Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Final Report- -Objective C,
Tasks 2 and 3
December 1987
REVIEW OF THE PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
By:
NEVIN
D. LANTZ
Prepared
for:
PETER
J. McNELIS, DSW
CONTRACTING OFFICER'S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE
333
Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo
Park,
California
94025
U.S.A.
(415) 326-6200
Cable:
SRI
INTL MPK
TWX:
910-373-2046
ved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Atmrovdd For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
U
'
^5
Final
Report- -Objective
C,
Tasks 2 and 3
December
1987
Covering
the Period
October
1986
to 30 September
1987
REVIEW OF THE PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
By:
NEVIN
D. LANTZ
Prepared
for:
PETER
J. McNELIS, DSW
CONTRACTING OFFICER'S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE
I
I
SRI
Project
1291
Approved by:
MURRAY
J. BARON, Director
Geoscience and Engineering Center
333 Ravenswood Avenue
•
Menlo
Park,
California
94025
•
U.S.A.
(415) 326-6200
•
Cable:
SRI
INTL MPK
* TWX:
910-373-2046
For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
ABSTRACT
During FY 1987, we conducted a thorough review of the Personality Assessment System
(PAS) to gauge its continued usefulness as a screening and selection instrument and a personality
descriptor for subjects in the psychoenergetics project.
Data for this review came from published
articles where the PAS was reviewed or used as a research tool, attendance at the annual PAS
conference, and extensive interviews with several of the principal developers.
The PAS
is a multifactored personality assessment instrument that has been evolving over
the past 30 years using behavioral measures as raw data for making inferences and predictions
about personality arid behavior.
The early development work was conducted by John Gittinger
and his associates in a private firm that served clients in business and government.
During the
last 20 years, the test has begun to make small inroads into the academic environment, but
it
remains obscure and controversial.
This
report
traces
the development
of the PAS,
gives an overview of the
theory and
methods
of
the
test,
and
examines some
of
the
problems
connected
with
its
use
in
the
psychoenergetics project.
It concludes that use of the PAS as a descriptive tool has continuing
merit
but
that
using
the
test
for
mass
screening
and
mass
selection
of
candidates
for
psychoenergetic training
is not feasible
at this time.
ii
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
I
INTRODUCTION
A.
Overview
B.
Brief History of the PAS
II
DESCRIPTION OF THE PAS
A.
PAS Theory
B.
The Fourth Dimension:
Goal Oriented-Task Oriented (G-T)
C.
Reference Groups
D.
Current Usage
III
DISCUSSION
A.
PAS Critique
B.
Problems with Use in Psychoenergetic Research
C.
Conclusions and Recommendations
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A - FUNDAMENTAL FACTS ABOUT REFERENCE GROUPS
A-l
APPENDIX B - NOTES ABOUT PSI
B-l
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
I INTRODUCTION
A.
Overview
1.
Rationale for Personality Testing
Psychoenergetic
research
is
hampered
by
the
difficulty
of
finding
able
and
cooperative talent for experimental use.
One obvious solution, the development of a training
program,
requires
a
set
of
procedures
that
optimizes
the
selection
of
potential
trainees.
Personality testing
is an example of one procedure that has produced successful screening and
selection results in a variety of contexts.
Accordingly, there have been numerous attempts in the
experimental investigation of psychic phenomena to relate personality factors to psychoenergetic
functioning.
An almost overwhelming difficulty
is encountered in this effort.
On the one hand
is
the low reliability of scores on psychic tasks noted by Palmer 1
*
in his review of the personality
and psi literature.
Palmer estimates the average Psi reliability to be in the neighborhood of +0.30
and extremely variable from experiment
to
experiment.
On the
other hand
is
the
variable
reliability of the self-report measures commonly used to assess personality
traits.
This implies
that correlations between psychic task scores and personality variables will be small and unstable,
not an optimum situation
for constructing
a screening instrument.
Indeed,
a
review
of the
literature shows that although extroverted, well adjusted people who believe in ESP tend to score
higher on psychic tasks, the correlations are,
as expected, low and unstable.
In 1983, the psychoenergetic research team at SRI International became confident
enough
in the
stability of the remote viewing phenomenon
to begin the task of assessing the
personalities of remote viewers.
The Personality Assessment System (PAS) was selected as the
potential
test
instrument.
Its
appeal
was
threefold:
(1)
the
system
is
a
comprehensive
multifactored personality theory;
(2)
it makes useful discriminations among individuals in normal
populations; and
(3)
it uses performance scores as raw data instead of self-report measures.
In
addition to providing detailed descriptions of psychic personalities,
it was hoped the system would
References are
listed at the end of this report.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
prove
useful
in
predicting
latent
psychic
ability
as
a
first
step
toward
selecting
promising
candidates for psychic training.
In FY 1984, a pilot study was conducted using the PAS to test a group of people who
in previous work had shown significant evidence of remote viewing ability.
Clustering was found
in several distinct PAS reference groups.
Four of these groups accounted for 8 out of 8 excellent
remote viewers as well as 10 out of 17 superior viewers.
These encouraging results led to further
research and some preliminary attempts to predict remote viewing performance
in a group of
novice viewers.
During FY
1986
and FY
1987,
Dr.
David
Saunders
of MARS
Measurement
Associates, Pennington, New Jersey, was retained to consult in the use of the PAS.
Dr. Saunders
has been associated with the development of the PAS for over thirty years and,
in addition to
research
supporting PAS
constructs,
has added two
important
refinements:
(1)
the
fourth
dimension, and (2) the concept of reference groups (both are discussed below).
Using the PAS,
Dr.
Saunders has
tested
over
125
persons
in our
subject pool,
isolated
several
personality
characteristics of psychic individuals,2 and successfully predicted the performance of a group of
novice remote viewers
(see Appendix B, Part B).
2.
Objective C, Task 3—Review the Personality Assessment System
The PAS has not, however, received wide recognition in mainstream psychology.
In
fact, most psychologists are unfamiliar with
it.3
The recent development of a fourth personality
dimension and the reference group concept have required extensive additions to the empirical
data base.
In addition,
critical comments from Dr. Kiernan’s review4 regarding the validity of
inferences drawn from the PAS necessitated a comprehensive review of the PAS,
to understand
the
test’s
strengths
and
weaknesses
and
to
evaluate
its
continued
usefulness
to
the
psychoenergetics
project.
To
meet
the
requirements
of
this
task,
we
reviewed
pertinent
literature, attended the 1987 PAS conference
in Nelsonville,
Ohio, and conducted extensive
interviews with principals involved in developing the test.
B.
Brief History of the PAS
The PAS was developed in the late 1940s by John Gittinger, a clinical psychologist.
His
efforts paralleled
other,
mostly unsuccessful,
attempts
to
derive
personality information
with
diagnostic
utility from intelligence
tests
like the Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scales (WAIS). 3
One reason independent
investigators
failed
to
replicate promising
findings was
the
lack
of
agreement among clinicians as to the criteria for defining the pathologies involved.
Gittinger’s
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
the publications of Krauskopf and Davis and their graduate students in the testing and counseling
center
at
the
University
of
Missouri,
by
the
continuing
research
of
Saunders
(MARS
Measurements Associates), and Thetford and Schucman (Columbia University), the teaching of
the system by Robert MacLachlan (American International University), the use of the PAS as
the
primary
test
for
student
assessment and placement
at
the Hocking
Technical
College
(Nelsonville, Ohio) and the recent research interest shown by Daryl Bern (Cornell University).
The test
is also featured prominently in Matarazzo’s Wechsler’s Measurement and Appraisal of
Adult Intelligence*
In addition, a nonprofit foundation, which publishes a quarterly journal, has
been established to promote a wider use of the test.
The
following
review
of PAS
theory
and measurement
is
presented
as
a means
of
illuminating some of the challenges encountered
in the
application of an evolving theory and
measurement of individual differences to the novel problem of selecting individuals with latent
psychic
ability.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
II DESCRIPTION OF THE PAS
A.
PAS Theory
The purpose of any assessment
is to make predictions about aspects of an individual’s
behavior that cannot be readily observed.
Because of
its power and scope, the PAS has the
potential to answer much more than the simple question of whether or not an individual has
psychic
talent.
It could
potentially predict:
(1)
the type
of psychic
task on which
a
given
individual might perform best;
(2) individuals with natural talent versus those who are trainable;
(3)
the type
of learning environment best suited to potential trainees;
(4)
the most
efficient
training method for a given person; and (5) what situations might prove stressful and thus reduce
psychic functioning.
To show clearly how such predictions are possible, we present a short introduction to PAS
theory and measurement.
As noted, PAS
is based on an empirical examination of thousands of
WAIS records and case histories. The heart of PAS theory and practice is described in a Journal
of Clinical Psychology monograph published in 1973.5 The following summary relies heavily on
concepts presented in the monograph.
1.
Personality Dimensions
The PAS regards personality structure and functioning in terms of highly complex
patterns of interaction among a person’s primary response style or primitive personality features,
the environment in which development occurs, and the compensations and modifications that are
acquired in response. The major determinants of behavior are initial or primary endowment and
two levels of adaptation that result from the interaction of the individual with the environment.
Theoretically,
adult
personality
structure
and
function
must be
understood
in
light
of
the
interaction of these levels since no aspect
is meaningful apart from the others.
The
biological
urge
to
respond
to
the
external
environment
and
the
resulting
consequences make up the fundamental dynamics of the PAS.
PAS assumes three
levels of
adjustment.
The
first
is the primitive level constituted by sets of primary abilities corresponding
to three theoretical dimensions of behavior discussed below.
The second
level, the basic or
attained structure,
is a function of compensations to the primitive tendencies through interaction
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
with the environment and is achieved as a child matures to adolescence.
Finally, through further
modifications
of behavior,
a person
attains,
at adulthood, a surface or contact level.
Again,
these dimensions and levels are not discrete entities. Rather their interaction is felt to be far more
important in determining behavior than
is any component taken alone.
The three major dimensions of primary or primitive personality identified by PAS
theory
are
labeled:
Externalizer-Internalizer
(E-I),
Regulated-Flexible
(R-F),
and
Role
Adaptive-Role Uniform (A-U)
. They are primary in that from birth onward they determine the
quality and direction of a person’s selective tendencies, both in awareness and response.
They
establish the general lines along which a person
is predisposed to develop, and limit the ability to
adjust by making some orientations alien.
The original, primitive personality structure defines
the preferred type of reactivity.
From the very beginning of life, how a person responds as well
as to what he responds,
will be essentially in accord with this fundamental pattern.
a.
The Externalizer-Internalizer (E-I) Dimension
The E-I dimension
is
referred
to
as
the
intellectual
variable because
it
is
associated with a person’s ideational or cognitive
style.
This dimension
is concerned with the
quality and content of an individual’s mental activity as well as the ways in which mental activities
are used.
The
Externalizer and the Internalizer are the extremes of the dimension and are
opposite one another with regard
to the
stimuli to which they are
sensitive and the
types of
responses that are evoked, the satisfactions they seek and the way they seek them, the major
sources of threat and the
quality of the
resulting defensiveness,
the course and direction
of
acquired adjustments, proneness
to mental and physical malfunction, and the
quality of the
inter-, intra-, and impersonal environment that facilitates or hampers optimal functioning.
The
Externalizer
is an
active
individual, more
interested
in
doing than
in
thinking.
For the E, the world
is real and experience
is
real.
He
is practical,
concrete, and
works by trial and error.
He directs his energies outward, seeking involvement with others.
He
is,
psychologically
speaking,
perceptually
dominant,
environmentally
dependent,
and more
responsive to external than internal cues. He must exert considerable energy when compelled to
deal with ideas,
to be
self-sufficient,
or to control the natural inclination toward
activity and
involvement with others.
A primitive Internalizer is the opposite.
For him ideas are real.
He
is fond of
symbols and
abstractions and
tends
to
shun
the
practical,
the
specific,
the
concrete.
His
emotions are
directed inward, and
his
feelings—to the
casual observer—appear masked and
obscure.
They are in fact highly personal feelings and he guards them closely.
He
is primarily
'
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
of internal stimuli.
On the other hand the EF
is aware of and responsive to a wide range of
external stimuli.
c.
The Role Adaptive-Role Uniform (A-U) Dimension
The A-U dimension
is often called the social dimension since
it refers to an
individual’s
skill in meeting the
social demands required by
culture.
This dimension
is more
difficult to grasp because in addition to having important interactions with the other dimensions,
it has a dual aspect. On the one hand,
it represents the overall effect or image one projects in a
social setting. On the other hand,
it helps to determine behavior, for how one continues to act in
a
social
setting
is determined
to
a
great extent by the
responses one
receives
to the
initial
projected image.
The A individual is magnetic, charming, and captivating. He moves easily in a
variety
of
social
situations and has the knack
of expressing conventional or proper
feelings
whether or not they happen to be his true feelings. He
is seldom anxious in social situations but
is quite capable of showing anxiety
if the occasion calls for
it.
Major problems stem from the
highly favorable
first impression he creates.
Having oversold himself without really trying, he
is
then faced with the task of living up to the high expectations his social versatility has engendered.
It is his fate to be accepted wholeheartedly at first, and later when he fails to meet expectations,
to be misunderstood and over-punished.
At the other extreme the U
individual
is
socially inept and
at best able
to
handle only a
few
roles.
These
few roles
are
applied
to whatever situations he encounters
whether or not they happen to
fit.
He
is more likely to be rejected than accepted, and the
first
impression he makes
is usually unfavorable unless he
is in a situation appropriate to a role he
knows.
Often he
is overlooked at
first and later accepted for specific nonsocial skills.
As with the R-F dimension, the interactions of the A-U dimension with other
primitive dimensions are extremely important.
For example, the ability to shift roles easily
is a
talent of the primitive A and his consequent social acceptance may interact positively with the E
need for contact with the environment.
A different problem arises for the IA as ready social
acceptance may run counter to his need to be
left alone.
In the same way an RA may attract
others initially but his self-centeredness will ultimately show through his A tendencies.
On the
other hand the FA may begin
well but
his
sensitivity and
inferiority
feelings may
result
in
rejection and social failure.
The U dimension has a similar set of unique interactions with the
other dimensions.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
d.
Compensation and Modification
The need to adapt to environmentally imposed situations requires adjustment to each
of the primitive tendencies.
The
first of these adjustments known as compensation ,
refers to
adaptations that happen during childhood.
Compensation
is defined as the movement toward
the attributes of the opposite primitive tendency.
For example,
a primitive E can learn to be
more
passive, more
ideationally aware and more
self-sufficient.
Compensatory
activities are
acquired
tendencies,
externally induced and
environmentally
determined.
Obviously some
compensation
is
required
for adequate
functioning.
The
strength
of the
original
primitive
tendencies coupled with the degree of compensation determines whether
a maladaptive
state
results.
When compensation has been achieved, usually by adolescence, the person
is said to
have reached the basic level of personality development.
This adjustment level
is considered
relatively stable and not vulnerable to stress.
