured the original.
• The monitor provided computer-based feedback of the intended target material and emphasized the
points of agreement between the response and target.
We again emphasize that for each trial the monitor and receiver were blind to the target selection.
All four receivers participated in a total of 20 trials with this design. At no time during these trials was
the target material displayed during theAC session.
Instead, the intended target, which existed on a
computer disk, was designated by name only. Only during the feedback phase was the intended target
displayed.
We asked receiver 372 to participate in an additional 10 trials that were randomly counter-balanced
between static and dynamic targets. We used an automated version of the above procedure and, during
the session, the target material was silently displayed on a computer monitor in another room. The
session protocol was identical to the one above except for the automatic target generation and display.
For these 10 trials, the monitor initiated an automatic computer program after receiver 372 had entered
thtAC laboratory. This program randomly counter-balanced the target type and selected a single tar-
get for the session. Regardless of the type, the program required that a specific optical disk, unlabeled
with regard to content, be mounted and the dynamic version of the selected target was then copied to an
internal hard disk.
All static equivalent targets were already resident on the internal hard disk. Once
the transfer was complete, the monitor was instructed to initiate the trial. For the next 60 seconds, the
computer screen remained blank, thus allowing the monitor sufficient time to enter the adjacent A
C
laboratory and remain blind to the target choice. At the end of the the 60 seconds, the computer pro-
gram began to continuously display the target regardless of type. The computer program kept track of
all the specific details that were used later during the analysis phase.
Analysis
We conducted two different analyses in this experiment:
(1) Our standard l-of-5 rank-order technique to construct effect sizes and p-values.
(2) A blind rating from a predetermined rating scale.
Our rank-order procedure was similar to the one we used in our 1992 experiment. The sole difference
was how and when the decoy targets were chosen.
In our earlier investigation, the decoys were prede-
Approved Tor Re lease 2002/05/ 1 7
. CIA-RDP90-00709R00320024000 1 -0
Target and 9lej8^er\J3«PP5dWW^e 2002^WQttTA-RDP96-00789R0032^1)^oWlM?& 1994
termined using fuzzy set analysis and fine tuning. Thus, they existed prior to the start of the experiment.
In this study, the decoys were chosen by computer at the time of analysis, and did not exist during the
actual trials.
Prior to the start of this experiment, f/c divided our 50 targets into 10 sets of five targets each^ Differing
from our earlier approaches, the targets within each pack were as similar as
-
possible. We were able to
identify five broadly different topic categories (e.g., cities near water, ruins, etc.), and we created two
different packs of five targets for each specific categoiy. We made all target pack decisions based on our
experience and subjective assessment.
Decoys were chosen by the computer at analysis time.
First, the computer selected the topic set of five
packets from which the actual target was chosen. Then, the computer randomly selected one target
from each of the remaining four target packs for the decoys.
Blind Rating Scale
Rank-order analysis does not usually indicate the absolute quality of the AC. For example, a response
that is a near-perfect description of the target receives a rank of one.
But a response which is barely
matchable to the target may also receive a rank of one. Table 4 shows the rating scale that we used to
perform a blind assessment of the quality of theAC responses, regardless of their rank. Even though
ranks correlated with ratings (Spearman’s q — —0.6, df — 78), we feel that rating scales like this poten-
tially reduce an additional source of variance in correlational or comparative studies.
To apply this subjective scale to anAC trial, an analyst begins with a score ofseven and determines if the
description for that score is correct. If not, then the analyst tries a score ofsix and so on. In this way the
scale is traversed from seven to zero until the score-description seems reasonable for the trial.
Table 4.
0-7 Point Assessment Scale
Score
Description
Excellent correspondence, including good analytical detail, with essentially no
incorrect information
Good correspondence with good analytical information and relatively little
incorrect information.
Good correspondence with unambiguous unique matchable elements, but
some incorrect information.
Good correspondence with several matchable elements intermixed with
incorrect information.
Mixture of correct and incorrect elements, but enough of the former to indicate
receiver has made contact with the site.
Some correct elements, but not sufficient to suggest results beyond chance
expectation.
Little correspondence.
No correspondence.
Figures 1 through 3 (pages 12 through 14), illustrate the application of this scale and show that the quali-
ty of an AC response is not indicated by a first-place ranking.
All three examples were given a rank of
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200240001-0