Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
Target and Sender Dependencies
VI 20 March 1994
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lished reports, the meta-analysis also included doctoral theses and abstracts of otherwise unpublished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 (Z^yr = 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 2 x 2 design to study the effects of sender vs no sender and static vs dynamic target type, on
the quality of anomalous cognition (/1C) t
. The details of the design, results, and conclusions from the
study are described in this section.
*
It may he that this difference will vanish when other factors arc accounted for. In private communication with Professor
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 hasadopted the term anomalous menialphenomena instead of the more widely known^i.
Likewise, wc use the terms anomalous cognition and anomalous perturbation for ESP and PK, respectively. We have done so
because wc believe that these terms arc more naturally descriptive of the observables and are neutral in that they do notimply
mechanisms.
"Hicse new terms will be used throughout this paper.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
Target and Sender Dependencies
VI 20 March 1994
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:
• Topic 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. Target 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
affect ivity.
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 video clips 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 significantAC 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.
Table 1.
Experiment Conditions
Target Type
Sender
Static
Yes
Static
No
Dynamic
Yes
Dynamic
No
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
Target and Sender Dependencies
VI 20 March 1994
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
T\vo 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-
periment coordinator provided an analyst, who was blind to the target choice, with a set of responses
and associated target packs for analysis.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
Target and Sender Dependencies
VI 20 March 1994
Combining results across receivers, the ANOVA 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(l,196) = 2.91, 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 of/? <
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. Since absolute measures ofAC are better than relative
measures in process-oriented research, and since the target-type inference was based on relative mea-
sures, 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.
To understand this noise source, we must first assume that/lC 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.
Since AC is assumed to be
weak, most of what 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 knot# 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 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
Target and Sender Dependencies
VI 20 March 1994
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 otAC 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 targets with the constraint that they all must conform to the
topic, size, and affectivity homogeneity of the original static targets. We identified a large number of
videos that could be edited to produce 50 National GeographicAike 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
(i.e., 640 x 480 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 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
Target and Sender Dependencies
VI 20 March 1994
Session Sequence
Before the session began, and after the receiver and monitor were sequestered in ourAC 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).
Daring 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 the AC 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
1 0 trials, the monitor initiated an automatic computer program after receiver 372 had entered
theAC 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 AC
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 For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2
Target and Sender Dependencies
VI 20 March 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, we 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 category. 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/lC.
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 the/lC 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 an/fC 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 of six 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
B
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.
B
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.
i
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 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490004-2