Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200140001-1 AUTONOMIC DETECTION OF REMOTE OBSERVATION: Two Conceptual Replications! Marilyn J. Schlitz Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Science Applications International Corporation and Stephen LaBerge The Lucidity Institute ABSTRACT: Two experiments were conducted to measure the extent to which people are able to unconsciously detect another person staring at them from a distance. A closed-circuit television set-up was employed in which a video camera was focused on the experimental volunteer (Observee) while a person in another room (Observer) concentrated on the image of the distant person as displayed on a color monitor; this procedure was used to preclude any conventional sensory contact between the two people. During the experimental session, the Observee's galvanic skin responses were monitored. An automated and computerized system was programmed to record and average the physiological responses of the Observee during 32 30-second monitoring periods. A random sequence was used to schedule 16 periods of remote observation and 16 control periods when no observation efforts were attempted. A within-subjects evaluation was made for each experimental session with a comparison between the mean amount of autonomic nervous system activity during the experimental and control conditions. Twenty four sessions were conducted in each of two experiments. As predicted, both experiments yielded significantly more autonomic activity during the remote observation periods as compared to control periods (Experiment 1: t=1.878, p<.036, 1-t, es=.36; Experiment 2: t=2.360, p<.014, 1-t, es=.44). As preplanned, the two experiments were combined to increase statistical power, yielding a significant t-value of 2.652 (p<.005, 1-t, es=.36). 1 The authors wish to acknowledge the technical support, design contributions, and general encouragement of William Braud and the staff of the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory. For editorial assistance, we appreciate the useful suggestions offered by Rick Berger and Christian de Quincey. Additional support was provided by the Institute of Noetic Sciences. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RGP96-00789R003200140001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200140001-1 INTRODUCTION The past few decades have witnessed an increasing interest in the possibility of direct mental influences on living systems. A diverse range of experiments have been conducted by researchers within the United States, Canada, and Europe (for reviews, see Benor, 1990; Dossey, 1993; May and Vilenskaya, 1994; Solfvin, 1984). In a typical experiment, some physiological activity or other selected behavior is monitored in the context of a formal laboratory experiment. Efforts are made by experimental participants to influence a distant biological target system with a comparison between experimental conditions and non-influence or control conditions. Target systems for these experiments have included micro-organisms, plants, , animals, and human physiology or motor activity (Schlitz, 1983, 1994), Based on this database, there is compelling evidence to support the hypothesis that people are able to use intentionality to bring about changes in distant target systems under conditions that preclude conventional sensory or motor exchange. At the least, the findings are intriguing and worthy of further research; at the best, the data have profound scientific, social, and philosophical implications. One promising area of research involves the influence of human autonomic nervous system activity by a distant person. Braud and Schlitz (1992) reported statistically significant differences across a series of 13 experiments in which periods of intentionality to affect the physiology of a distant person were interspersed with counter-balanced control periods. This research led to the development of a protocol designed to measure the degree to which people are able to unconsciously detect someone observing them from a distance. Many people have had the experience of being stared at from a distance, only to turn around and discover a pair of eyes gazing upon them. Indeed, survey data support the widespread distribution of these experiences. As early as 1913, J.E. Coover reported that 68-86% of respondents in California had this type of experience on at least one occasion. A survey of the Australian population reported that 74% of the respondents had such an experience (Williams 1983), 85% within a student population at Washington University in St. Louis, (Thalbourne and Evans, 1992) 94% of those surveyed in San Antonio, Texas (Braud, Shafer, and Andrews 1990), and 80% of those informally surveyed in Europe and America (Sheldrake 1994). Several attempts have been made to explore these claims within a laboratory setting. A review of this literature was reported by Braud, et al. (1990), who identified four studies. The first was conducted by E.B. Titchener, a Cornell University psychologist during the late 1800’s. While a brief article on the work reported negative results, he did not provide details of his study. 2 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200140001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200140001-1 In a slightly later study, Coover (1913) conducted a study on remote staring in his initial work as the Thomas Welton Stanford Psychical Research Fellow in the Psychology Department of Stanford University. Each of 10 subjects made 100 guesses as to whether or not they were being stared at by an experimenter seated behind them in the same room. A random schedule of remote observation (RO) and non-observation periods was determined by the rolling of a die. Each observation period was of a 15-20 second duration over a several hour series of sittings spanning a period of weeks. Having obtained chance results, Coover interpreted his findings as support for the belief that staring detection was empirically groundless. ~ A second study was carried out in 1959 by J.J. Poortman (1959) of Leyden University in the Netherlands. In this study, the two people were separated in two rooms but still within sensory range. The experiment spanned a 13- month period. The remote/non-remote observation intervals were of 2-5 minute duration based on a random sequence determined by card shuffling. This resulted in a 59.55% accuracy rate (p=.04 1-t). A better controlled experiment than the previous two was reported by Donald Peterson (1978), a graduate student at the University of Edinburgh. Following two informal pilot studies, the investigator made use of a procedure in which the subjects were positioned in separate, adjacent closed cubicles. One-way mirrors and special lighting provided visual perception in one direction and button pushes were used to measure the subject's perception of RO/non-RO periods. In 36 experimental sessions, each of six minute duration, there was a significant effect (p=.012, 2-t). This experimental design was further improved by Linda Williams (1983), a student in the Psychology Department of the University of Adelaide (South Australia). Subjects were positioned in rooms at a 60 foot distance and were monitored via a closed-circuit video camera/monitor arrangement. Through the use of carefully controlled randomization procedures, the author reported significant RO detection guesses (p=.04, 1-t). Based on the four experimental studies, Braud, et al (1990) concluded that there is suggestive evidence to support the hypothesis that people can consciously discriminate periods of RO from non-RO under conditions that controlled for subtle sensory cues. The effect size in these studies was not particularly strong, however. This, according to Braud and his colleagues, was due to the fact that "the testing method used in these studies was not the most appropriate one" (p. 17). In particular, the authors argued that the use of conscious guessing might be less relevant to everyday life experiences, in which RO detection takes the form of bodily sensations and spontaneous behavioral changes. For example, people frequently report the prickling of neck hairs or the tingling of the skin. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96200789R003200140001-1