Modification, the second level of personality adjustment, interacts with the basic level
of each dimension to form the surface level of personality structure and
is achieved during the
later stages of development.
This
is the level associated with the
first impressions of a particular
adult personality.
It
is a relatively unstable level and particularly vulnerable to stress.
Because of compensations and later modifications, the personality may follow any of
several general routes from each original primitive tendency.
At one extreme, an individual may
fail to develop either compensating or modifying tendencies in one or more of the three primitive
dimensions.
Such a condition indicates a narrow restricted psychological set limiting the range of
responsiveness and efficiency.
At the other extreme
is the individual who has reacted against
one or more of his original tendencies first through compensation and later through modification.
This combination
is
likely to produce
repression.
Between these two extremes,
a
variety of
adjustments are possible
representing a person’s attempts
to compromise with environmental
pressures rather than avoid them entirely or succumb to them completely.
2.
Measurement Using the WAIS
Although the PAS theory can stand alone or be used in conjunction with a variety of
tests and behavioral observations, the most common method for measurement used in practice
is
a system of deriving difference scores from WAIS subtest data.
The deviation of scores on ten
subtests (excluding vocabulary) from an empirically derived Normal Level (NL)
is the heart of
the measuring process. NL
is theorized to be the innate core of intelligence present at birth or,
in WAIS terms, an estimate of the standard score a person would receive on the subtests
if
all
personality influences were eliminated.
It can be approximated by averaging the subtest scaled
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
scores,
although
in
practice
it
is
derived
using
a
complicated
set
of procedures
arrived
at
empirically by Gittinger and his associates and outlined in Chapter 5 of their monograph.5
Once the NL has been determined, a person’s primitive level of orientation on each
of the three dimensions (E-I, R-F, A-U)
is obtained from the difference between NL and the
scaled
score on
three WAIS
subtests.
Position on
the
E-I dimension
is
reflected by
the
difference score on Digit Span.
Similarly, the R-F position
is assessed by deviation analysis of
the Block Design score and position on the A-U dimension
is determined by derivation of the
difference score on Picture Arrangement.
Digit Span
scores below NL
are
associated with
externalizing tendencies whereas
scores above NL are assumed to be produced because of internalizing tendencies. A person can
handle the Digit Span subtest in one of two ways.
The
first approach
is to treat the
digits as
though they were located somewhere in the environment such as on the wall, or associated with
actual objects
in the environment.
This
is the approach used by the E individual who turns
naturally to the environment for assistance in problem solving. The E
is not very successful with
this method because
it tends to
restrict recall,
thus lowering the
Digit Span score.
Another
Externalizer characteristic,
the tendency to see the
digits
as separate units
(without grouping
them to facilitate recall) lowers performance
still further.
In addition, since the digits themselves
are
abstractions,
they
represent an
area
relatively
alien
to
the
E.
Beyond
this,
the
test
situation—face-to-face
administration
of
the
subtest—produces
interference because
of the
need to respond to the examiner.
Thus, the strength of the externalized tendency is indicated by
how poorly the E performs on the Digit Span.
The second way a person can handle Digit Span
is to arrange the numbers so as to
make them more meaningful.
This is essentially an abstract, internalized process which does not
involve the external environment.
Thus
it
is the natural approach of the
I who tends to group
digits in a manner that facilitates recall.
Also, because the
I has no vital need for interpersonal
approval, the test situation
is not disturbing.
These factors combine to produce a relatively high
Digit Span score, indicating the strength of the
I tendency.
The primitive position on the R-F dimension
is derived from the score received on
Block
Design.
Again,
this
task has two
approaches
corresponding
to
the
problem-solving
methods
inherent
in
primitive
Regulation and
primitive
Flexibility.
The R operates on
the
premise that there is only one solution to each Block Design problem and moves deliberately and
systematically to find
it.
This involves breaking down each design into
its component parts, thus
facilitating the accurate reproduction of the individual units that make up the total design. The R
is not readily distracted nor is concentration on minute details irksome.
Relationship of parts to
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
the whole or deriving meaning from an understanding of the whole is not important.
Focus on a
narrow,
specific
aspect
of the problem
allows
the R
to reproduce
the
designs by
accurate
imitation of their elements.
This special combination of abilities
is so well suited to the Block
Design task that the strength of the R tendency can be obtained on the basis of how well the task
is performed.
The F
is
less
certain
that there
is
only one way to do the
task.
The
design
is
responded
to
as
a
totality,
with meaning ascribed
to the
relationship
of parts
to the whole.
Attention to detail
is irritating and the discrete units of the design are ignored. A wide range of
perception not only prevents focus on the task but makes the F regard the design as only one
aspect of the total test situation. Thus the F is distractable and finds concentration difficult.
This
combination of attributes
is so poorly suited to good performance on Block Design that the
strength of the F tendency
is measured by poor performance relative to Normal Level.
The Picture Arrangement subtest
is the indicator of a person’s primitive tendency
with regard to the A-U dimension.
Like Digit Span and Block Design, Picture Arrangement
presents a series of problems that can be handled in either of two ways.
The two approaches
reflect the differences in social perception that characterize Role Adaptivity and Role Uniformity.
Since this subtest requires insight into human social interaction, a high score is obtained by the A
individual
whose
high
degree
of
interpersonal
awareness,
appreciation
of
the
appropriate
situational behavior, and ability to handle unfamiliar social situations helps to rapidly identify the
correct sequence of the pictures.
The U individual, lacking social awareness, regards the items apart from the implied
social
context and
thus
has
difficulty
ordering them
correctly.
In
addition,
limited
social
versatility makes the unfamiliar situations threatening and the anxiety thus aroused depresses the
Picture Arrangement score.
Low scores on this subtest are associated with the U pole of this
variable.
Six of the remaining seven subtests are used to measure the presence or absence of
the compensating and modifying tendencies of each of the primitive dimensions. The Arithmetic
subtest measures compensatory tendencies
at the basic
level
for the E-I dimension while the
Information subtest measures the strength of modifying tendencies at the surface level.
On the
R-F dimension, the Similarities subtest of the WAIS reflects a person’s basic adjustment and the
Comprehension subtest indicates the nature of modification at the surface level. And finally, on
the A-U
dimension,
the
Picture
Completion
items
indicate
the
presence
or
absence
of
compensation while Object Assembly
is the measure of modification.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
into a
sj
i
meanir^
group
\j
variably
i
how to
twenty
existen
arithm
import
tightm
Seven
groupi
calcul
out to
indivi'
neces
appei
grouj
uniqv
PAS
respc
statis
can
:
Eacl
of £r
thre
“prc
thar
prei
peo
I
hen
..
old-
The remaining subtest. Digit Symbol,
is used to measure a concept called Act
Level.
This concept
is related to the overall quality of functioning including drive, motivat
and energy output and is integrated into the fourth dimension discussed in the following secti
B.
The Fourth Dimension: Goal Oriented-Task Oriented (G-T)
The development
of
a
fourth
personality dimension came
about through
the
recognition by Saunders that the WAIS subtests were a “harmful limitation" of the power of
theory .7
Along with the addition of items to several of the WAIS subtests, Saunders event
added the Color Naming Test
(a variation of the Stroop Test) and a Time Estimation Te
produce an extended WAIS.
Combined
with
the
Digit Symbol
subtest
(originally
use
Gittinger to measure Activity Level) a fourth personality dimension evolved which measure
strength of coping behavior, problem-solving style, time orientation, and stress tolerance . 8
primitive level indicator is the Color Naming subtest while the basic and contact level indie
are Digit Symbol and Time Estimation, respectively.
The fourth dimension
is a
fairly recent addition to the PAS and as such has not rec
the same theoretical attention in the literature as have the other dimensions.
In addition
fourth dimension has been subsumed by the reference group concept discussed below.
Bi
the primitive poles indicate whether a person tends to be goal oriented (G) or task oriented
The goal oriented person has a high ability to learn up to his innate level and to acquire
skills.
He
is not only stress tolerant but tends to thrive on stress.
The G person also ha
conflict well.
By contrast, the task oriented person has difficulty learning to his potential,
vulnerable to stress and conflict and
is easily immobilized.
He lacks perspective and focus
getting from one moment to the next.
C.
Reference Groups
PAS theory emphasizes the interaction effects of the various dimensions and levels
can be seen from the preceding discussion, the possibilities for distinct personality types q
become unmanageable
(Gittinger’s
original formulation gave
personality descriptions
fo
different types)
.
Using the polar extremes of the primitive level, only eight cells or cluste
possible, but allowing for varying degrees of strength of the primitive tendencies, several les
compensation,
several
levels
of
modification,
the
fourth
dimension,
age,
and
gende
astronomical set of possible personality descriptions results.
While all are theoretically po
only a few can be identified psychometrically.
The reference group concept
is an atter
make the data of the PAS more manageable. A reference group collapses a large number c
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
is
represented
times and
corresponds
to
the
patterns formed by
the
original
3 PAS
dimensions.
All the members of the same group share a common value system; that
is, they deal with
the same
set of forces driving their behavior.
So,
for example,
a hedonist and a prude can
occupy the same group in spite of wide behavior differences because dealing with the issue of
pleasure
is the urgent task for this group.
In the same way persons who seek confrontation and
those who avoid it are grouped together since dealing with confrontation is the main topic for this
group regardless of behavioral resolution.
D.
Current Usage
As mentioned previously, the PAS
is receiving growing visibility in a number of academic
settings. The PAS Foundation’s current bibliography lists 146 PAS-related references, including
studies validating PAS concepts as well as studies showing the descriptive value of the
test.
A
review by Krauskopf10 concludes that there
is evidence of concurrent and construct validity for
the PAS and some demonstration of predictive validity.
The
PAS
has
been
used
successfully
to
predict
rank
order
of
student
course
achievement, 11
to
distinguish between subgroups
of
ulcerative
colitis
patients, 12
to
separate
patients suffering migraine headaches from ulcerative colitis patients, 13 to describe the personality
characteristics of AWOL soldiers, 14 to relate hysterical symptoms to personality traits, 15 and
to
separate criminal populations from noncriminals. 16
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
is
represented
times and
corresponds
to
the
patterns formed by
the
original
3 PAS
dimensions.
All the members of the same group share a common value system; that
is, they deal with
the same
set of forces driving their behavior.
So,
for example,
a hedonist and a prude can
occupy the same group in spite of wide behavior differences because dealing with the issue of
pleasure
is the urgent task for this group.
In the same way persons who seek confrontation and
those who avoid it are grouped together since dealing with confrontation is the main topic for this
group regardless of behavioral resolution.
D.
Current Usage
As mentioned previously, the PAS
is receiving growing visibility in a number of academic
settings. The PAS Foundation’s current bibliography lists 146 PAS-related references, including
studies validating PAS concepts as well as studies showing the descriptive value of the
test. A
review by Krauskopf10 concludes that there
is evidence of concurrent and construct validity for
the PAS and some demonstration of predictive validity.
The
PAS
has
been
used
successfully
to
predict
rank
order
of
student
course
achievement, 11
to
distinguish between
subgroups
of
ulcerative
colitis
patients, 12
to
separate
patients suffering migraine headaches from ulcerative colitis patients, 13 to describe the personality
characteristics of AWOL soldiers, 14 to relate hysterical symptoms to personality traits, 15 and
to
separate criminal populations from noncriminals. 16
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
III
DISCUSSION
A.
PAS Critique
Current evaluation of the PAS must begin from the fact that it is an evolving system.
The
complexity generated by the intra-individual interactions of
abilities, coupled with the largely
empirical nature of PAS development and continued refinement of theory, has made periodic
revisions and updates
of the system
necessary.
This can be regarded
as an advantage
or
a
disadvantage.
Some would see the effort as doomed from the start and are inclined to distrust
the system
entirely.
Others have added components to the system, responding to perceived
shortcomings, in attempts to improve
its usefulness.
The attitude of doom
is probably due to a
lack of familiarity with the complexity of the test while the attempts to improve usually follow the
experience of dramatic results with
its use in specific situations.
/
Representative of the
first position
is the attack by Turner and his colleagues in a study
sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health and reported in a leading journal of clinical
psychology. 17
Turner
et
al.
attempted
two
seemingly
straightforward
analyses:
(1)
a
determination
of the correspondence between two standard
self-report measures (16PF and
MMPI) and the personality characteristics of persons within various PAS classifications, and (2)
an investigation of several PAS
assumptions.
Negative
results
are reported
for
five
of seven
hypotheses
with
“little
utility
for
clinical
application"
for the two
significant
findings.
After
defending the adequacy of their study’s design, the authors present a critique of PAS theory and
measurement that makes the following points:
(1) available evidence does not support the choice
of Digit Span, Block Design, and Picture Arrangement as the primitive indicators (based on one
study that showed greater heritability for Information, Arithmetic, and Vocabulary);
(2) Normal
Level appears to be calculated in such a way that compensation will be judged to have occurred
(this
is offered as an explanation of why their sample was skewed toward compensation)
; and (3)
the foundation
of PAS measurement and
classification
is flawed since
it
relies on difference
scores (generally thought to be unreliable)
.
The authors conclude that because their hypotheses
were not unsupported, the whole system must be questioned.
The opposite view is espoused by Saunders who, based on multiple experiences of what he
considered valid profile interpretation by John Gittinger, has devoted a good portion of the last
30 years to PAS related research.
In a series of studies6 using factor analysis, he demonstrated
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
that the WAIS samples material from an 18-factor domain making
it more factorially complex
than previously thought.
He then turned his attention to the relative primitivity of certain traits
and, using several different methods, found support for the hypothesis that Digit Span, Block
Design,
Picture Arrangement,
and
Digit Symbol measure
primitive
traits
while
other WAIS
subtests measure learned or acquired characteristics.
Integrating these insights into PAS practice,
he
has gone on
to develop
the
concept
of the
fourth dimension and
the
reference
group
structure.
Taken together, Saunders’ contributions answer the harshest criticisms leveled at the PAS.
Specifically, addition of subtest items, fourth dimension measures, and reference group structure
addresses the
limitations of the WAIS
as
a measurement tool,
eliminates the dependence of
personality classification on Normal Level, and obviates criticisms based on the unreliability of
difference
scores.
One measure
of the success
of
his approach
is that randomly generated
profiles do not generally
fit reference group definitions.
Saunders 18 has directly responded to the negative findings of Turner, et al. by showing that
their
study
(1)
failed
to account
for
the
interactions
of
abilities
in
its
analyses,
(2)
tested
hypotheses based on
oversimplifications
of PAS
theories,
(3)
used an unrecognized
biased
sample, and (4) used the scales of a self-report measure (MMPI) with no reported reliability in
normal populations.
Using Turner’s own data, Saunders goes on to demonstrate support for
commonality between the PAS and the other personality measure (16PF) used in the study.
In summary, current PAS theory and practice proposes nothing less than a classification
system that encompasses the entire domain of individual differences. 19
It builds on the familiar
multiple-factor model first proposed by Thurstone20 and pursued by Cattell21 and Guilford, 22 but
goes beyond them with the idea that personality must be seen as an interaction of abilities rather
than a static repository of traits.
