Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: &!l(pRE6P789R002200470001-6
(U) The number of trials shown in Table 2 differs slightly from those shown in Figure
1.
A few trials in each category were analyzed from a post-hoc point of view and therefore have not
been included in the formal analysis.
(S/NF)
The heterogeneity of effect size within each group for all classes
is very large
(i.e.,
the chi-squares for within-groups were large).
This
is to be expected for such a global analysis
and
is frequently seen in meta-analyses of psychological data. 5
The sources of the within-group
variation
include the psychoenergetic
skill
level
of the
subjects and fundamental
differences
between psychoenergetic tasks.
(S/NF)
The data, regardless of subjects or process, show strongly significant evidence for
psychoenergetic functioning
(p ^ 3.69 X
10‘ 21 ).
Both the informational and putative causal
processes show significant evidence of psychoenergetic functioning,
as well.
(S/NF)
Since p values are
strongly dependent upon the number of trials,
the modern
trend
in meta-analysis
is to consider the trial-independent measure of effect
size. From
this
point of view, the magnitude of the psychoenergetic functioning appears roughly constant for all
the data shown
in Table
2, and, according to Cohen’s
criteria
for the interpretation
of effect
size,*
corresponds
to
small
effects. 6 The method of calculating overall
effect
size,
however,
involves a weighted average
(see Table
1) and thus may not provide an accurate picture of the
size of the psychoenergetic functioning within a given category. To obtain more insight into the
nature of the functioning, we must examine the data within each category.
B.
(U)
Results for Categories Within the Informational Process
(S/NF)
Table
3 shows the number
of
trials,
total z score, p
value, and
effect
size
for
categories
within the informational process.
The
data show
strongly
significant evidence
for
psychoenergetic functioning for
all categories regardless of subjects.
The effect
size, however,
begins to demonstrate category differences.
(S/NF)
The forced-choice effect size
(
d
= 0.052)
is equivalent to the overall effect size
shown in Table 2 (d = 0.059).
Since the forced-choice category accounts for 77% of the total
number of trials, the effect-size averaging technique biases the overall result.
For example, the
effect size
(d = 0. 209) for the RV-Lab category is significantly larger than for the Forced-Choice
case (X2 = 22.70, v =
1; p < 6.63 X
10' 6 ). The RV-Lab effect sizes meet Cohen’s criterion for
a medium-sized behavioral effect.
*
(U)
Values of 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 correspond to small, medium, and large effects, respectively.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: S£fi>RE3)789R002200470001-6
Table 3
(U) STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR INFORMATIONAL CATEGORIES
Category
Perspective
n
z
P*
d
Forced-Choice
All
19,675
7.42
6.12
(-14)
0.052
G1
9,487
5.82
2.92
(-09)
0.060
All-Gl
10,188
4.69
1.39
(-06)
0.046
RV-Lab
All
966
6.49
4.33 (-11)
0.209
G1
196
5.39
3.49
(-08)
0.385
All-Gl
770
4.55
2.71
(-06)
0.164
RV-Ops
All
3.98
3.45
(-05)
1.326
G1
3.98
3.45
(-05)
1.326
All-Gl
—
—
—
—
RV-Search
All
3,790
2.61
4.53 (-03)
0.042
G1
—
—
—
—
All-Gl
3,790
2.61
4.53
(-03)
0.042
SECRET
*
(U) Powers-of-ten are shown in parentheses.
(S/NF)
For
the RV-Lab
category,
the
experienced
group,
Gi,
performs
significantly
better than the novice, larger group (X2 = 7.63, v =
1; p < 0.0057).
(S/NF)
As in the overall analysis, the data analyzed in Table 3 show a large heterogeneity
of effect
size within each category.
The heterogeneity of effect
size, however,
is
significantly
reduced for the experienced subjects in the RV-Lab category.
This reduction may result from a
more uniform
skill
level
of the
subjects
in
group Gl\
this
is
in
general agreement
with
our
qualitative assessment of their
abilities.
(S/NF)
Only 8.5% of the remote viewing operational
trials were analyzed
as
a
formal
experiment.
The
effect
size
for
these
exceeds
Cohen's
definition
of
a
large
effect.
The
intelligence requirements of operational remote viewing, however, are
less dependent upon the
quality of the viewing than they may be on other
factors.
Excellent remote viewing does not
necessarily imply good intelligence information.
(S/NF)
Because
of
the
usual
sensitivities
associated
with
intelligence
data,
obtaining
evaluations of the operational remote viewing has continued to be
difficult.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: 5>ElGREo1>789R002200470001-6
(S/NF)
In the RV-Search category, 91.3% of the data were collected under laboratory
conditions
by
novice
subjects.
The
remaining
trials
were
conducted
under
operational
conditions,
and
intelligence
analysis
is
not
available.
The
small
effect
size
(
d
=
0.042)
is
commensurate with that found in other laboratories, and may reflect our lack of understanding
about how to
elicit this form of psychoenergetic functioning.
C.
(U)
Specific Results for Remote Viewing
(U)
In this section we address the specific questions posed in the SOW.
In any kind of an
investigation where the general results fall under a statistical regime
(i.e., z scores less than about
5), no hard definitions exist for definitive conclusions. The problem is confounded in behavioral
science
because many
factors, beyond
the
particular independent
variable
in
question, may
significantly alter the outcome of an experiment.
In trying to assess a large body of literature, as
more constraints are placed on the outcomes, fewer within-group trials are available for analysis;
thus, statistical conclusions become more difficult.
This is also true for psychoenergetic research.
Yet,
it is possible to describe trends, to suggest ways of improving experiments based upon earlier
results, and to obtain clear insights into factors that may affect psychoenergetic functioning.
(S/NF)
To ensure the most reliable interpretations of results in what follows below, group
G1 has been used
for the quantitative discussion.
As was shown in Section V.-B,
this group
possessed
the most homogeneous
set
of data
for the RV-Lab category and demonstrated
a
significant amount of remote viewing ability.
1.
(U)
Selection/Screening
(S/NF)
The selection of individuals who are able to accomplish remote viewing both
in an
operational
setting and
in the laboratory
is of paramount importance.
As
is shown
in
Section V.-B.,
above, group G1
provides the best
results
for both
types of remote
viewing.
Throughout the
history
of the program
at SRI,
individuals have been able
to demonstrate
consistent
functioning over
a
long period
of time.
This does not mean
that,
after vigorous
searching, only 6 have been found.
Rather, given our applications-oriented charter for most of
the time period
in question, we had
little impetus to
find other viewers.
During
fiscal years
1986-1988,
it became
clear that
a
greater number
of talented
viewers was needed
for both
applications and research.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6