Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200430001-0 One government agency group of viewers was handled a bit differently from other groups screened because of its smaller size and the relatively greater time available for testing (two days). Four SRI researchers conducted the screening series at the government agency site. Six government employees agreed to participate in four viewings each. These individuals were selected randomly (by government personnel) but participation was on a time-available basis. None of the volunteers had previously participated in a remote viewing experiment. A rank order analysis was used to estimate the quality of the remote viewing, but, because each person participated in only four sessions, the power of the statistical test for an individual was extremely low. Thus an individual would have to do exceedingly well in all four trials to provide statistically significant evidence of RV ability. For example, a viewer would need to score four first place matches, or three first place and one second place match, in order to obtain significance in four trials. In contrast, if twice as many trials are considered (8 trials) and the total score is 12 (i.e., the same average performance), the p-value is significant (po < 0.007). Nonetheless, one participant produced encouraging results with three first place matches and a sum-of-ranks of 6.5 (p <= .098, r = 0.46). OF Second-Stage Results Excluding the smaller government group, a total of 18 persons from first-stage screening were invited to participate in second-stage screening trials. Of the 18, 9 were able to schedule time to participate in second-stage trials (if there was no possibility of obtaining a significant result at any time after four trials, the person was dropped from the screening). One person discontinued testing after two trials. Table 4 shows the number of trials, sum-of-ranks, p-value, and effect size for the participants in second-stage screening. Table 4 RESULTS OF SECOND-STAGE SCREENING No. of Trials Sum-of-Ranks Effect Size (r) 9 we 4 § 8 4 4 8 8 2 10 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200430001-0 IV DISCUSSION By design, the second-stage screening specified a maximum of eight trials. While it is recognized that the statistical power is thus quite low, nonetheless we were searching for viewers who displayed exceptional natural talent., This eight trial maximum was based on the ability of our calibrated viewers. Three viewers from the total screened population demonstrated robust RV. While none of the three reached statistical significance, the effect sizes (0.39, 0.46, and 0.50, respectively) indicate that an RV hypothesis accounts for a sizable fraction of the variance (15% to 25%) between good and bad viewers. To put this result in perspective, Rosenthal reports the effect size for two studies, one on the effects of psychotherapy and the other of interpersonal expectancy effects, as being on the order of r = 0.32.* These results are encouraging since several individuals were able to show strong evidence of anomalous information transfer with a relatively low number of trials (time and scheduling prevented testing of all promising persons from the first-stage of screening). Given that these individuals were not preselected and received very little training in how to produce a response, this method of finding additional participants for future experiments shows some merit. Coupling this method with pre-selection criteria that have shown correlations with psychoenergetic function such as results from the Myers—Briggs Type Indicator, spontaneous experiences, and an open mind toward the possibility of psychoenergetic phenomena, we could develop an even more efficient procedure. * Rosenthal, R., Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research, p. 130, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, 1984. 11 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200430001-0