Although the concept is complex, the ultimate success of any
research utilizing PAS concepts hinges on addressing this idea.
B.
Problems with Use in Psychoenergetic Research
As noted previously, the recent refinements of the PAS are
still in process and have not
yet been published.
Because
it was unclear how fourth dimension and reference group concepts
were being blended into original PAS formulations,
the psychoenergetics project encountered
some problems as new groups were added to the system, group names were changed, and group
descriptions were rewritten. The following discussion of these problems should be seen in light of
the recognized necessity for these changes and not as an attempt to invalidate the PAS concept.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
1.
Fourth Dimension Theory
The
lack
of
a
detailed
theoretical
formulation
in PAS
literature
for
the
fourth
personality dimension along the lines of the other three
is currently a weak link in the system.
The descriptive material for this dimension has changed more often than that of the other three
as new reference groups were added.
Since all of its aspects appear to be learned,
it is not at all
clear how this dimension can have the same primitive aspect as the other three.
Theoretical
questions aside, the changing nature of the descriptive material has impeded our efforts to use
the system as a descriptive tool.
2.
Reference Group Instability
The instability of reference group number and composition for the past several years
is another aspect of the system that has hampered our attempts to describe psychic personalities.
Initially, we
relied on
short summary
descriptions generated by
profile
analysis
of the
four
dimensions. These descriptions changed as more groups were added and individuals were placed
into other groups.
With the recent stabilization of the system at 120 reference groups,
it is hoped
that detailed descriptions of each reference group
will be forthcoming.
This task
will not be
trivial because of the considerable amount of within group behavioral variability postulated by the
system.
There are indications that Gittinger, although now retired,
is interested in formulating
these descriptions.23
C.
Conclusions and Recommendations
This
review,
stimulated
by
critical
evaluation
of
the
PAS
measurement
process,
long-standing indifference to PAS theory by the psychological community, and unfamiliarity with
the development of fourth dimension and reference group concepts, hopefully communicates a
clearer understanding of what must be considered a truly ambitious project.
The tenacity of a
small and
dedicated
group
of
researchers
(particularly
Saunders)
and
clinicians
is
to
be
applauded.
Yet,
a tremendous amount of work remains to have the concept integrated into
mainstream psychological research and academe, where
it will ultimately have to be accepted for
its
full potential to be exploited.
The continued use of the PAS as a descriptive tool in psychoenergetic research
is much
enhanced by the recent
stabilization
of the reference group
structure.
This function
will be
additionally improved by complete
theoretical and behavioral
descriptions
of each reference
group.
It is recommended that new subjects showing psychic talent in laboratory tests continue to
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
be tested with the PAS as part of a long-range effort to find unique characteristics of psychic
personalities.
The use
of the PAS
as
a
potential mass
screening instrument
in conjunction
with
a
self-report
test (MBTI)
has
to be reevaluated
(see Appendix
B,
part D).
It appears
that
although the PAS can be used to predict MBTI scores, the converse
is not true.
Since the PAS is
relatively time consuming to administer and cannot be done in a group setting,
it appears that the
PAS’s value to the psychoenergetic project will continue to be descriptive, rather than predictive,
until a larger data base of reliable psi performers
is accumulated.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
REFERENCES
1.
Palmer, J., “Attitudes and Personality Traits in Experimental ESP Research,” in Benjamin
B. Wolman
(Ed.)» Handbook of Parapsychology, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company,
1977.
2.
Saunders, D.
S., “Predicting Psi Performance with the Personality Assessment System,”
Research in Parapsychology, 1985 , Metuchen, N.J., The Scarecrow Press,
Inc.,
1986.
3.
Matarazzo,
J. D., “Personality and Related Correlates of the Wechsler Scales,” in J. D.
Matarazzo, Wechsler’s Measurement and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence, Chapter 14, pp.
475-482
(5th Edition), Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins Company,
1972.
4.
Lantz,
N,
and
Kiernan,
R.
J.,
“Neuropsychological
Assessment
of
Participants
in
Psychoenergetic Tasks,” Final Report, SRI Project 1291, SRI International, Menlo Park,
California, December,
1986.
5.
Winne,
J.
F., and
Gittinger,
J. W., “An Introduction
to the
Personality Assessment
System,” Journal of Clinical Psychology, Monograph Supplement, No. 38 (Now Archives
of the Behavioral Sciences),
1973.
6.
Frank, G. H., “The Measurement
of Personality from the Wechsler Tests,”
in
B. A.
Maher (Ed.), Progress in Experimental Personality Research, Vol.
5, pp. 169-194, New
York, Academic Press,
1970.
7.
Saunders, D.
R., “Some Conclusions Drawn from Research Stimulated by the PAS,”
in
Volsky, T.
C.,
Jr.
(Chm.), The
Classification of Clients: A New Approach Based on
Abilities, Symposium presented at the American College Personnel Association (APGA),
Dallas, March,
1967.
8.
Saunders,
D.
S., PAS
Fourth Dimension
Kit,
Lawerenceville, MARS
Measurement
Associates, 1983.
9.
Saunders,
D.
S.,
“The
efa*
Super-Dependent
Female,”
unpublished
manuscript,
Lawrenceville, New Jersey,
1968.
10.
Krauskopf,
C.
J.,
“Validity
and
the
Personality
Assessment
System
Since
1973,”
Personality Assessment System Foundation Journal, Vol.
3, pp. 2-6, Spring, 1985.
11.
Krauskopf, C. J., and Bielefeld, M. O., “The Prediction of Achievement in a Senior Level
Course,” Academic Psychology Bulletin,
3, pp. 245-249,
1981.
12.
Schucman,
H., Saunders, D.
R., and Thetford, W. N., “An Application of Syndrome
Analysis
to
Subjects
with
Ulcerative
Colitis,”
Paper
presented
at
the
American
Psychological Association Convention,
1962.
13.
Schucman, H., and Thetford, W. N., “A Comparison of Personality Traits in Ulcerative
Colitis and Migraine Patients,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 76, pp. 443-452,
1970.
14.
Tetrault, S., “PAS Description of Chronic AWOL Soldiers,” In C. J. Krauskopf and K. G.
Davis (Eds.) Studies of the Normal Personality, JSAS Catalogue of Selected Documents in
Psychology,
3, p. 85
(Ms. No. 415),
1969.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
15.
Thetford, W.
N., and Schucman,
H.,
“Conversion Reactions and Personality Traits,”
Psychological Reports, 27, pp. 1005—1006,
1970.
16.
Winne,
J.
F., “WAIS Performance of Criminals and Non-Criminals: PAS Primitive and
Basic Personality Patterns,” unpublished manuscript, Alexandria,
Virginia,
1977.
17.
Turner, R. G., Willerman,
L., and Horn,
J. M., “A Test of some Predictions from the
Personality Assessment System,” Journal of Clinical Psychology,
32, pp. 631-643, 1976.
18.
Saunders,
D.
R., “On
Turner’s
Assessment
of
the
Personality Assessment
System.”
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, pp. 616-623,
1982.
19.
Saunders, D.
R., “Reference Groups: A 1984 View of the Undertaking,” unpublished
manuscript, Lawrenceville, New Jersey,
1984.
20.
Thurstone, L.
L., The Vectors of the Mind, University of Chicago Press,
1935.
21.
Cattell, R.
B., Factor Analysis, Harper,
1952.
22.
Guilford,
J.
P., The Nature of Human Intelligence, McGraw Hill,
1967.
23.
Saunders, D.
R., personal communication, November 1987.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Facts — Draft/4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001 -2
Fundamental Facts about Reference Groups
David R.
Saunders
MARS Measurement Associates
*
The purpose of this document is to provide an introductory
overview of the WAIS/PAS Reference Groups.
Rigor and detail have
been sacrificed in favor of brevity and impact.
Questions from
interested readers are invited.
A "Reference Group" may be defined as
(1)
a specified set of
real individuals who are both
(2)
demonstrably homogeneous ac-
cording to appropriate quantitative criteria and
(3)
acceptably
homogeneous according to meaningful behavioral criteria.
Taken as
a whole,
the system of Reference Groups
is able to
integrate an extraordinary range of individual difference data,
including both "normal" and "abnormal" personality as seen
through self-reports and/or tests and/or observer ratings.
All
this
is accomplished within a conceptually interesting,
computer-
compatible framework.
A — From the perspective of psychological theory
1.
There are precisely 120 groups.
The groups are rela-
tively distinct from one another,
and these distinctions between
groups are of primary importance.
In addition,
the members of
any one group will be found to vary considerably; while these
differences are not insignificant,
they are of secondary impor-
tance.
The over-riding important difference between any two
groups
is that the within-group rules are different.
In effect,
group membership is to be regarded as a "moderator variable" that
establishes the proper interpretation of everything else.
la.
An appropriate visual analogy
is provided by the dis-
tribution of numerous two-dimensional galaxies
in the three-
dimensional physical universe.
lb.
A second useful analogy
is with quantum mechanics.
Something akin to a "quantum jump"
is required for an individual
to move from one Reference Group to another.
On the other hand,
within-group movement
is relatively easy and likely.
lc.
A third useful analogy
is with the periodic table of
chemical elements,
which points to the existence of only certain
atomic forms and predicts many of their properties.
2.
Each reference group has been provided both a name,
as
summarized
in Figure
1,
and a systematic designation,
which com-
* P.O.Box 591,
Pennington,
New Jersey 08534-0591
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Facts — Draft/
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
prises three letters and a "digit."
Either of these
is intended
to serve as an interpretive label,
and either may also serve as
an hypothesis ;
neither
is intended to serve as
a definition.
3.
120 can be factored as
3 x
5 x
8.
(Notice that 4x4x8
would make 128;
assuming it is sufficient,
the 3x5x8 model
is
slightly more efficient.)
3a.
As
it happens,
Guilford's "Structure of Intellect"
(1967)
also postulates precisely 120 cells
in a 3x5x8 array.
Guilford's model
is focused on a different problem,
however,
and
the common occurrence of "120"
is only a coincidence.
4.
The 3-fold breakdown encompasses Pro-active,
Poly-
active,
and Re-active,
which may be regarded as three modes
of
stress management.
This aspect of the Reference Group array
is
essentially unchanged from the previous 96-group model,
and can
be seen clearly in the initial 72-group model.
5.
The 5-fold breakdown encompasses Left-brained,
Right-
brained,
Old-brained
(subcortical)
,
New-brained
(neo-cortical)
,
and Balanced.
Only
of these were recognized by the 96-group
model,
and only
3 by the
7 2 -group model.
5a.
The 5-fold breakdown may also be conceptualized in
terms of the Jungian functions — Thinking,
Feeling,
Sensing,
Intuition,
(and Ambivalence)
,
respectively.
5b.
The physical layout of Figure
1 positions the four
Jungian functions in the same four quadrants that are used by
Lowen.
Several of the labels
in Figure
1 also happen to have
been used by Lowen.
This
is not the arrangement that has con-
ventionally been used with the MBTI.
5c.
It will be found that the groups designated as right-
brained and feeling are preponderantly female,
while their
counterpart groups designated as left-brained and thinking are
preponderantly male?
all other groups are mixed.
This
is con-
sistent with the well-known gender correlation of the MBTI.
5d.
It will also be found that the groups designated as
neocortical and intuitive include the highest proportions of Per“
sons pursuing optional educational programs,
i.e.,
beyond high
school.
On the other hand,
the groups designated as subcortical
and sensing include the highest proportions of individuals drop-
ping out even before completing high school.
5e.
The groups designated as balanced/ ambivalent provide
the extension from 96 to 120 groups.
On the one hand,
they can
be ignored without creating any obvious theoretical asymmetry.
Once recognized,
however,
they substantially improve the power of
the model to account for cases.
In addition,
it will be found
that ambivalence involves more than just being
in the middle on
the T/F and S/N dimensions.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Facts — Draft/
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
6.
The 8-fold breakdown encompasses the familiar PAS primi-
tives — Externalizer/Internalizer
(E/I)
,
Flexible/Regulated
(F/R)
,
and Role-Uniform-Role-Adaptable
(U/A)
,
in all combina-
tions .
This aspect of the Reference Group array has never
.
changed.
E/I
is also equivalent to Eysenck's favorite variable.
F/R is equivalent to "Field Independence," Witkin's favorite
variable.
U/A has never been championed.
7.
The 15-fold breakdown formed by ignoring the PAS primi-
tives,
and coded in the final
"digit"
of the group label,
is
referred to as the "Level" of the Reference Group.
We have found
it interesting to interpret "Level"
in terms of the "Meaning of
Life," along lines suggested by Spranger or Morris.
7a.
Specifically
(cf Figure
1)
:
Re-active Thinker — IS the system;
life
is a game.
Re-active Feeler — Life
is
a personal experience.
Poly-active Feeler — Life
is to be lived/glorified.
Pro-active Feeler — Life is for personal growth.
Pro-active Intuitive — Life
is to support evolution.
Pro-active Thinker — Life is to maintain the system.
Poly-active Thinker — Life
is to run/use the system.
Poly-active Intuitive — Life
is
a mystery to probe.
Re-active Intuitive — Life is an illusion.
Pro-active Sensing — Life
is
a religious experience.
Poly-active Sensing — Life is
a struggle to survive.
Re-active Sensing — Life has no meaning.
Pro-active Balanced/Ambivalent — cf
4, 5, 6,
a
Poly-active Balanced/Ambivalent —
cf
, 7
, 8 ,
b
Re-active Balanced/Ambivalent — cf l,2,9,c
7a.
<
k
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
a
Level b
Level
c
Level X
Level y
Level
z
B — From the perspective of psychometrics
1.
The process of discovering reference groups
is a multi-
variate procedure that has never been described.
It has some
features in common with factor analysis,
some in common with mul-
tiple discriminant analysis,
and some with latent class analysis,
but it
is different from any of these.
2.
The common measurement space encompassing all
120 groups
has
16 dimensions.
Each group
is a four-dimensional "galaxy"
lo-
cated within this 16-dimensional
"universe."
The "local"
four-
dimensional within-group coordinate system best for each group is
unique to that group.
These local coordinate axes are orthogo-
nal,
and are linear combinations of the basis dimensions.
2a.
Operationally,
the
16 basis dimensions are provided by
10 WAIS subtests
(excluding Vocabulary)
,
plus the PAS Normal
Level,
plus two measures from the PAS Fourth Dimension Kit
(CN
and TE)
,
plus two indices derived from patterns of response to
Picture Completion
(Ql)
and Information
(Q2)
,
plus Age.
(Each
pattern index can be regarded as
a difference
(or balance)
be-
tween two subscales.
Thus,
Ql
is "Perspective" versus "Contact"
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Facts — Draft/4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
of the others;
Level
0 was split into Levels
a,
b,
and
c, making
96 groups.
Two years later,
after this model had been roughly
optimized,
it became apparent that the groups at Levels
5,
8,
and
2 now featured too-high-spans ,
as well as other unique features;
Levels
x,
y,
and
z were created initially as fragments of
5,
8,
and
2,
respectively, making 120 groups.
