Approved For Release 2002/11/18
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
analyst (who was otherwise uninvolved with the experiment)
.
In this procedure, the target and its
three
decoys
from
the
designated
category were
presented
in random
order. The
analyst
rank-ordered the targets in order of decreasing similarity to the response
(i.e., a rank of 1 means
that the target best matches the response, and a rank of 4 means the worst match).
The output
from each trial was the rank number the analyst assigned to the correct target. The sum of ranks
over the total number of trials was used to calculate p-value and effect size (r) for the second-stage
viewer.
Approved For Release 2002/11/18
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
Approved For Release 2002/11/18
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
III
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A.
Summary
In FY 1989 three groups ranging in size from 26 to 125 were screened at the first or group
stage for a total of 256 individuals. Of that number eight showed qualitative evidence of ability to
report target-related material.
B.
First-Stage Results
Table 3 shows the results of first-stage screening. A total of 256 individuals participated in
three separate screening sessions at SRI International. The first session was open to members and
guests of a university alumni group.
Twenty-six individuals participated in that session and none
were selected to participate in second-stage screening. The second session involved members and
guests of a San Francisco Bay Area social/cultural club; 105 persons submitted responses. Seven of
these were selected for individualized testing. The third and final session was open to members and
guests
of another university alumni group;
125 persons participated
in the
four-trial
series.
Qualitative judging produced one person who was selected for second-stage screening.
Table 3
Results of First Stage Screening
Organization
# of Participants
# Selected for Stage
II
1.
Peninsula Stanford
Club
2.
San Francisco Mensa
105
3.
Stanford Alumni Club
125
of Palo Alto
Qualitatively, the San Francisco Mensa organization appears to be a better population for
screening for remote viewers, because seven individuals met the a priori criteria for inclusion in the
second-stage screening, and only none or one did from the other two groups, respectively.
Approved For Release 2002/11/18
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
Approved For Release 2002/11/18
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
A different view of this same data is shown in Figure 1 as the distribution of scores for each
four-trial series for each group.
For example, 26% and 35% of the Mensa responses achieved
scores of 1 and 2, respectively.
For the Peninsula and Palo Alto Stanford group, the percentages
are 48 and 29, and 33 and 17, respectively.
Quantitatively, the means of the distributions differ
slightly (see Table 4)
.
However, two-sample t-tests show significant differences between all pairs
of means of the three groups.
Table 5 shows the t-test statistics including the effect size for the
pairs.
Table 4
Parameters of the Scoring Distributions
Statistic
Peninsula Stanford
Club
San Francisco
Mensa
Stanford Alumni Club
of Palo Alto
Number of
104
412
479
Viewings*
Mean Score
1.490
1.735
1.044
Standard Deviation
0.878
1.129
1.079
*
Not
all participants submitted responses for
all trials; therefore, the number of viewings
does not equal four times the number of participants.
Approved For Release 2002/11/18
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3