largetMm^ffemm^021051^
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200^A*u3t 1994
Target and Sender Dependencies
in
Anomalous Cognition Experiments*
by
Nevin D. Lantz, Ph.D
Wanda L. W. Luke
and
Edwin C. May, Ph.D.
Science Applications International Corporation
Cognitive Sciences Laboratory
Menlo Park, CA
Abstract
The ganzfeld experiments as summarized by Bern and Honorton (1994) suggest that using dynamic tar-
gets produces stronger results than using static ones. Bern and Honorton, however, only analyzed ganz-
feld studies that included the use of a sender. Since it is known that a sender is not a necessary require-
ment in forced-choice trials (Honorton, 1975), we designed and carried out a study to see if a sender is
required in non-ganzfeld, free-response trials. In the first of two experiments, five experienced receiv-
ers participated in 40 trials each, 10 in each condition of a 2 x 2 design to explore sender and target type.
We observed significant effects for static targets (i.e., exact sum-of-rank probability ofp < 0.0073, ef-
fect size = 0.248\ n=100), chance results for dynamic targets (i.e.,/? < 0.500, effect size = 0.000; n =
100), and no interaction effects between sender and target-type conditions. One receiver slightly fa-
vored the no sender condition
(.F(l,36
)
= 4.43, p < 0.04), while another slightly favored static targets
(F(l,36) = 5.47, p < 0.04). We speculate that these surprising results (i.e., favoring static over dynamic
targets) arose, in part, because of the difference between a topically unbounded dynamic target pool
and a topically restrictive static pool. In a second experiment, we redesigned the dynamic pool to match
more closely the properties of the static pool. Four of the receivers from the first study participated in at
least 20 trials each, 10 in each target-type condition. No senders were used throughout this experiment.
We observed a significant increase in anomalous cognition for the new dynamic targets (t = 3.06, df =
143, p < 1.3 xlO"3
), and a significant increase in anomalous cognition for the static targets (f = 1.68, df
— 143, p < 0.047). We conclude that a sender is not a necessary requirement for free-response anoma-
lous cognition. A rank-order analysis showed no target-type dependencies in the second study. Based
on an analysis by May, Spottiswoode, and James (1994b), we believe a fundamental argument suggests
that in free-response anomalous cognition experiments, dynamic targets should be better than static
ones.
* This paper has been accepted for publication in the September 1994 issue of the Journal ofParapsychology
.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200220001-2
Target^RBr^fefe^lig§02/05/1 7
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200^^ust 1094
Introduction
The ganzfeld database has received considerable attention since Bern and Honorton’s (1994) publica-
tion. They report a significant difference between static and dynamic targets, although they do not re-
port significant hitting with static targets.* None of the 355 ganzfeld trials analyzed by Bern and Honor-
ton were done in a clairvoyant mode—all of these trials used senders.
These data inspired two questions:
(1)
Is a sender a necessary or sufficient participant in the process?
(2)
Is target type dependency real?
The answer to the first question is settled for forced-choice. Clairvoyant ESP card studies (Honorton,
1975) show significant hitting—senders are not necessary. But what is the situation for free-response?
As part of a cooperative effort between Psychophysical Research Laboratories and the Cognitive
Sciences Laboratory, we asked Honorton to conduct a meta-analysis of the ganzfeld database to deter-
mine the answer (Honorton, 1992). In that review, Honorton examined the ganzfeld studies that were
published in the English-language parapsychology literature between 1974 and 1991.
Besides pub-
lished reports, the meta-analysis also included doctoral theses and abstracts of otherwise unpublished
studies. Honorton found that only 12 of 73 studies reported not using a sender, and their combined
results did not reach statistical significance (Z = 131, p < 0.095). The difference was in favor of the
sender protocol (Zdiff = L49,p < 0.137).
We agree with Honorton's criticism that the studies do not attempt a differential comparison between
sender and no sender. As a result, none of the studies were blind to the sender condition. In parallel to
the experiments we report here, we asked Honorton to design and conduct such a study.
Dr. Robert
Morris and the research group in the Psychology department at the University of Edinburgh have taken
over that task.