After further optimiza-
tion,
the result has been a very homogeneous set of span values,
as well as
a very satisfactory overall assignment rate.
We now
interpret these results as evidence of convergence and closure
for the model as
a whole.
6a.
It
is reasonable to expect that any case used as an
exemplar should be closer to the group
it exemplifies than to any
other group.
We are pleased to observe that this
is almost al-
ways true,
but it
is not a rule that may be blindly enforced;
de-
cisions as to group assignment must be based primarily on the
im-
plications
for the system as a whole,
and cannot be made just to
accommodate a particular case.
6b.
The
29 available complete cases that do not qualify as
exemplars come disproportionately from certain sources,
especial-
ly those employing the WB-G or the WAIS-R rather than the WAIS.
Over 99% of complete WAISs are now used as exemplars.
(With 96
groups,
this figure reached only 95%)
.
It does appear to be true
that "clinical" cases are more likely than "normal" cases to man-
ifest profile distortion that reduces their value as exemplars.
7.
Mean span
is
a measure of error.
One major psychometric
implication of the existing results
is that the reliability of
each separate subtest of the WAIS
is substantially higher than
previously believed.
This helps to explain why the PAS has
worked in the past.
8.
Randomly-generated profiles are relatively unlikely to
fit the definitions of the groups.
A second major psychometric
implication
is that the measurement space as
a whole
is mostly
empty.
This argues against the usual
form of the common assump-
tion of multivariate normality.
9.
What the Reference Group Model directly provides
is
a
way of accommodating and accounting for interaction effects
in a
relatively selective and efficient manner.
It
is assumed that
conventional
(non- interactive)
statistics may be safely applied
on
a within-group basis,
but not to samples representing more
than one group.
C — From the perspective of a single "behavior"
1.
Of course,
one immediate implication of the whole ref-
erence group approach is that what passes for
a "single behavior"
may not be.
The reference group
is really a better diagnosis
than the behavior.
2.
The provision of behavioral validation for reference
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Facts — Draft/
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
groups
is obviously a novel problem.
Fortunately,
the effects
are often so strong that
it may only be necessary to make a clear
presentation of the data,
relying on the reader to apply the
"Intraocular Traumatic Significance Test."
3.
Figures 3-n are essentially histograms displaying dis-
tributions of group membership for various behaviorally defined
samples.
See Figure
1 for the appropriate labels.
3a.
In. most of these charts an
"x" represents
a case fit-
ting its group well enough to qualify as an exemplar?
a
"." tal-
lies a case with more ambiguous qualifications.
In some charts
other symbols may be used to identify special subgroups,
as de-
fined in the legend of the particular chart?
such cases are al-
ways exemplars.
3b.
In
a few charts,
having especially large total
fre-
quencies,
the histogram bars are said to be on
a "log scale."
In
these tallies,
the first "x" represents the first case,
the
second
"x" represents the next two cases,
the third "x" stands
for the next four cases,
etc,
etc.
Thus,
for example,
six "x"s
represents any total
frequency from 32 through
63.
3c.
It
is important to notice that incomplete data cases
are only rarely acceptable as exemplars for Levels
x,
y or
z.
This arises not simply because TE and/or CN are sources of vari-
ance within these groups,
but because this variance
is tied to
other variance on non-missing subtests.
The implication here
is
that most of the single behavior histograms probably understate
the importance of Levels
x,
y and
z.
3d.
The "assignability rate"
of
a given behavior provides
an interesting summary statistic.
For samples of "incomplete
data," this figure ranges from 71% to 92%.
The lowest figures
are associated with inpatient populations,
consistent with the
view that the most extreme profile distortions are pathological.
It
is interesting to observe that neither criminality nor homo-
sexuality is pathological according to this criterion.
.
There are several legitimate ways to do statistical
significance testing with these tables,
depending on the numbers
of cases they contain.
4a.
If the numbers are small,
it
is possible to ask whether
the distribution shows
a significant tendency to aggregate.
For
example,
the
11 police lieutenants shown in Table
21 come from
only
of the
120 groups.
If the null hypothesis
is that the
groups are equally likely and that each case
is independently
assigned,
needing only
7 groups
for 11 cases
is statistically
significant.
Another methodology,
more laborious but more power-
ful,
is illustrated in Saunders
(1986)
?
this procedure simply
tests
for clustering in the original basis space.
4b.
If the numbers are larger,
it
is also possible to ask
whether two distributions are similar.
This question may be
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Facts — Draft/4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
addressed by a 2x120 contingency analysis.
Information statis-
tics will be preferred to chi-square
(Saunders,
1975)
4c.
With still larger numbers,
it is possible to ask
whether an independent variable has a similar effect in two
different samples.
There are several examples of this
methodology in Saunders
(1985)
D — From the perspective of a single group
1.
All the members of a given group share a common value
system,
in the sense that they recognize the same set of most
relevant issues — both philosophically
(as abstract concepts)
and practically
(in terms of personal meaning)
.
In other words,
they share a common language.
.
Two members of the same group may disagree as to what
is
the ideal behavioral response to these relevant
issues.
This
possibility is often realized when the two persons are separated
by their within-group indices.
Disagreements of this kind are
particularly distressing for the individuals concerned
(as com-
pared with between-group differences)
because each can say that
the other "should know better."
3.
Within-group regression
is "safe."
Between-group re-
gression
is
"unsafe."
Naturalistic groups that are dominated by
one
(or two)
reference groups have often produced satisfactory
results,
i.e.,
they have yielded statistical significance.
Nat-
uralistic groups that are heterogeneous commonly yield unsatis-
factory results.
Indeed,
the impact of ignored interaction ef-
fects frequently
is to cancel out the most important potential
findings.
3a.
Studies are needed that consciously enforce
a within-
group methodology.
Our analyses using the MBTI illustrate this.
4.
The four within-group dimensions,
while re-defined
uniquely in each group,
do tend to conform to a pattern.
They
are always labelled as — VI = Age;
V2
= Balance;
V3
= Arousal;
and V4 = Skew.
4a.
By treating age as
a within-group variable we auto-
matically provide the equivalent of age-corrected norms for each
class of profiles.
We also imply that simple aging should not
lead to any change in group assignment.
4b.
The concept of balance allows us to place any profile
along a continuum.
At one extreme are the adjustments maintained
primarily through cleverness
(i.e.,
NL)
.
At the other extreme
are the adjustments maintained primarily through energy expen-
diture
(i.e.,
DSy)
.
Almost every group encompasses both of these
possibilities.
4c.
The arousal dimension
is most commonly correlated with
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Facts — Draft/4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001 -2
TE or OA.
Almost every group encompasses
a wide range on this
dimension.
(We are thinking of cortical arousal,
not sexual
arousal .
)
4d.
The skew dimension is the most varied,
but commonly
correlates with Q2,
C,
D,
and/or A.
In practice,
this
is a
catch-all.
"Skew"
is chosen deliberately as
a word lacking
specific psychological connotations!
E — From the perspective of a single case
1.
In view of the overall assignment rate for complete-data
cases,
even a failure to classify a new case becomes
a statisti-
cally highly significant event!
Possible explanations for such
events might be
(in order of decreasing likelihood?)
scoring
error,
administration error,
use of a non-standard WAIS,
retest
effects,
and deliberate or unconscious distortion by the subject.
This can include certain forms of "abnormality”.
la.
It
is not unreasonable to ask "What
is the probability
of a correct assignment?",
but this
is impossible to answer in
the absence of any independent criterion as to what
is "correct."
In the majority of cases there will be one and only one plausible
assignment,
i.e.,
just one assignment that would qualify the case
as an exemplar.
In a minority of cases there may be two or even
three plausible assignments;
in such cases, we recommend the
in-
terpretation that both
(or all)
are true,
i.e.,
that the individ-
ual
is
a sort of composite or multiple personality.
Under this
interpretation,
all plausible assignments are "correct," but some
reflect only incomplete explanations of the individual.
2.
Given
a successful assignment to a group,
we may identi-
fy the individuals operating value system
(cf paragraph A7a)
and
the behavioral style
(cf paragraph A6)
by which this
is sup-
ported.
Other known exemplars and/or generalized descriptions of
the group may be consulted.
3.
Given both assignment to
a group and determination of
the within-group coordinates,
we may employ within-group regres-
sion to predict the individual's specific behavior on whatever
dimensions of interest may have been studied
in the particular
group.
Within the near future,
these dimensions will include at
least the scales of the MBTI
.
3a.
It
is important to bear in mind that none of the groups
are 100%
"good" or 100%
"bad" places to be,
even though the pro-
portions may vary from group to group.
4.
A two-page individual report form has been designed that
brings together all the information
in the large data base which
is relevant to the interpretation of the single case on which
it
is focused.
Approved For Release 2000/G8/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Facts — Draft/4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
F — From the perspective of
a long-time PAS-ophile
1.
For those familiar with the PAS,
a Reference Group
is
most similar to an aggregate of persons in a single Basic Pat-
tern,
rather than a Primitive or a Contact Pattern.
Furthermore,
most,
but not necessarily all,
persons
in a given Reference Group
will belong to the indicated Primitive Pattern according to
conventional PAS scoring; however,
the exceptions to this rule
are important,
and make particularly interesting case studies.
la.
It is mechanically possible to assign a modal PAS
for-
mula to each group but,
because the indicators coded by the for-
mula are commonly significant and recognized sources of within-
group variability,
it
is most important to recognize that
a given
group typically emcompasses portions of several PAS basic pat-
terns.
For this reason,
we no longer tabulate the modal
patterns
2.
The familiar PAS has been presented as
a series of di-
chotomies, with every possible combination considered as theoret-
ically legitimate.
The patterns not seen in practice are simply
described as "rare.”
The Reference Group Model suggests that
many of these rare patterns are truly non-existent,
i.e.,
the
possibility must be considered that any apparent observations of
these "rare" patterns are simply a result of measurement error.
3.
PAS-ophiles have debated for years the optimum defini-
tion of "Normal Level," recognizing that the apparent PAS formula
of an individual often depends critically on the NL.
In the end,
NL has had to be recognized as
a "clinical judgment," and the
debate as unresolvable.
The algorithms which implement the Ref-
erence Group Model happen to employ NL29,
but they would yield
the same end results with any other NL.
3a.
An important property of the reference group algorithms
is that they are independent of the absolute means and standard
deviations of all the measures used,
and are therefore indiffer-
ent to the fact that the WAIS was never standardized with profile
interpretation in mind.
In contrast,
the conventional PAS
is
vulnerable on this point,
and
it
is not unlikely that many of the
convolutions of conventional PAS scoring have their roots
in this
problem.
3b.
Given the "obvious"
effectiveness of the PAS despite
its being burdened with these problems,
points
3 and
3a provide a
substantial rationale for developing the reference groups as a
more rigorous and possibly even more effective approach.
3c.
It must be noted here that the Level
x,
y and
z groups
are heavily dependent on the Fourth Dimension subtests,
to the
degree that these groups would not have been recognized without
the Fourth Dimension data.
(Cf paragraphs A5e and C3c.)
4.
It is possible to analyze the Reference Group exemplars
to determine what simple indices
(if any)
best approximate each
Approved For Release 2000ZD8/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Facts — Draft/
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
dimension of the between-group structure.
The following seven
indices are relatively independent and display relatively high
intra—class correlations as predictors of group membership:
D-A
BD-S
PA-PC
CN-DS
2TE- (CN+DS)
A-S
C-OA
predicts I/E
(better than D-NL)
predicts R/F
(better than BD-NL)
predicts A/U
(better than PA-NL)
predicts Poly- vs Pro- or Re-active
predicts Balanced vs Other
predicts Left vs Right
predicts Pro- vs Re-active
4a.
We certainly do not wish to suggest that these indices
can serve as
a substitute for the reference group assignment pro-
cess.
The correlations are only in the range
.5 to
.7.
4b.
It will be evident that the systematic reference group
labels treat the first three of these separately, while merging
the remaining four into
a single "digit."
G — From the various perspectives of PAS critics
1.
Certainly it must be recognized that the PAS
is an ex-
ample of what the psychological literature has called "pattern
analysis" or "scatter analysis"
of the Wechsler subtest profiles.
This
is an idea as old as the Wechsler test itself
(Rapaport,
et
al,
1945)
,
and which was at least implicitly encouraged by David
Wechsler himself
(1939).
Indeed,
he tells us that the subtests
were selected as much because they afforded opportunities for
clinical observation as because they had already demonstrated
useful psychometric properties.
Over the years,
while the test
has gained in popularity as an IQ measure,
it has fallen into
disrepute as
a clinical tool.
Even PAS-ophiles will agree that
the revisions leading from the WB-I through the WAIS to the WAIS-
R,
which may improve the measurement of
IQ,
also weaken the bat-
tery as a source of personality data.
There are at least six
lines of argument that have been advanced as reasons to avoid
Wechsler pattern analysis.
Three of these have been argued
against the PAS specifically,
and one of them against the Refer-
ence Groups specifically.
2.
Cohen and dimensionality .
It will be clear from the
foregoing sections of this document that the PAS regards the WAIS
as
a multi-factor test battery,
whereas most published factor
analyses of the instrument report only 3-5
factors.
Cohen
(1952,
et seq.)
is the principal source of these reports,
but he has not
been alone.
As we have reported elsewhere
in detail,
the appar-
ent problem arises from limitations inherent
in factor analytic
methodology,
whereby it
is impossible for small correlation ma-
trices
(such as
11x11)
to support large numbers of factors
(such
as more than
6)
.
Using more appropriate methodology,
we have
repeatedly demonstrated the presence of
factors
in the WAIS
(cf Klingler
& Saunders,
1975)
.
Approved For Release 200dlb8l08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Facts — Draft/4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
3.
Cohen and clinical validity .
In another influential
study,
Cohen
(1955)
assessed the ability of three clinicians to
correctly sort WB-I profiles into three major diagnostic catego-
ries —
"neurotic, "
"schizophrenic," and "brain-damaged."
The
overall results were statistically significant,
but barely.
When
these same data are processed using reference groups
(see Table
36)
,
the results are no better.
Actually,
it
is possible to spe-
cify fairly simple rules that will sort these profiles very ef-
fectively;
the difficulty is that these rules involve the PAS
Contact Level indicators, which operate primarily within-group,
so that
a simple between-group tally conceals their worth.
.
McNemar and reliability .
A more sophisticated argument
was first explicated by McNemar
(1957),
i.e.,
that the reliabil-
ity associated with difference scores
in the WAIS
is insufficient
to support profile interpretation.
At face value,
this
is a
plausible argument and it can easily be elaborated to satisfy the
typical clinician's requirements of statistics.
The root problem
is that the reliability numbers supporting this argument are not
unbiased estimates — they are lower-bound
(i.e.,
"conservative")
estimates;
the magnitude of the conservative bias has been un-
known,
and easily ignored.
