r Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200620001-9 14 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research the refrigerator except when needed for the measurements. The comple- tion of the hemolysis measurements for the 20 tubes of an experimental session required one hour. When the 20th and final tube had been measured, and the results had been printed, the experimenter notified his assistant that the session was over. While the assistant went to the subject’s room, the experimenter made photocopies of the data sheets and of his tube-number schedule. When the assistant returned with the subject, the assistant photocopied the subject’s control/protect period sequence sheet. The assistant and the ex- perimenter then exchanged copies of their respective sequence sheets and data printouts. These duplicate records were filed for safekeeping by the assistant and by the experimenter. The experimenter and the subject then went to the experimenter’s of- fice, and the subject described the techniques used to attempt to influence the blood cells. After this interview, the experimenter calculated the re- sults for the experimental session and provided the subject with informa- tion about the session outcome. This information consisted of verbal and numerical feedback about the hemolysis rates for the 20 tubes. The exper- imenter thanked the subject for his or her participation, and the subject left the laboratory. RESULTS When all 32 experimental sessions had been completed, the blood source information was decoded so that a determination could be made of which subjects attempted to influence their own blood and which at- tempted to influence blood from another person. For each session, change scores were calculated for each of the 20 blood sample tubes (trials). For each tube (trial), the mean of the initial five A/D converter values was subtracted from the mean of the final five A/D converter values. This change score represented the change in percent light transmittance from the first 5 seconds to the last 5 seconds of the 1-minute trial and provided a quantitative measure of the rate of hemolysis for a specific blood sample tube. For each subject, change scores were available for 10 control tubes and 10 influence (protect) tubes; for each tube condition, scores were available for either 2- or 8-tube measurements during each 15-minute pe- riod. Using these change scores, a three-factor analysis of variance was used to test the major hypotheses of the study. In this ANOVA, the three factors were: blood Source (own VS. another’s, between); Subjects, random and nested under Source; and Condition (protect vs. control, within), The three experimental questions explored in this formal study were the following: 1. Would the rate of hemolysis (change scores) for the protect tubes differ from that for the control tubes? Such an effect would be indicated, in the absence of a significant Condition x Subjects interaction, by a Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200620001-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200620001-9 Distant Mental Influence of Hemolysis Rate 15 significant Condition main effect in the ANOVA. Should the Condition x Subjects interaction effect prove significant, the condition effect would be examined separately in each of the individual subjects, using appropriate within-subject error estimates. 2. Would the degree of influence of hemolysis rate differ for the two blood sources (own cells vs. another’s cells)? Such an effect would be indicated by a significant interaction of the Source and Condition factors of the ANOVA. 3. Would results for the two-tube measuring periods differ from those for the eight-tube measuring periods, and would the function describing this two- versus eight-tube effect match more closely the RA or the IDS prediction? For the statistical tests, any probability value found to be less than or equal to .05 would be deemed significant. The summary table for the ANOVA is given in Table 1, and means and standard deviations for the various groups and conditions are given in Table 2. The main effects for Condition and Source did not reach signifi- cance, nor did the Source x Condition interaction. However, the main effect for Subjects and the Condition x Subjects interaction were highly significant. The former effect, of course, indicates significant variability in outcome among the 32 subjects of the experiment. The significant Con- dition x Subjects interaction indicates that the effect of Condition (protect vs. control) differed from subject to subject; therefore, an interpretation of the Condition main effect was inappropriate, and individual subject by subject condition comparisons were called for. These individual comparisons were made by means of matched t tests, computed for each of the 32 subjects. These were calculated by comparing the hemolysis (change) scores for a subject’s 10 protect tubes with the scores for his or her 10 control tubes. Individual ¢ tests were calculated using separate estimates of variance, instead of using the combined esti- mate of error variance from the ANOVA, because of the wide spread among the variances across subjects. The ¢ scores for the individual sub- jects are presented in Table 3. The independently significant subjects (i.e., those with |: [18] > 2.101, p < .05, two-tailed) are indicated by as- Table 1 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE Source af 8S MS F P Source (own vs another's) 1. 0.3480 0.3480 0.001 981 Condition (protect vs control) 1 ; 2.2278 2.2278 0.461 503 Subjects 30 18078.7369 602.6247 297.626 <107" Source X Condition A 6061 2.6061 0.539 469 Condition x Subjects 30 145.1072 4.8369 2.389 .000063 Error 576 1166.2668 2.0248 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200620001-9