This paper reports on two non-ganzfeld experiments that we conducted in 1992 and 1993 to address
sender and the target dependencies.
The 1992 Experiment
We used a 2x 2 design to study the effects of sender vs no sender and static vs dynamic target type, on
the quality of anomalous cognition (AC)*. The details of the design, results, and conclusions from the
study are described in this section.
*
It maybe that this difference will vanish when other factors are accounted for. In private communication with Professor
Jessica Utts, she reports that she did not find a significant difference between target condition when receivers brought
their own sender.
t The Cognitive Sciences Laboratoiy has adopted the term anomalous mentalphenomena instead of the more widely knownpsi.
Likewise, we use the terms anomalous cognition and anomalousperturbation for ESP and PK, respectively. We have done so
because we believe that these terms are more naturally descriptive of the observables and are neutral in that they do not imply
mechanisms. These new terms will be used throughout this paper.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200220001-2
Target
^
: CIA-RDP96-00789R00320(^^
Target-pool Selection
The static targets were 50 of the 100 National Geographic magazine photographs that have been used in
our laboratory for many years. By design these targets had the following characteristics:
• Topic homogeneity. The photographs contained outdoors scenes of settlements (e.g., villages, towns,
cities, etc.), water (e.g., coasts, rivers and streams, waterfalls, etc.), and topographical features (e.g.,
mountains, hills, desserts, etc.).
• Size homogeneity. Thrget elements are all roughly the same size. That is, there are no size surprises
such as an ant in one photograph and the moon in another.
• Affectivity Homogeneity. As much as possible, the targets include only material which invokes neutral
affectivity.
This set was divided into 10 sets of five photographs that were determined to be visually dissimilar by a
fuzzy set analysis (May, Utts, Humphrey, Luke, Frivold, and TVask, 1990) and fine-tuned by inspection.
For the dynamic targets, we digitized and compressed 30 video clips from a variety of popular movies or
documentaries.
With the exception of cartoons and sexually-oriented material, the clips contained
nearly anything. Examples included an indoor motor bike race and a slow panoramic scan of the statues
on Easter island.
The overall intent of these dynamic targets was to control for cognitive surprise, to provide target ele-
ments that are easily sketched, and to mimic the content of the successful ganzfeld dynamic targets.
Receiver, Sender, and Monitor Selection
We chose five experienced receivers that had produced significant^C effect sizes in previous investiga-
tions. The sender for all of the trials was the principal investigator (PI), located in Lititz, Pennsylvania.
All trials were unmonitored.
Protocol
Each of the five receivers contributed 10 trials in each of the conditions shown in Table 1. Although 10
trials seems too few for such a study, we computed that the statistical power within a cell was 80%, given
the “known” historical effect sizes of approximately 0.8 for these receivers.
Thble 1.
Experiment Conditions
Thrget 'type
Sender
Static
Yes
Static
No
Dynamic
Yes
Dynamic
No
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200220001-2
Target
: CIA-RDP96-00789R00320(^m2gust igg4
Target Preparation
Prior to beginning the study, an experiment coordinator randomly generated a unique, counterbal-
anced set of 20 static and 20 dynamic targets for each of the five receivers.* Within each target type, a
counter-balanced set of sender/no sender conditions was also generated, and all target selections were
done with replacement. A copy of each target (i.e., either a color photograph or a short clip on video
tape) was placed in an envelope and a trial number, 1-40, was written on the outside. Those envelopes
containing targets from the no-sender condition were sealed and those for the sender condition re-
mained unsealed. Each set of 40 targets were packaged separately and shipped to the PI.
Trial Schedule
TWo of the five receivers resided in California, and the others resided in Kansas, New York and Virginia.
The experiment was conducted over a five-month period. Individual schedules were developed so as to
cause as little inconvenience to the receiver’s daily routine as possible. Not more than one trial per day
or three trials per week were conducted.
Session Sequence
For each trial and for each receiver:
(1) The PI selected the appropriately numbered envelope from the box of targets for the receiver.