However,
one clear implication of the
evidence for factorial complexity
is that this conservative bias
is probably considerable.
5.
Turner and construct validity .
Turner,
et al
(1976),
made a specific attempt to formulate hypotheses that would relate
the PAS to more traditional
"personality" measures — the 16PF
and the MMPI .
Although their data display some highly remarkable
statistical effects,
these did not coincide with the predictions.
The major lesson to be drawn from this and other similar exper-
iences
is that conventional hypothesis testing
is
a risky way to
do business when you are working
in
a domain laced with inter-
action effects.
(We have commented more extensively elsewhere on
the Turner study
(Saunders,
1982).)
6.
Robinson and complexity .
Robinson's recent comments
(1985)
are primarily a response to Winne
& Gittinger's 1973
ex-
plication of the PAS,
and make a point with which we have long
agreed — that the mechanics of formal PAS scoring seem unjusti-
fiably complex and arbitrary.
We have never regarded these for-
malities as more than an attempt to capture Gittinger's intuitive
skills as
a profile interpreter.
It
is our present belief that
the reference group approach
is
a better way of addressing this
measurement problem,
and that
it
is sufficiently different as to
render Robinson's comments moot.
7.
Kiernan and relevance .
Kiernan's
(1986)
comments are
unique in being specifically directed at the PAS Reference Group
approach.
His principal criticism seems to be that the process
of dealing with the earlier criticisms has led to
a "statistical-
ly determinate system."
If
it were not for his
"tone of voice,"
we would actually regard this
as a compliment!
He appears to be
saying that he would like to be provided with more verbiage tend-
ing to rationalize the use and interpretation of the various WAIS
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Facts — Draft/
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
and especially 4th dimension measures — that such verbiage
is of
more interest than any empirical finding of
a reference group
structure.
This represents such a fundamental philosophical dif-
ference of opinion that
it probably cannot be overlooked.
How-
ever,
particularly after Kiernan's own illustration of his pre-
ferred approach simply leads to rediscovery of the poly-active
versus non-poly-active dimension,
we remain unimpressed.
H — References
Cohen,
Jacob.
A factor-analytically based rationale for the
Wechsler-Bellevue.
Journal of Consulting Psychology
16,
272-277,
1952.
Cohen,
Jacob.
The efficacy of diagnostic pattern analysis
with the Wechsler-Bellevue.
Journal
of Consulting Psychology
.
303-306,
1955.
*
Eysenck,
H.J.
London:
Routledge-Paul,
1947.
Guilford,
J.P.
The Nature of Human Intelligence .
New York:
McGraw-Hill,
1967.
Jung,
C.G.
Psychological Types.
London:
Routledge-Paul,
1923.
Kiernan,
Ralph J.
Critique of the PAS.
Pp 9-14
in Neuro-
psychological Assessment of Participants
in Psychoenergetic
Tasks ,
edited by Nevin Lantz.
Menlo Park:
SRI International
>
December 1986.
Klingler,
D.E.,
&
D.R. Saunders.
A factor analysis of the
items for nine subtests of the WAIS.
Multivariate Behavioral
Research
10,
131-154,
1975.
Lowen,
Walter.
Dichotomies of the Mind:
A systems science
model of the mind and personality .
New York:
Wiley,
1982.
McNemar,
Quinn.
On WAIS difference scores.
Journal of Con-
sulting Psychology
.
239-240,
1957.
Morris,
Charles.
Varieties of Human Value .
Chicago:
Uni-
versity of Chicago Press,
1956.
Myers,
I.B.
Manual
:
Mvers-Briggs Type Indicator .
Prince-
ton:
Educational Testing Service,
1962.
Rapaport,
David,
Merton Gill
& Roy Schafer.
Diagnostic
Psychological Testing.
Vol
I.
Chicago:
Year Book Publishers,
1945.
*
Robinson,
D.L.
How personality relates to intelligence test
performance:
Implications for a theory of intelligence,
ageing
research and personality assessment.
Personality and Individual
Approved For Release 2000A&/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Facts — Draft/4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Differences
6,
1985.
Saunders,
D.R.
The exaggerated dependency of the efa*
fe-
male: A WAIS/PAS reference group.
Unpublished mss,
1968.
(In-
cluded as
#17
in Collected Papers on the Personality Assessment
System .
)
Saunders,
David R.
The Meaning of Data .
Princeton:
Author,
1975.
Saunders,
D.R.
Definition of Stroop interference
in
volunteers and non-volunteers.
Perceptual and Motor Skills 51,
343-354,
1980.
Saunders,
David R.
Sex differences
in Wechsler subtest
profiles as seen through the Personality Assessment System.
Psychological Reports
.
683-688,
1981.
Saunders,
David R.
On Turner's assessment of the Person-
ality Assessment System.
Journal of clinical Psychology
38/
616-
623,
1982.
(Saunders,
D.R.)
PAS Fourth Dimension Kit .
Lawrenceville:
MARS Measurement Associates,
1983.
(2nd edition,
1985)
Saunders,
David R.
The MBTI and the PAS: Matching patterns
to patterns.
Journal of the PAS Foundation
3.,
67-74,
1985.
Saunders,
D.R.
The internal structure of a time estimation
task.
Perceptual and Motor Skills
60,
618,
1985.
Saunders,
D.R.
Reference
Groups
A
1985
overview
of
the
undertaking .
Lawrenceville:
MARS Measurement Associates,
1985.
Saunders,
David R.
Predicting psi performance with the
Personality Assessment System.
Pp 178-186
in Research
in Para-
psychology 1985 .
Metuchen:
Scarecrow Press,
1986.
*
Spranger,
E.
Types of Men .
Halle:
Niemeyer,
1928.
Thurstone,
L.L.
The Vectors of Mind .
Chicago: University
of Chicago Press,
1935.
Turner,
Robert
G.
,
Lee Willerman
& Joseph M.
Horn.
A test
of some predictions from the Personality Assessment System.
Journal
of Clinical Psychology
.
630-643,
1976.
Wechsler,
David.
Measurement of Adult Intelligence .
(1st
Edition)
Baltimore:
Williams
& Wilkins,
1939.
Winne,
John
F.
,
& John W.
Gittinger.
An introduction to the
Personality Assessment System.
Journal
of Clinical Psychology
Monograph Supplement
.
1-68,
1973.
*
Witkin,
H.A.,
et al.
Potomac:
Erlbaum,
1974.
Approved For Release 2000/41/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.01 —
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Tentative Names for 120 Reference Groups
Coach
(4)
Nurturant
Programmer
(5)
Achiever
Exemplar
(4)
Librarian
Scientist
(5)
Consultant
Therapist
(4)
Counselor
Professional
(5)
Physician
Pastor
(4)
Catalyst
Philosopher
(5)
Mediator
Teacher
(x)
Student
PRO-ACTIVE
Specialist
(x)
Iconoclast
Acolyte
(x)
Historian
Educator
(x)
Spartan
Disciple
(a)
Conservator
Manager
(6)
Pragmatist
Mystic
(a)
Sophist
Engineer
(6)
Technician
Dedicated
(a)
Aristocrat
Humanist
(6)
Tactician
Puritan
(a)
Judge
Auditor
(6)
Analyst
Showman
(3)
Booster
Rulemaker
(8)
Theorist
Performer
(3)
Volunteer
Organizer
(8)
Activist
Priest
(3)
Entertainer
Devotee
(8)
Leader
Loyalist
(3)
Conductor
Director
(8)
Inductor
Seeker
(Y)
Investigator
POLY-ACTIVE
Dilettante
(y)
Reporter
Voyeur
(y)
Spectator
Naturalist
(y)
Observer
Exhibitionist
(b)
Empiricist
Implementor
(7)
Aide
Enthusiast
(b)
Chameleon
Coordinator
(7)
Executive
Pertinacious
(b)
Multiform
Advocate
(7)
Entrepreneur
Conspirator
(b)
Mirror
Politician
(7)
Salesman
Artisan
(2)
Adherent
Rulekeeper
(9)
Policeman
Operator
(2)
Compliant
Obsessive
(9)
Controlled
Detached
(2)
Histrionic
Individualist
(9)
Artist
Interdependent
(2)
Player
Counterdependent
(9)
Counteractive
Mechanic
(z)
Reactor
RE-ACTIVE
Soldier
(z)
Clerk
Galatean
(z)
Narcissist
Counselee
(z)
Hedonist
Yeoman
(c)
Dogmatist
Authoritarian
(1)
Participant
Automaton
(c)
Actor
Team-Member
(1)
Game-Player
Possessed
(c)
Autocrat
Opportunist
(1)
Scorekeeper
Gladiator
(c)
Contrarian
Prima Donna
(1)
Competitor
ERU
)
(
ERA
Key to PAS
IRU
)
(
IRA
Primitives
IFU
)
(
IFA
EFU
)
( EFA
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.03 —
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Span as
a function of available complete data
170 :
160:
a
b
b
b
150:
140:
C
97b
b
c4
b b
y y
c
c x
Z
C
126
Z X X
az
cy6
a
248
9y
x
z
azx
a
z
y
a
4 8c
z
X
a y
130 :
X
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.02
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Frequency Distribution of Exemplars
(18% complete data;
log scale)
.XXXX
(4)
xxxxx
. xxxxx
(5)
xxxxx
.
.xxxx
(4)
xxxx.
...xxxxx
(5)
xxxxx .
.
.xxxx
(4)
xxxx.
.
.
. xxxxx
(5)
xxxx.
.
.
xxxxx
(4)
xxxxx
.... XXX
(5)
xxxxx .
.
•xxxxx
(x)
xxxxx
xxxxx
(x)
xxxxx.
xxxxx
(x)
xxxxx
xxxxx
(x)
xxxxx
xxxxx
(a)
xxxx.
.... xxxx
(6)
xxxxx .
.
.
xxxxx
(a)
xxxx ....
.
.
. xxxx
(6)
xxxx .
.
.
xxxxx
(a)
xxxx.
. xxxxx
(6)
xxxx ....
xxxxx
(a)
xxxx .
.
. xxxxx
(6)
xxxx .
.
.
.
xxxxx
(3)
xxxx .
.
.
xxxxx
(8)
xxxxx.
.
xxxxx
(3)
XXX.
.
.
.
. xxxxx
(8)
xxxx.
xxxxx
(3)
xxxx.
.
.
.
.
. xxxx
(8)
xxxx.
.
.
.xxxx
(3)
xxxxx
.
.... xxxx
(8)
xxxxx.
.
.
xxxxx
(y)
xxxx.
xxxxx
(y)
xxxxx.
xxxxx
(y)
xxxx
.xxxxx
(y)
xxxxx
xxxxx
(b)
XXX
.
.
. xxxxx
(7)
xxxx.
.
.
.
. xxxx
(b)
XXX.
.
.
.
.
. xxxx
(7)
XXX.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. xxxx
(b)
xxxx.
.
.
.
. xxxxx
(7)
xxxx .
.
.
.
(b)
XX
.
.
. xxxx
(7)
xxxx .
.
.
.
. xxxx
(2)
xxxx.
.
. xxxxx
(9)
xxxx.
.
.
.
. xxxxx
(2)
xxxxx
.
.
. xxxx
(9)
xxxx .
.
.
.
xxxxx
(2)
xxxx .
.
.
.
. xxxx
(9)
xxxx.
.
.
.
. xxxx
(2)
xxxx.
.
.
.
XXX
(9)
xxxx.
.
.
. xxxxx
( z )
xxxxx
xxxxx
( z )
xxxx
.
xxxxx
( z )
xxxx
.
xxxxx
( z )
xxxxx
.... XXX
(C)
xxxx.
.
.
.
.... XXX
(1)
xxxx
. xxxxx
(C)
XXX.
.
.
.
.
.
. xxxx
(1)
xxxx
.
. .xxxx
(C)
xxxx.
.
.
. xxxx
(1)
XXX.
. xxxxx
(C)
xxxxx
.
.
.
. xxxx
(1)
XX.
.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.07
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Approximate Frequency Norms
(N=3401)
(Combined WAIS and WAIS-R Quota Samples)
(WTS data;
no exemplars;
log scale)
xxxx
(4)
XX
(5)
XXX
X
(4)
XXX
xxxx
(5)
XXX
XXX
(4)
xxxx
xxxx
(5)
xxxxx
X
(4)
xxxx
XXX
(5)
XXX
XX
(X)
XXX
(X)
XX
XX
(X)
XX
(X)
XX
XXX
(a)
XXX
xxxxxxx
(6)
xxxxx
xxxx
(a)
xxxxxxx
xxxxx
(6)
xxxxxx
xxxxx
(a)
xxxxx
(6)
xxxxxx
xxxx
(a)
xxxxx
XXX
(6)
xxxxxxx
XXX
(3)
XXX
X
(8)
xxxx
xxxxx
(3)
xxxx
XX
(8)
XX
XX
(3)
XXX
xxxx
(8)
xxxxxx
xxxxxxx
(3)
xxxxx
xxxx
(8)
xxxxxx
XX
(y)
xxxx
XXX
(y)
xxxx
X
(y)
xxxx
xxxxxx
(y)
XXX
XXX
(b)
xxxxxxx
xxxxxx
(7)
xxxxx
xxxxx
(b)
xxxxxxx
X
(7)
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
(b)
xxxxxx
xxxxx
(7)
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
(b)
xxxxxxx
xxxxx
(7)
xxxxxxx
X
(2)
xxxx
XXX
(9)
xxxxxxx
XX
(2)
XX
(9)
xxxxxx
xxxx
(2)
xxxxxxx
xxxxxx
(9)
xxxxx
xxxx
(2)
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
(9)
xxxxxx
xxxx
(z)
xxxx
(Z)
XX
XXX
(Z)
xxxx
XXX
(Z)
xxxxx
xxxxxx
(C)
xxxxx
xxxxxxxx
(1)
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
(C)
xxxxxxx
.
xxxxxx
(1)
xxxxx
xxxxxxx
(C)
xxxx
xxxxxx
(1)
xxxxxxxx
xxxxx
(C)
xxxxx
xxxxxx
(1)
xxxxxxxx
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.08
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
JAP Quota Sample
(N=619 males)
(WAIS
item data;
no exemplars;
log scale)
XXX
(4)
X
xxx
(5)
XX
(4)
xxx
xxx
(5)
xxx
X
(4)
XX
(5)
xxx
X
(4)
X
(5)
x
(x)
xx
(x)
x
(x)
(x)
x
xxx
(a)
xxx
xxxx
(6)
xxxxx
xxxx
(a)
xxxx
xxxx
(6)
xxx
xxx
(a)
XX
(6)
xxxxx
xxxx
(a)
X
xx
(6)
xxxxx
(3)
xxx
(8)
xxx
XX
(3)
xxxx
xxx
( 8
)
xxxx
(3)
XX
(8)
XX
xxxx
( 3
)
xxxx
(8)
xxxx
(y)
xx
xx
(y)
xxx
(Y)
x
xxx
(y)
XX
(b)
xxxxxx
xxxxx
(7)
XX
X
(b)
xxxxx
xxx
(7)
xxxxx
XX
(b)
XX
xxx
(7)
xxx
X
(b)
xxx
XX
(7)
xxxx
xxx
(2)
xxx
XX
(9)
xxxxxx
XX
(2)
X
X
(9)
xxx
(2)
xxxx
xxx
(9)
X
XX
(2)
xxx
xxx
(9)
xxxx
xxx
( z )
x
x
(z)
X
( z )
xxx
(Z)
X
xxxx
(C)
xxx
xxxxx
(1)
xxxx
XX
(C)
xxx
xxxx
(1)
xxx
X
(C)
xxxx
(1)
xxx
XX
(C)
xxx
xxx
(1)
xxxx
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.09
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
WCC Captive Sample
(N=732)
(WAIS item data;
64% exemplars;
log scale)
xxxxx
( 4 )
x
(4)
xx
.xx
( 4 )
xx
x
(4)
..
xxx
(x)
.
.
.
(x)
.
(x)
.
..x
(x)
x
XX
(a)
xxxx
xxxx
(a)
xxx
.xxxxx
(a)
xx
.x
(a)
x
...
(5)
xxx
.xxxx
(5)
x
.xxx
(5)
xxx
.xxx
(5)
x
.xxxx
(6)
xx
XXXX
(6)
XX.
.X
(6)
xxx
..
(6)
XX.
.
( 3 )
xxxxx
XXXXX
( 3 )
X
.
.XXXX
(3)
XXXX.
XXXX
( 3 )
X
.xx
(y)
x.
•
(y)
x
. .x
(y)
.
.
.
.
.
(y)
xx
..x
(b)
x
.xx
(b)
xx.
.xx
(b)
x.
.xxx
(b)
xxx
.
.
( 8 )
xxxx
.x
(8)
.XXX
(8)
XXX
xxxxx
(8)
xxx
. xxxx
( 7 )
XX
.
.xxx
(7)
xxx.
. xxx
( 7 )
xxx .
.
.xxxx
(7)
xxx
X
(2)
X
(2)
( 2 )
XXX
.XX
(2)
XX
.XX
(c)
XX
(C)
XX
(c)
X
(C)
X
xxx
(9)
xxxx.
XX
( 9 )
xxx
.
XX
(9)
XX.
xxx
(9)
xxx.
X
(z)
.
(Z)
X.
( z)
.
.
(z)
X.
.
.XX
(1)
xxxx.
.xxxx
(1)
xxx
.X
(1)
x
.xxx
(1)
XX
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.16
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
70 College Football Players
(* later became All-American)
(WAIS-item data;
74% exemplars)
X
(4)
•
(5)
•
(4)
X
(5)
(4)
.XXX
(5)
(4)
(x)
XX*
(5)
(x)
(x)
(x)
(a)
(6)
XXX
(a)
(6)
xxxxxxx
(a)
(6)
•
(a)
(6)
(3)
(8)
.
.
. XXX
( 3
)
(8)
X
( 3 )
X .
XXX
( 8 )
X
(3)
.
.
xxxx
( 8 )
(y)
(y)
(y)
(y)
(b)
(V)
(b)
(7)
(b)
(7)
(b)
(7)
(2)
(9)
(2)
(9)
(2)
xx
(9)
XXX
( 2 )
xxxx .
(z)
(9)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(C)
•XX
( 1
)
.X
(c)
X
.
. xxxxxx*
( 1 )
(C)
(1)
(C)
X
(1)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.20
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
56 Cal Tech Freshmen
(WAIS item data;
91% exemplars)
x
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
xxxxxxx
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
X
( 6 )
xxxx
XXX
( 6 )
X
(6)
x
( 6 )
(3)
.
(3)
(3)
X
(3)
(b)
xxxxx
(b)
x
(b)
(b)
(Y)
(y)
(y)
(y)
( 8 )
XXX
( 8 )
.
( 8 )
( 8 )
XXX
( 7 )
XX
( 7 )
XXX
(7)
XX
(7)
XXX
( 9 )
X .
(9)
xx
(9)
(9)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(C)
(1)
XX
(C)
(1)
X
(C)
XX
(1)
(C)
(1)
X
( 2 )
( 2 )
(2)
X
( 2 )
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.35
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Medical Students
(N=168
)
(WAIS WTS data;
75% exemplars)
(4)
(5)
X.
XXX
(4)
. .XXX
(5)
X.
.X
(4)
X
XXX
(5)
xxxx.
(4)
X
(X)
.
(x)
.
.X
(5)
(x)
XX
(X)
(a)
. xxxxxx
(6)
xxxxx
X
(a)
XX.
XX
(6)
X
X
(a)
(6)
XXX.
XX
(a)
X
(6)
X
(3)
(8)
X
.XXX
(3)
X
(8)
•
X
(3)
XX
.
. X
(8)
xxxxx
.
. xxxxxx
(3)
(Y)
(Y)
•
(Y)
(Y)
(8)
xxxxx
(b)
X.
xxxx
(7)
XX
(b)
.X
(7)
X
.XX
(b)
xxxx.
xxxx
(7)
xxxx
(b)
(7)
XX
(2)
(9)
X
(2)
(9)
XXX.
•
(2)
XXX
(9)
X
(2)
XX
(z)
(z)
(z)
.
(z)
.
•
•
(9)
X
•
(c)
XX
X
(1)
.
. XX
(c)
....
XX
(1)
X
(c)
xxxxx
(1)
XXX.
.
(c)
XXX
(1)
X.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.18
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
43 Members of a Management Development Seminar
(#/*/*-/” / —
)
(WAIS item data;
88% exemplars)
+
(4)
(5)
+
(4)
+
(5)
+
(4)
(5)
+ .
(4)
++
(5)
+
(x)
(X)
(X)
.
(X)
(a)
-+
(6)
*
(a)
+
(6)
(a)
(6)
(a)
+
(6)
+
(3)
(8)
(3)
(8)
(3)
(8)
+ **
(3)
(8)
+
(y)
•
(y)
(y)
(y)
+
(b)
(7)
(b)
+
(7)
(b)
+
(7)
+
+
(b)
+ *
(7)
*
-+
(2)
(9)
(2)
(9)
(2)
*
++
(9)
•
+
(2)
X.
(9)
(Z)
(Z)
(z)
(z)
+
(c)
*
(1)
(c)
(1)
(c)
+
(1)
(c)
(1)
++
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.34
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Theology Students
(N=70)
(WAIS item data?
74% exemplars)
. xxx
( 4
)
(4)
.
(4)
(4)
x
(5)
x
(5)
(5)
.
xxxx
( 5 )
x
(x)
(x)
(X)
(X)
X
(a)
(a)
x
(a)
(a)
. XXX
( 6 )
X
(6)
x
x
(6)
( 6 )
(3)
X
X
(3)
xxx
( 3 )
xxxx
x
(3)
( 8 )
XX .
( 8 )
x
(8)
•x
(8)
(y)
(y)
•
(y)
(y)
(b)
X
(7)
X.
.
(b)
XX
(7)
XX,
.
(b)
XX
(7)
X.
•
. .x
(b)
X
(7)
X
(2)
(9)
(2)
(9)
x
(2)
(9)
(2)
x
(9)
x:
(z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(C)
(C)
X
(c)
(c)
.
XX
(1)
X
(1)
.
( 1 )
.
( 1 )
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.23
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
88 Novices
(Retention in program
(WB-I item data;
81% exemplars)
-..+++
(4)
(4)
(4)
.
+
(4)
(5)
(5)
+-
(5)
+
(5)
+ .-
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(a)
-+
(a)
++-
(a)
+
+
(a)
( 6 )
-
( 6 )
.
( 6 )
+
( 6 )
-
(3)
++
(3)
-
(3)
-
(3)
+
( 8 )
( 8 )
( 8 )
-
( 8 )
(Y)
(y)
(y)
•
(y)
(b) —
(7)
(b)
+
•
(7)
(b) +—
-
(7)
(b) —
(7)
(2)
(9)
(2)
(9)
(2)
+
(9)
(2)
+++
-•+
(9)
+
(z)
(Z)
(z)
-
•
(z)
(c)
(1)
-
(c)
++++.
(1)
+
(c)
(1)
(c)
+==
.
(1)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.21
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Promotability of Police based on Pre-employment Testing
(# made Lieut;
+ made Sgt;
- failed probation;
= a complainee)
(WAIS item data;
93% exemplars)
-+
(4)
-
(4)
#
(4)
+
•
(4)
(5)
(5)
=
(5) +—
(5)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(a)
(6)
+
(a)
#-
(6)
+
(a)
(6)
+++
++
(a)
-
(6)
(3)
(8)
+
-
(3)
+++
(8)
(3)
+
(8)
+
++
(3)
+
="+++
(8)
(y)
(Y)
•
(y)
-
(y)
(b)
+
+
(7)
(b)
#=
(7)
-
(b)
++
+
(7)
++-
(b)
+ • —
(7)
##+++
(2)
.=
=-.+
(9)
##+++—
(2)
=
++
(9)
#++-=
(2)
-
(9)
+-
(2)
=-
(9)
-
-
(Z)
-
(z)
(z)
-
(z)
+
(C)
###+—
(C)
-
(C)
(C)
( 1 )
( 1 )
-
( 1 )
—
( 1 )
++
+++
+
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.05
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
104 Deadly Criminals
(Murder; Manslaughter)
(12% complete data;
81% exemplars)
(4)
(5)
(4)
•
(5)
(4)
+
(5)
*
(4)
(x)
(5)
(x)
(x)
(x)
(a)
**
(6)
(a)
*
(6)
(a)
(6)
++•
(a)
(6)
+
(3)
*
(3)
*
(3)
+
.*
(3)
(y)
•
(y)
(y)
.+*
(y)
*
( 8 )
( 8 )
*
.+
( 8 )
+
+
( 8 )
****
(b)
***++++++
.*
(7)
+
(b)
*+
+
(7)
*
*
(b)
**+
(7)
•
(b)
** #
+
(7)
+++.
+
(2)
+
(9)
(2)
(9)
**++
*
(2)
*+.
•
(9)
(2)
*+ •
(9)
+
(Z)
•
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(C)
++.
. .+*
(1)
+
(C)
*
(1)
(C)
(1)
(C)
*
+
(1)
***+++
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.31
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001 -2
104 Sex Offenders
(Rape;
Child Molesting;
Deviancy;
Incest)
(6% complete data;
81% exemplars)
r
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
.
(a)
.
R
(a)
R.
(a)
(a)
(3)
(3)
(3)
. DCCR
(3)
RC
R
(b)
RI
(b)
R...
. .DICR
(b)
#R
.
.
(b)
RRRD
(5)
(5)
(5)
r
(5)
(x)
(x)
R
(x)
(x)
..ICC
(6)
( 6 )
(6)
RRCI
( 6 )
( 8 )
( 8 )
( 8 )
r
(8)
D
(y)
•
(y)
(y)
(y)
DIRR
(7)
r
(7)
#C
(7)
(7)
CD
( 2 )
( 2 )
(2)
C
(2)
R
(9)
RRDr
(9)
R
.RR
(9)
rC
(9)
D
(z)
(z)
(z)
R
(Z)
(c)
(c)
RRCDD
. ICRR
(c)
DR
(c)
R
(1)
RR
.rR
(1)
r
R
(1)
CID
.
R
(1)
#RCCCDD
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.19
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
68 Adolescent Car Thieves
(Reading Level +,-)
(WAIS WTS data;
85% exemplars)
(4)
(5)
(4)
(5)
(4)
(5)
(4)
(5)
(x)
(x)
(x)
(x)
(a)
(6)
(a)
+-
.+
(6)
++
(a)
(6)
(a)
+-
(6)
(3)
(8)
+
(3)
(8)
(3)
(8)
-
(3)
(8)
+
(y)
(y)
(y)
-
--
(y)
(b)
++.
(7)
..
.+
(b)
+
(7)
(b)
(7)
++++
(b)
++
(7)
+
(2)
(9)
(2)
(9)
(2)
-
+
(9)
+
(2)
+
+
(9)
+
(z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(c)
+
(c)
+.
.
(C)
(c)
+
—++
( 1 )
( 1 )
.
( 1 )
++
( 1 )
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.22
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
49 Participants
in an Adolescent Drug Program
(88% complete data;
94% exemplars)
(4)
(5)
(4)
(5)
(4)
xx
(5)
(4)
xx
(5)
x
(a)
(X)
X
(x)
(x)
X
(x)
X
X
(6)
(a)
x
(6)
(a)
x
x
(6)
x
(a)
(6)
xxxxxxx
( 3
)
(8)
( 3 )
XX
.
X
(8)
(3)
(8)
X
( 3 )
XX
(8)
XX
xxx
(b)
x
(y)
x
(y)
(y)
(y)
(7)
(b)
.
(7)
x
(b)
x
(7)
(b)
X
(7)
(2)
x
(9)
(2)
(9)
(2)
(9)
x
x
(2)
(9)
(C)
X
X
(Z)
.
(Z)
X
(z)
(z)
(1)
XX
(C)
(1)
X
(C)
X
(1)
(C)
(1)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.32
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
43 Drug Pushers
(2% complete data;
84% exemplars)
x
(4)
(5)
(4)
(5)
x
(4)
x
(5)
.
(4)
(5)
(a)
(x)
(x)
(x)
(x)
(6)
(a)
x
(6)
(a)
( 6 )
XXX
(a)
(6)
X.
(3)
x
(8)
x
(3)
x.
(8)
(3)
(8)
(3)
(8)
X
x
(b)
xxxx
(Y)
•
(Y)
(y)
•
(y)
XXXX
(7)
(b)
X
(7)
.
x
(b)
x
(7)
x
(b)
(7)
(2)
(9)
XX
(2)
(9)
XX
(2)
(9)
(2)
.
(9)
(z)
(z)
(Z)
X
(Z)' X
(c)
X
(1)
(C)
X
(1)
XX
(C)
(1)
(C)
X
(1)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.17
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Practicing Homosexuals
(N=87)
(11% complete data;
92% exemplars)
(4)
(5)
(4)
(5)
(4)
f
(5)
(4)
(x)
(5)
ff
m
(x)
W
(x)
(a)
f
(6)
(a)
fmmm
(6)
m
(a)
(6)
Itl
mmm
(a)
(6)
m.
(3)
(8)
m
mm
(3)
(8)
(3)
mmffff
(8)
fmm
(3)
(8)
mmmf.
(y)
(y)
(y)
fm
(y)
(b)
mmmf
.
ff
(7)
m
(b)
mf f
.
(7)
.
. fmmm
(b)
(7)
mm
(b)
mf
mm
(7)
mmmf
(2)
m
(9)
mmf
(2)
(9)
(2)
mf
(9)
#
f
(2)
f
.
f fm
(9)
m
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
m
(c)
m
m
(1)
mm
(c)
(1)
(c)
m
m
(1)
(c)
m
m
(1)
mf
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Notes — Draft/
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Notes about Psi
David R.