(2)
In the sender condition, he looked at the selected target for 15 minutes and attempted to “trans-
mit” it to the intended receiver during a prearranged trial period.
(3)
In the no-sender condition for the static targets, he placed the sealed envelope on his uncluttered
desk for the 15 minute trial period.
(4)
In the no-sender condition for the dynamic targets, he played the video repeatedly for 15 minutes
without sound, and with the TV monitor located in an unoccupied room.
(5) At the conclusion of the 15-minute trial period, and after the receipt of the receiver’s response by
FAX, he sent a copy of the target material (i.e., either a photograph or video tape) to the receiver by
mail.
During each trial:
(1) At the prearranged time, the receiver withdrew to a quiet room in his or her home and sat at a desk.
(2) For a period lasting up to 15 minutes, the receiver wrote and drew his or her impressions of the
intended target material.
(3) At the end of the trial, she/he sent a copy of the response to the PI by FAX machine.
(4) By return mail, she/he obtained a copy of the target as feedback for the trial. The target copy and
original response were subsequently sent to the experiment coordinator in Menlo Park, California.
We did not provide specific instructions beyond logistical information to the receivers, because they
were all experienced at this type of task. They were, however, knowledgeable about the general charac-
teristics of the two target pools.
When the experiment coordinator received the receiver’s response,
all identifying information
(i.e.
name, date, and time of trial) was removed.
Periodically during the course of the experiment, the ex-
* All randomizationswere donewith a standard computer algorithm, which is based on a shift-register algorithm by Kendell and
has been shown to meet the general criteria for “randomness” (Lewis, 1975).
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200220001-2
TargetiBB^fSeglteils002'05'17
: 0^^96-00789^03200^^2^ m4
periment coordinator provided an analyst, who was blind to the target choice, with a set of responses
and associated target packs for analysis.
Analysis
We conducted two different analyses in this study:
(1) Our standard l-of*5 rank-order technique to construct effect sizes and p-values. The targets that
were used as feedback for the receivers were duplicates of the ones used in the analysis.
(2) An analysis of variance (ANOVA) to address the 2x2 questions.
It is general policy in the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory not to combine the data of receivers.
In this
study, all data combinations are post hoc, however, all other analysis are a priori.
Rank-Order
For each trial, there was a single response and its associated target pack (i.e., either static or dynamic).
An experienced analyst, who was blind to the condition and target for the trial, was asked to rank-order
five targets (i.e., the intended target and four decoys) within the given pack.* This was a forced ranking,
so regardless of the quality of match between the response and targets, he/she had to assign a first place
match, a second place match, and so on for each of the five targets. The output from this part of the
analysis was a rank-order number (i.e., one to five, one corresponding to a first place match) for the
correct target.
For each receiver, target type, and condition, there were 10 such rank-order numbers which constituted
a block of data. A rank-order effect size was computed for a block as:
ei.)
where Tty is the average rank for target type i and sender condition j, and
is the expected average
rank, which for this study is equal to three for all cases. N is the number of possible ranks and is equal to
five throughout this study. The effect size reduces to:
3 - Rt.J
Analysis of Variance
A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed for each receiver. The two primary variables
were target type and sender condition (i.e., ANOVA main effects). Each of these variables possessed
the two states shown in Table 1 above.
* Since during the 1992 experiment, the analyst remained in the Menlo Park Cognitive Sciences Laboratory and all other partici-
pants were never present during the study, he/she was blind to all conditions.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200220001-2
TargetAmm^W^mU002105" 7
: CIA-RDP96-00789R00320<^^st 1994
Hypotheses
The overall null hypothesis was that £y will not be significantly different from zero.
Using an F-test, we hypothesized that the quality ofAC does not depend upon a sender regardless of
target type.
Similarly, we used an F-test to test the hypothesis that the quality ofAC does not depend
upon target type, regardless of the sender condition.
The ANOVA also tests for potential interactions between the target and sender conditions. For exam-
ple, it might be that a sender is required for dynamic targets and not for static ones. We did not hypothe-
size with regard to interactions.
Effect Size Results
Five receivers completed 40 trials each. Table 2 shows the effect sizes computed for the 10 trials in each
cell. The underlined effect sizes indicate 1-tailed significant results.