Saunders
MARS Measurement Associates
A — What have we learned about viewers and psi?
1.
Throughout this project we have maintained a PAS distri-
bution displaying the current reference group assignments of all
the psi-relevant cases
in our file.
These notes incorporate
three different versions of this distribution,
which are distin-
guished by a chronological code in the upper left corner of the
page.
The code consists of the year,
and the version number
within the year.
The current version
is designated as
(88.0).
la.
This distribution incorporates cases drawn from JFK
University,
Mobius Group, Monroe Institute,
Princeton University,
Psychophysical Research Laboratory,
and the University of Wyom-
ing,
as well as SRI.
For some of these data,
we are pledged to
maintain individual anonymity even from SRI.
2.
The PAS data for the six superstars are especially awk-
ward.
Only two of the six are complete and uncomplicated
(an
IRA8 and an IRAy)
.
Two more are nominally complete,
but only
following "split administration" of the WAIS
(an ERAy and an
IRUc)
.
The other two are wild?
one of them is probably ERU3
;
the
other is probably either IFA2
or IFA3.
2a.
Viewer 009 has done the complete PAS twice, with dif-
ferent testers at an interval of about two years.
The profiles
are superficially quite different,
and neither meets the criteria
for assignability even though 100% of the other records generated
by these testers are now exemplars.
Viewer 009
is markedly
color-blind,
complicating the administration and interpretation
of CN.
We have dealt with these data by combining the two raw
profiles,
accepting the first administration for
D,
OA,
and CN
(where practice effects are
a major concern)
and accepting the
better score on all other subtests;
the resulting profile
is
a
clear ERU3.
Throughout the process.
Viewer 009 has expressed
skepticism concerning the testing procedures,
arguing that he can
appear to be whomever he wishes to be.
It
is clear that his tac-
tics have caused problems,
but ERU3 now appears relatively cred-
ible.
2b.
Viewer 414 did the incomplete PAS twice, with different
testers at an interval
of about six months.
He
is now deceased,
so that complete data even via split administration
is imposs-
ible.
His two profiles are superficially different,
featuring
marked improvements
in both D and PC.
Without the PAS Fourth
Dimension,
either profile has several possible assignments,
and
there
is no simple resolution of the ambiguity.
IFA2
is the best
fit to the first administration
(but note that IFA2
is among the
least well-defined reference groups)
,
and IFA3
is the best fit to
Approved For Release 2000^08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Notes — Draft/
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
the second
(which
is the more complete record)
.
IFU6
fits both
acceptably well.
Also,
IFA3
seems most concordant with the other
superstar data.
The one inescapable point is that Viewer 414
is
a primitive
F,
and is the only F among the six superstars.
3.
The simplest resolution of the superstar data
is to re-
gard them all as a single cluster -- all poly-active,
all basic
F,
and all tending to low Q1 and high TE.
However,
there are
interesting differences within the group.
3a.
Sub-cluster One includes three primitive RA individu-
als: Viewer H285
(an IRAy,
central to this cluster? particularly
adept in precognitive tasks?
able to perform under pressure or
when fatigued?
discovered his skill as
a child)
, Viewer 373
(an
IRA8 ?
able to perform in a variety of modes?
needs to "cool down"
to provide a proper mental attitude?
learned his skills as an
adult)
,
and Viewer 504
(an ERAy?
able to perform in a variety of
modes?
subject to fatigue effects?
learned her skills as an
adult)
.
3b.
Sub-cluster Two includes two primitive RU individuals:
Viewer 009
(an ERU3,
central to this cluster?
discovered his
skill as
a child)
,
and Viewer 002
(an IRUc but acceptable as an
ERU3)
.
Viewers
002 and
009 espouse strikingly similar views as
to how to do remote viewing — views not shared with the other
sub-clusters
.
3c.
Sub-cluster Three consists of Viewer 414, whom we now
regard as an IFA3.
He discovered his skills as an adult and was
renowned for the depth of detail
in his viewing.
4.
Referring to the current version of RGPC.14
(Assorted
Psi Personnel)
we may summarize the PAS characteristics of good
viewers as follows:
4a.
At least
10 out of
stars and superstars
fall
into
reference groups suggestive of good right-brain development.
Only one
"star"
(Viewer 059)
is
in
a group suggestive of left-
brain dominance? we would expect this viewer to experience the
greatest difficulty with AOL.
4b.
At least
4 out of
6,
and possibly
6 out of
6 superstars
are poly-active, which
is suggestive of good interhemispheric
communication in the brain.
However,
5 out of
6 mere stars are
merely pro-active.
It seems unlikely that any star or superstar
viewer
is re-active.
4c.
5 out of
6 superstars and
4 out of
6 stars are primi-
tive R.
4 out of
6 superstars and
4 out of
6 stars are primitive
A.
However,
none of the
12 stars and superstars
is even
a pos-
sible
FU.
If we interpret the PAS R/F and A/U in signal processing
terms,
these results do make sense.
We have said elsewhere that
R demands
a high signal-to-noise ratio in order for perception to
Approved For Release 2000208/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Notes — Draft/
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001 -2
occur.
On the one hand he learns that he can trust the reality
of what he does perceive?
on the other hand he
is prone to errors
of omission.
Thus,
if he believes he has ESP,
he
is willing to
be
a subject,
and can learn to perform with statistical
.
significance.
The F individual
is able to recognize a signal
imbedded
in relatively more noise,
and
is forced to learn tech-
niques for distinguishing signal from noise.
Even
if he has ESP,
he is less likely to trust
it,
and therefore less likely to be
a
subject.
But once he masters the required skills,
he produces
a
more in-depth product.
A/U extends this picture by indicating the innate noise
level of the individual — A
is low and U
is high.
Thus,
the
hypothetical FU viewer has both factors collaborating against him
—
a high innate noise level and
a relative inability to focus on
just signal.
On the other extreme,
the hypothetical FA viewer
is
potentially the best viewer of all —
in the absence of noise,
a
tendency to pick up a weaker signal becomes an advantage.
4d.
We have noted
in the past that good viewers tend to
handle the Time Estimation task of the PAS
in an unusual way,
,
which is not systematically reflected in the PAS scoring.
This
is the tendency to move towards larger numerical scores ex-
pressed as percentage of target)
across the seven trials within
the total task.
This effect
is sufficiently rare m the general
population as to be almost
''pathognomonic"
of a good viewer.
Within the reference groups,
this does have the effect of con-
fining good viewers to groups allowing TE to be a significant
within-group variable,
and to position the viewers towards the
high TE poles of these groups.
5.
A superficial review of Table RGPC.14 would suggest that
dowsing
(most of the data-points are "temporal dowsers,"
i.e.,
good IDS performers)
is
a pro-active more than a poly-active
skill.
Actually,
the superstar viewers do tend to include IDS in
their repertoire of skills.
Thus,
we may most parsimoniously re-
gard IDS simply as
a lesser psi-skill — one to
FU persons
and pro-active persons may reasonably aspire.
6.
The persons who have been characterized as psi-Effectors
in Table RGPC.14 show a possible tendency to be re-active.
It
is
not immediately clear how this may be interpreted.
However,
the
tendency for persons with different reported skills to cluster m
different parts of the reference group array does suggest that
these skills are both real and distinct.
Approved For Release 2000/0S/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Notes — Draft/
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
B — How were the experimental
Ss chosen from the pool?
1.
The initial selections were made on April
29,
1986.
At
that time,
the PAS Reference Group Model recognized 96 groups,
not the 120 of today.
The information deemed pertinent to the
selection decisions are/were contained in two distributions
(copies attached) — one showing our then accumulated experience
with "Assorted Psi Personnel" and the other showing the
in-
dividuals then believed to be available in the subject pool.
2.
Based on discussions with SRI
(primarily with BSH)
,
it
was agreed that the primary objective was to achieve overall
statistical significance in a standard viewing experiment using
National Geographic targets.
If we could demonstrate learning,
and/or differential learning,
and/or trainer effects,
this would
be nice but nevertheless less important.
3.
It was understood that the
12 Ss to be chosen for this
experiment would be ineligible
for two other experiments that
would also be striving for significant results.
In the light of
this factor,
it seemed clear that there weren't going to be
enough really promising Ss to go around.
This conclusion was
reinforced by the observation that the available promising Ss
tended to have been among the first to volunteer,
so that we
could not expect the second half of the pool to be even as good
as the first half.
4.
Under the circumstances,
something had to give.
We
concluded that by choosing the Ss in matched pairs,
and then
randomly assigning one of each pair to each experimenter,
we
could create an experimental design that could be analyzed with
"personality"
as an independent variable,
i.e.,
a 2x6 Anova.
Such a design would actually be enhanced
if personality were
a
significant effect,
and we would therefore need to employ fewer
of the most promising Ss.
5.
Accordingly,
we chose four ERU8s,
two ERA8s,
two IRA5s,
two ERUas,
and two EFU5s.
All but the last pair were seen as
promising,
though not as equally promising.
Specifically,
we
created the following design:
Group
Viewer 137
ERU8
Group
Viewer 516>512
Viewer 210
ERU8
Viewer 928
Viewer 018
ERA8
Viewer 857>432
Viewer 579
IRAS
Viewer 158
Viewer 739
ERUa
Viewer 891
Viewer 588>176
EFU5
Viewer 307
6.
Only after we had formally provided SRI with two groups
of six subjects,
as above, were we informed that Viewers
579 and
857 could not be used,
for an unspecified "good"
reason,
and that
Viewer 158 could not be used because she was now pregnant.
We
were able to replace 158 with 822 without altering the design,
Approved For Release 2000fo8/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Notes — Draft/
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
and did so on May
13,
1986.
But the loss of 579 and 857 effec-
tively destroyed the design.
(We learned later that 579 and 857
had been hired by the project to work as judges,
partly on the
basis of demonstrated psi proficiency 1
)
7.
Shortly thereafter
(May
31,
1986)
,
Viewers 181 and 450
were proposed as a way of supplementing the roster of Ss,
but.
these individuals were never regarded by us as part of the orig-
inal experiment.
(Viewer 450 was run as a subject;
181 was not.)
8.
When the experiment was complete,
but before the data
were analyzed, we were asked to record our predictions based on
the PAS.
By this time,
our opinion as to the best group; assign-
ment for several of the Ss had changed and,
since the original
2x6 design was moot anyway,
we simply re-ranked everyone based on
the then current version of the master distribution
(86.24+).
This resulted in the following ranking (s)
(submitted October
2,
1986)
:
Total Performance
Viewer 739
(ERUa)
Viewers 210,018
(ERA8)
Viewer 928
(ERU8)
Viewers 516,891
(IRA5)
Viewer 450
(IRU4)
Viewer 137
(ERU5)
Viewer 307
(EFU5)
Viewer 176
(EFU6)
Learning
Viewers 891,516
(IRA5)
Viewer 928
(ERU8)
Viewers 018,210
(ERA8)
Viewer 739
(ERUa)
Viewer 450
(IRU4)
Viewer
137
(ERU5)
Viewer 307
(EFU5)
Viewer 176
(EFU6)
8a.
The rationale for these rankings was,
first,
that the
top six in each list came from groups with a more or less posi-
tive track record while the bottom two in each list came from
groups with a negative track record.
(The bottom two had been
chosen in the beginning as poor viewers.)
Secondly,
we judged
that the duration of the experiment was likely to be too short
for any real learning,
and provided the second ranking only
because we were asked to try.
We assigned ERUa the top predic-
tion not only because
it had the best track record,
but because
PAS theory suggested that this pattern was the least burdened by
compensations that might interfere with
a natural aptitude.
8b.
We were pleased to learn that these rankings correlated
+.28
(Kendall ' s tau)
with the final overall performance scores.
By itself,
this
is not statistically significant,
but the result
does contribute net information supportive of the experimental
hypothesis.
8c.
The experimental Ss and their results are included in
the current version of RGPC.14.
Approved For Release 2000^)8/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.14 —
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Assorted Psi Personnel
(Viewers
(#,*,+,-,=)
,
Dowsers
(t,s),
Effectors
(h,k,g,x, z)
,
Intermediaries
(a,c,w),
Investigators
(i))
z
(4) w Ii
(4)
-
(4)
+
-
st
(4)
*
a
(x)
-i k
(x)
(x)
+
(x)
..t
(a)
T
-.
z+
(a)
+
T
(a)
.=
(a)
*#
(3)
+
i=
.i
(3)
+
.
+
(3)
i
(3)
.w +
(y)
hB
(y)
I T
(y)
(y)
(b)
ii x
(b)
c
(b)
(b)
c
(2)
k
z+
(2)
(2)
#W
i cg+
( 2
)
g
(z)
(z)
(z)
(z)
- h
(c)
+
i cz#
(c)
i
-
(c)
t
W
(c)
zt+++*
(5)
i-
(5)
+t
ii-.
.s
(5)
+t
i
(5)
*
iiii.
.
+t -
i
.
( 6 )
*
( 6 )
( 6 )
— .
(6)
I
ii
(8)
+++
-.
.
(8)
#
t
(8)
(8)
i-..
#h -
#
i
• r
(7)
(7)
..
(7)
(7)
(9)
+
(9)
.
(9)
+..
(9)
+c
( 1 )
( 1 )
( 1 )
( 1 )
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC » 2 8
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
130 Actors/Actresses
(WB-I WTS data;
81% exemplars)
.x
(4)
(4)
...
(4)
(4)
.
(x)
.
(x)
x
(x)
(x)
(a)
x
x
(a)
xxxxxx
x
(a)
.xx
(a)
(5)
.x
(5)
x
xx
(5)
xxx.
.xx
( 5 )
x
x
(6)
xxxxxx
.X
(6)
x.
(6)
X
(6)
x
•
(3)
XX
(3)
XX.
xxx
(3)
xxxx.
XXX
( 3
)
X
(8)
X
X
(8)
X
(8)
XX
XX
(8)
xxxxxx
(y)
(y)
(y)
x
(y)
•
(b)
xxxx
.xx
(b)
x
.x
(b)
x
x
(b)
(V)
(7)
(7)
x
(7)
x.
( 2 )
( 2 )
(2)
xx
.
( 2 )
xx
.
. .xx
(c)
x
(c)
x.
X
(c)
(C)
.X
(9)
xxx
(9)
XX
X
(9)
X
X
(9)
X
(z)
(Z)
(Z)
(Z)
X
(1)
X
(1)
xx
(1)
XXX
X
(1)
xxx
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.29
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
SRI Subject Pool
(N=96)
(100% complete data;
100% exemplars)
x
(4)
x
x
(4)
x
(4)
xxx
X
(4)
x
(x)
xxx
(x)
XX
(x)
XX
(x)
XX
(a)
XX
xxx
(a)
(a)
xx
xx
(a)
xx
(3)
x
(3)
xx
(3)
XX
(3)
x
(y)
x
(y)
x
(y)
(y)
(b)
(b)
x
x
(b)
(b)
xxx
(5)
X
xxx
(5)
xxxxxxx
X
(5)
(5)
XX
(6)
X
XX
(6)
XX
( 6 )
XXX
( 6
)
X
( 8 )
XX
x
(8)
X
(8)
(8)
XX
XX
XXX
(7)
(7)
(7)
x
x
(7)
(2)
X
X
(2)
XX
( 2 )
XX
( 2 )
(Z)
(Z)
XX
(z)
(Z)
(C)
X
(c)
X
(c)
X
(c)
X
( 9 )
(9)
XX
(9)
x
( 9 )
xx
( 1 )
( 1 )
X
(1)
( 1 )
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPB.14 —
(86.11)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Assorted Psi Personnel
.