Receiver 009 showed significant
evidence for AC in the static target, no-sender condition (p < 0.02); receiver 372 in the static target,
sender condition; and receiver 518 in the static target, no-sender condition (p < 0. 05). Combined, the
static, no-sender condition was significant (p < 0.02)
Thble 2.
Effect Sizes
Receiver
Sender
No Sender
Sender
No Sender
Static
Static
Dynamic
Dynamic
009
-0.071
0.636
-0.141
0.141
131
-0.071
-0.071
0.212
0.495
372
0.707
0.141
-0.354
-0.283
389
0.141
0.212
0.000
0.000
518
-0.088
0.530
-0.495
0.283
Tbtals*
0.198
0.29.7
-0.028
0.028
* Tbtals are post hoc.
ANOVA Results
Thble 3 shows the results of an ANOVA on these data. Since there were 10 trials within each cell, the
degrees of freedom are the same for all receivers and, therefore, are only shown in the column headings.
T\vo receivers show significant main effects.
Receiver 372 showed a tendency to favor static over dy-
namic targets (i.e.^ < 0. 03), and receiver 518 showed a tendency to favor no sender conditions (i.e.>P<
0.04). Notice the underlined values in Thble 3—for these receivers the ANOVA hypothesis that the data
were drawn from the same distribution is rejected, and there were no significant interactions between
target type and sender condition.
Combining results, post hoc , across receivers, the ANOVA showed no significant main effect for the
sender condition. The main effect for target type, while not significant, was strongly in favor of the stat-
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200220001-2
Target AWB»fftfife6^8iSgi^02/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200^(^)^ust 1994
ic targets {¥(1,196) = 2.91, p < 0.09).* We found no significant interactions for the combined data
(¥(1,196) = 0.02, p < 0.89).
Since there were no significant interactions, we combined the data for static targets regardless of the
sender condition (i.e., 100 trials). The sum-of-ranks was 265 (i.e., exact sum-of-rank probability of;; <
0.007, effect size = 0.248). The total sum-of-ranks for the dynamic targets was 300 (i.e.,;; < 0.50, effect
size = 0.000). From these data, we concluded that static targets may be better than dynamic targets.
Thble 3.
ANOVA Results
Receiver
Sender Condition
Thrget Type
Interaction
F(l,36)
P-Value
F(l,36)
P-Value
F(l,36)
P-Value
009
0.38
0.54
0.68
0.42
2.08
0.16
131
0.18
0.67
1.66
0.21
0.18
0.67
372
1.01
0.32
5.47
0.03
0.61
0.44
389
0.01
0.91
0.33
0.57
0.01
0.91
518
4.43
0.04
0.97
0.33
0.06
0.81
Discussion and Hypothesis Formulation
Static targets apparently being better than dynamic ones (f = 1. 75, df= 198,p< 0. 08, 2-t) is surprising
not only because it fails to support the ganzfeld result, but also because it actually suggests the opposite.
There are a number of possible contributing factors for this outcome. They include statistical artifacts,
idiosyncrasies of our receivers compared to the ganzfeld participants, and procedural differences.
Another possibility may be that rank-order statistics were used, as they were in the ganzfeld. We find
absolute measures ofAC are better than relative measures in process-oriented research, and since the
target-type inference was based on relative measures, perhaps this accounts for some of the result.
Please see an expanded discussion of this point in the 1993 experiment below.
We propose, however, a different explanation: the fundamental differences between the target pools in
this experiment are, in themselves, a source of noise and confound the interpretation.
Tb understand this noise source, we must first assume thatAC data are weak and difficult to recognize.
Ihrget pools which contain a large number of differentiable cognitive elements, in conjunction with re-
ceivers who believe that this is the case, are a source of noise.
Receivers are encouraged to report any
imagined impressions, since those impressions might be part of the target. SinceAC is assumed to be
weak, most ofwhat is generated is more from the receiver’s imagination than from the signal. This noise
is generated from an active imagination coupled with an agreement not to edit the internal experience.