,
.
.
.
(Remote Viewers
(#,*,+,-),
Dowsers
(t,s),
Investigators
( 1 ))
w t
(4)
i
(4)
+
.
S
(4)
-
S
(4)
?
/
•
(5)
"
•
+
(5)
+++ tt w
.
?
?
•
(5)
i tt
(5)
...
/
.
h +*
(a)
.
+#
(a)
+
w T
(a)
-
(a)
.
/
*#
( 6 )
*
( 6 )
(6)
+
i
-
(6)
-
/
(3)
.
i
(3)
+
W ++
(3)
#
(3)
/
. ..
++
(8)
*++
i qqq
..
I
(8)
i
.
ill
(8)
.
. w
(8)
i
/
(b)
*
ii w
(b)
.
. w
(b)
(b)
/
(7)
i
I
(7)
•
i
(7)
(7)
/
+
( 2 )
t
(2)
i
(2)
•
(2)
/
xxx
( 9 )
i
(9)
(9)
•
(9)
/
.
h
(c)
k ww
w
(c)
(c)
.
w
(c)
/
-
( 1 )
( 1 )
W
(1)
( 1 )
/
/
ERU
:
ERA
/
/
IRU
:
IRA
/
/
IFU
:
IFA
/
/
EFU
:
EFA
/
/
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPB.29 —
(86.12)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
49 Cases in SRI Subject Pool
XXX
(5)
X
(5)
XX
(5)
(4)
X
xxxx
(5)
xx
(4)
X
/
(4)
X
X
(4)
/
XXX
(a)
•
(a)
xx
(a)
X
(a)
/
( 6 )
XX
(6)
x
(6)
x
(6)
/
XXXX
(8)
XX
X
(8)
X
(8)
(3)
(8)
XX
(3)
XX
(3)
/
(3)
/
(b)
(b)
(b)
X
X
(b)
/
(7)
(7)
(7)
(7)
/
( 2 )
( 2 )
(2)
X
( 2 )
/
(9)
.
(9)
X
(9)
X
X
(9)
/
x
(c)
(C)
(C)
(C)
/
( 1 )
( 1 )
X
(1)
(1)
X
/
/
ERU
:
ERA
/
/
IRU
:
IRA
/
/
IFU
:
IFA
/
/
EFU
:
EFA
/
/
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPB.14
(86.24+)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Assorted Psi Personnel
(Remote Viewers
(#,*,+,-),
Dowsers
(t,s).
Investigators
(i))
.
t
(5)
.
-
(5)
+++ t
.
?
?
•
(5)
(4)
*
i
-
I tt
(5)
...
i
(4)
+
i
-
/
.
s
(4)
-
s
(4)
?
/
.
t
*#
(a)
.
t
#
(a)
+
T
(a)
-
(a)
/
( 6 )
*
( 6 )
(6)
+
i
?
( 6 )
-
/
?
i
.
.
++
( 8 )
*++
i qq
.
.
I h
(8)
T
(8)
(3)
+
..
(8)
.
q -
(7)
i
(3)
+
/
I
(7)
.
.
++
( 3 )
i
( 7
)
#
(3)
(7)
/
(b)
#
/
i
(b)
.
.
(b)
(b)
/
(2)
+
X +
(9)
(9)
(9)
•
(9)
(1)
(2)
/
(1)
(2)
+
.
.
(1)
(2)
(1)
/
h
(c)
k
/
(c)
•
(^)
•
(c)
/
/
ERU
:
ERA
/
/
IRU
:
IRA
/
/
IFU
:
IFA
/
/
EFU
:
EFA
/
/
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Notes — Draft/2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
C.
Is hypnosis a way to facilitate psi performance?
1.
There have been three distinct sources of data with
which to relate "hypnotic susceptibility" and the PAS.
2.
The oldest and largest is summarized in Table RGPC.25.
These data come from a study at the University of Denver,
com-
missioned by John Gittinger in the early 1950s.
All we know is
that the Ss were student
, volunteers ,
that the PAS fourth dimen-
sion was not yet even dreamed of,
and that susceptibility was
evaluated as
"A" or "B" or
"C" — which we have translated into
"*»,
n+ n
an(j
ii-.ii,
respectively.
The distribution appears to be
non-random both with respect to volunteering and with respect to
hypnotic performance,
but
it provides little or no information as
to the susceptibility of any psi-relevant group.
3.
In the summer of 1986,
we arranged to visit the Seventh
Annual Rocky Mountain Conference on UFO Encounters,
organized by
Dr Leo Sprinkle,
and were able to administer the full PAS to
of
the participants.
All
7 were also volunteers for individual
hypnotic interviews
(intended to clarify their encounter experi-
ences)
,
and all were judged by Dr Sprinkle to be excellent hyp-
notic Ss.
These Ss turned out to include an ERUy,
an ERU7
,
an
IFA7 ,
an ERA4 ,
an EFA4 ,
an IRUc,
and an ERU2 ,
i.e.,
quite
a dif-
ferent sample from the DU study.
(The ERUy and ERU7 overlap
(and
confirm)
the DU results.)
As expected,
some of these cases
(4
out of
7?)
are in psi-relevant groups.
4.
In the summer of 1987,
we arranged with Dr David Gold-
stein
(a biofeedback specialist
in private practice)
to recruit
promising hypnotic Ss through newspaper ads
(inviting paid par-
ticipation in a study of "ability to concentrate")
and to screen
them with the Spiegel Hypnotic Induction Profile,
among other
things.
A total of
30 Ss were screened and the
9 best of these
sat for the complete PAS.
These
9 cases included
IRU2s,
ERU5s,
an IRU5,
an ERA6 ,
an EFUz,
an IFUy,
and a possible ERUx.
In addition,
three patients referred by a hypnotherapist for bio-
feedback training did both the HIP and the PAS; these included an
ERU2
(the best subject turned up in this group),
an IFU3
,
and an
IFA2
.
5.
Because of the differences
in the samples,
none of the
PAS data are in direct conflict.
The hypnotherapy cases actually
begin to replicate the DU findings.
6.
The results of immediate interest relate. to ERU5 .
This
reference group includes
of the Goldstein recruits ; these are
actually among the top
3 HIP performers identified
in the sample
of
30 volunteers recruited for the concentration study.
ERU5
is
also the home of at least
5 persons with demonstrated psi skills,
including Viewer 518
(a star),
Viewer 807
(the best
S
in SRI's
1985 experiment),
and Viewer 137
(the best S
in SRI's 1987 exper-
iment)
.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
Notes — Draft/
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
6a.
The three psi cases just cited are very closely grouped
in the fourth quadrant of the ERU5 Locator Plot, where they are
designated as
"L" ,
"B" and
,
respectively.
(See attachment.)
6b.
The two high-scoring HIP performers fall
in the lower
half of this Locator Plot, where they are designated as
"G" and
"W" .
In particular,
"WH
is very close to the "LB*" cluster.
6c.
It is reasonable to hypothesize that Viewers 807 and
137, both of whom are accessible to SRI,
are good hypnotic Ss.
6d.
It is also reasonable to suggest that the thrust of any
hypnotic suggestions to these Ss should be to encourage them to
function as ERUx,
rather than ERU5 .
(This
is by analogy with
Viewer 373 — an IRA8 who does his best
(?)
viewing while
in an
IRAy state .
)
D.
Can we use the MBTI as a pre-screen for the PAS?
1.
Not easily and not well!
2.
For openers,
try adding the MBTI types of the ERU5 ex-
emplars to the ERU5 Locator Plot.
Actually,
there just might
possibly be some tendency for
.S.J to be associated with both of
the extremes of V2,
and for
.N.P to be associated with balance on
the balance dimension.
But even if this should hold up,
the next
group will suggest
a dufferent rule.
3.
Some rules derived in this way can be judged to be high-
ly statistically significant,
despite the limited numbers of
cases currently available.
I.e.,
it
is often possible to make
very reliable predictions of part or all of the MBTI from the
PAS.
It
is merely the converse that is not true.
4.
Under the circumstances,
it sppears to be potentially
more fruitful to predict psi directly from the MBTI
(or other
self-report)
,
and then perhaps to use the PAS as a second,
logically independent predictor.
For this purpose,
Honorton has
a larger and therefore better data-base than we do.
However,
we
can easily confirm Honorton's major effect,
which
is that good
psi-performers are Intuitive;
this holds even when they belong to
reference groups that are otherwise dominated by Sensing.
(ERU5
illustrates both this rule and the possibility of exceptions!)
Approved For Release 2000708/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
RGPC.25
(88.0)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
125 Hypnotic Volunteers
(Susceptibility
#,*,+,-,=)
(WB-I
item data;
74% exemplars)
-
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
+
(5)
+
—+
(5)
-
(5)
(5)
*.
-•
(x)
(x)
(X)
(X)
(a)
(6)
*+-
.
(a)
*++.
.
.
.++
(6)
•
-
(a)
(6)
*+++
•
• ++
(a)
.
(6)
*+
(3)
-
(8)
+*
(3)
*../
(8)
.
-
(3)
(8)
.++*
(3)
+
..***
(8)
+
*
(y)
(y)
(y)
(y)
(b)
*+
*
(7)
(b)
++~
+
(7)
(b)
+
• +
(7)
(b)
++
+ *
(7)
(2)
.+
(9)
(2)
(9)
(2)
(9)
(2)
•
(9)
(z)
.
(z)
(z)
+
(Z)
(C)
(c)
++.
(c)
*
(c)
( 1 )
( 1 )
( 1 )
( 1 )
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
50457
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
ERU5:
Programmer
(87.33)
Observed versus Reconstructed:
Case 50457
D
A
I
-1 Q2
13 BD
S
C
*x
x
:
*
:
A
*
:
:
I
Q2
-1
*x
:
:
BD
*x:
:
S
x:
*
:
C
10 PA
11 PC
12 OA
2 Q1
9 CN
DS
11 TE
*X
:
x*
:
x
*
*
*
x
* X
PA
PC
OA
Q1
CN
DS
-1
TE -1
Observed Formula:
E+c+c Rcc+ Uuc Tcu
Locator Plot:
a=V2=OA
x=V3=TE
y=V4= D
+V4
a
E
S
H
JAP
R
K
-V3
I
Q
B
+V3
G
O
L
C
*
WM
U
-V4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2
50457
Complete Exe&gB>68^9d For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R00220023Q£01vi
V3
V4
AQ998 RFM C0002
2B
17M12+
30028 SRI
P 807
3*
01 30M13
.
C5185 DRS OR 21
3B 01 26M16
.
D0082
SRI P 368
3*
01 45M18
.
E0514 SRI P 572
3*
01 47F14
.
F5524 BEM 82104
8*
20F
.
30946 DRS DG 08
3*
44F13
.
H0448 SRI
P 006
3*
31M17
.
I4018*SLY 12024
6B 01 23M16
J4145 AWS
00166
2*
24M16.
50041 MS
010002
2B 01 29M19.
L0117 SRI P 518
3*
01 37M16
.
yi0988 RGN F 041 2B 01 36M17
.
*0457
SRI
P 137
3*
00 25F16
.
34208 AWS 00205
2*
21M13.
P0088 SRI P 310
3*
01 56M19
.
35521 BEM 82101
8*
19F
.
15141+SKN P0032
2*
01 38M17
.
35495 BEM 82075
8*
19F
.
P5765 301723390
2*
18F
.
J5216 SKN P0077
2*
01 31F16
.
70751 SRI
I
045
3*
44F14
.
*0924
DRS DG
3*
34F13
.
.<5690 285760940
2*
19F
.
/0509
DRS
S 383
2*
01 38M16
.
34169 AWS 00199
2*
22M16
.
’.0974 RFM S
008
8B 02
24F
+
Other Exemplars
:
14323 JMO F0000
30F16
.
L2066--CU 208836
80 29M15+
13224
CU 315146
19F13
.
>1855 NPI
08023
11 36F18
.
16260 MU 000097
01 25M18
.
12512--CU 258866
80 27M14*
30740 MTS
00059
00 33M
.
>2217 PAL 00007
3A 00 26M
.
L2420--CU 245079
01 40M17
.
>9738--WCC 02829
3A 00
17F12
.
>3855 RRH 00423
00 27M
.
11841 AWS
10057
23F16
.
14151 AWS 00031
21M15.
L2648 CU 271102
01 21M15
15184 HAP 04018
31F17
.
14300 JMO F0024
27F16
.
. 1410051
.1370747
Depressed
Phil/Cptr Prog
(PK)
Tchr Chem/Psych
Psycholinguist
(18)
Office Mgr
GENSIOR"
DP Mgr
Elec Engnr
EXPE
BARTENDER
PhD Psychology
Instr ACSS
Cptr Pgmr
BS Math
> Pgmr
STORE DETECTIVE
Math Stat
EQUUS"
HS Math Tchr
RASPUTTEN"
CpSci
3.22
Head Nurse
Neuromusc Prgmr
Secretary
Culin 3.02
Accountant
UPS OPS SPVSR
Biol Maj ;
FigSktr;
Depr
TEACHER
ACAD SUSP -RR- RDG
VOC-ACAD
MUSICOLOGY
MATH INSTRUCTOR
ASSAULT
& BATTERY
LSD Volunteer
Theol Stdnt
VOC
ACCTG
SEEN e/r.a'
WCC Stdnt
PSYCHIATRIC RESIDENT
DANCE ACCOMPANIST
STUDENT
CU Stdnt
PROGRAMMER
CORRECTIONS OFFICER
-13
ESP+ ISFJ
5 -13
-2
INTP
-13
-12
ESP+ XNXP
-12
-12
ESp
ESXJ
-12
-3
INFJ
-9
-5
Hy=9 xxTJ
-8
-20
-14
ESp
ENxP
-8
-6
-6
-12
-1
-5
-5
ESP* ENTx
-3
-7
-2
-15
ESp+ ENxP
-11
-7
ESPt INTP
INFJ
-2
ENTP
ESFJ
-12
ExFP
-14
-7
ISFJ
-5
ESPz INFJ
n
-6
Hy=8 ESFJ
-15
XSTJ
-4
ESTJ /
16 -10
-9
-2
.
-12
OA
TE
D
-13
-9
LTC
-11
-11
-10
-9
-9
-1
-7
924
-5
-12
-4
-2
-7
521
ESFP
-4
-2
-2
XSXJ
-1
-4
538
-4
-2
-5
-4
-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200230001-2