A full description of these points can be found in May, Spottiswoode, and James (1994a).
* Wc computed a trial effect size ofO.121 given the /-'for the target type analysis. Since thepublished effect sizeof 0.159 is gener-
ally considered as a robust effect for the ganzfeld (Bern and Honorton, 1994), we are justified in claiming that the static targets
are “strongly” favored over the dynamic ones.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200220001-2
Target^ft0rg^Fefep^afl%|28O2/O5/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200^^^ust 1994
The receivers in our experiments have learned the natural limitations of our usual National Geographic
target pool by experience and by instruction. They have become skilled at internal editing and do not
report impressions that they know are absent from the overall target pool, thus there is less incorrect
material in their responses.
We conclude, therefore, that in this experiment, receivers were unable to produce significant evidence
ofAC with dynamic targets. They produced, what is for us, significant reduced functioning with static
targets. We speculated that this drop of functioning in both target conditions arose because the proto-
col would not allow the receivers to edit their internal experience. They were told that the dynamic
targets could be virtually anything, and since they were blind to the static-vs-dynamic target condition,
they were unable to edit their imaginations, even for the static targets.
Based on this speculation, we developed the following hypotheses for our replication study in 1993:
(1) An overall significant increase ofAC will be observed for dynamic targets if the dynamic pool is
designed with a similar set of topics that match the static pool from the 1992 study.
(2) An overall increase ofAC will be observed for static targets because the receivers will be able to edit
their internal experience.
The 1993 Experiment
In this experiment, we included a static vs dynamic target condition to replicate the findings from the
ganzfeld, but dropped the sender condition, since it appeared not to influence the results of our 1992
investigation. All trials were conducted with a monitor but without a sender.
Target Pools
We redesigned both the static and dynamic targets with the constraint that they all must conform to the
topic, size, and affectivity homogeneity of the original static targets. We identified a large number of
videos that could be edited to produce 50 National Geographic -like segments. A single frame from with-
in each video clip, which was characteristic of the entire clip, acted as its static target pool equivalent.
Thus, we improved the target pools from our 1992 experiment in two ways:
(1) The new dynamic pool possessed a reduced number of differentiable cognitive elements compared
with the dynamic pool we used in 1992.
(2) The content of the dynamic and static pools were nearly identical, by design.
During the experiment, the targets were chosen randomly and were counter-balanced with regard to
static and dynamic target types, within receivers.
All static frames were digitized
(i.e., 640x480 pixels) for 24 bits of color information, compressed by
JPEG, and stored on-line for feedback and display purposes. The dynamic targets were digitized at
near real-time rate and stored on three magneto-optical read/write diskettes. The “video” clips could
then be displayed on our full-color, Sun Microsystems computer monitor in real-time.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200220001-2
Target ASWgfiffifift6»^^02/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R00320(^^aJust 1Q94
Receiver, Monitor, and Sender Selection
For the new experiment, we chose four of the five experienced receivers who had participated in our
1992 study. All trials were conducted without a sender and were monitored by the PI, who was blind to
target type and content for each trial.
Protocol
Three receivers contributed 10 trials in each of the two target conditions, and a fourth
(i.e., receiver
372) contributed 15 trials in each condition.
Trial Schedule
The experiment was conducted over a seven-month period, and all trials were conducted at our labora-
tory in Menlo Park. One of the four receivers (i.e., Receiver 009) lives locally, but the others traveled to
our facility for one-week visits.
All viewers participated in no more than one trial per day.
Session Sequence
Before the session began, and after the receiver and monitor were sequestered in our^lC laboratory, an
assistant, who was otherwise not involved in the experiment, randomly generated a target (with replace-
ment) in accordance with the target selection criteria (i.e., counter-balanced for type within receivers
and randomly within type).
During the session:
• The monitor provided the following tasking statement to the receiver: “There is a scene that needs a
description. Access to that scene is through the word target”
• For a period lasting no longer than 15 minutes, the receiver wrote and drew his or her impressions of
the intended target material, with the monitor asking for clarification on specific response elements.
• When the monitor and receiver agreed that the data was complete, the monitor halted the session,
copied the response material, and secured the original.
• The monitor provided computer-based feedback of the intended target material and emphasized the
points of agreement between the response and target.
We again emphasize that for each trial the monitor and receiver were blind to the target selection. In
this study, there was a single, experienced monitor, and he/she was trained only to seek clarification of
receivers' response rather than suggesting responses.
All four receivers participated in a total of 20 trials with this design. At no time during these trials was
the target material displayed during the^4C session.
Instead, the intended target, which existed on a
computer disk, was designated only by name, and a laboratory assistant had exclusive knowledge of that
name. Only during the feedback phase was the intended target displayed to the monitor and receiver.
We asked receiver 372 to participate in an additional 10 trials that were randomly counter-balanced
between static and dynamic targets. We used an automated version of the above procedure and, during
the session, the target material was silently displayed on a computer monitor in another room.
The
session protocol was identical to the one above except for the automatic target generation and display.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200220001-2
Target Al»eWftri>fD§^8§fia^)02/05/17
: ClA-RDP96-00789R003200^0^ust 1 gg4
For these 10 trials, the monitor initiated an automatic computer program after receiver 372 had entered
theAC laboratory. This program randomly counter-balanced the target type and selected a single tar-
get for the session. Regardless of the type, the program required that a specific optical disk, unlabeled
with regard to content, be mounted and the dynamic version of the selected target was then copied to an
internal hard disk.
All static equivalent targets were already resident on the internal hard disk. Once
the transfer was complete, the monitor was instructed to initiate the trial. For the next 60 seconds, the
computer screen remained blank, thus allowing the monitor sufficient time to enter the adjacent AC
laboratory and remain blind to the target choice. At the end of the 60 seconds, the computer program
began to continuously display the target regardless of type. The computer program kept track of all the
specific details that were used later during the analysis phase.
Analysis
We conducted two different a priori analyses in this experiment:
(1) Our standard l-of-5 rank-order technique to construct effect sizes and p-values.
(2) A blind rating from a predetermined rating scale.
Our rank-order procedure was similar to the one we used in our 1992 experiment. The sole difference
was how and when the decoy targets were chosen.
In our earlier investigation, the decoys were prede-
termined using fuzzy set analysis and fine tuning. Thus, they existed prior to the start of the experiment.
In this study, the decoys were chosen by computer at the time of analysis, and did not exist during the
actual trials.
Prior to the start of this experiment, we divided our 50 targets into 10 sets of five targets each. Differing
from our earlier approaches, the targets within each pack were as similar as possible. We were able to
identify five broadly different topic categories (e.g., cities near water, ruins, etc.), and we created two
different packs of five targets for each specific category. We made all target pack decisions based on our
experience and subjective assessment.
Decoys were chosen by the computer at analysis time.
First, the computer selected the topic set of five
packets from which the actual target was chosen.
Then, the computer randomly selected one target
from each of the remaining four target packs for the decoys.
The analyst was the same individual as in the 1992 study.
Differing from that study, however, all the
trials were conducted in the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory. The Pl/monitor and the receivers were
present only during the sessions, and the analysis was performed at the conclusion of the data acquisi-
tion without the PI or the receivers present. Otherwise, care was taken to prevent contact between the
analyst and the experiment participants during the sessions.
Blind Rating Scale
Rank-order analysis does not usually indicate the absolute quality of the AC. For example, a response
that is a near-perfect description of the target receives a rank otone.
But a response which is barely
matchable to the target may also receive a rank of one. Table 4 shows the rating scale that we used to
perform a blind assessment of the quality of the AC responses, regardless of their rank. Even though
ranks correlated with ratings, we feel that rating scales like this potentially reduce an additional source
of variance in correlational or comparative studies.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200220001-2
TargetA»#8»<«if9&^i§fiej^02/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R00320^^uJust 1994
To apply this subjective scale to an^C trial, an analyst begins with a score ofseven and determines if the
description for that score is correct. If not, then the analyst tries a score of six and so on. In this way the
scale is traversed from seven to zero until the score-description seems reasonable for the trial.
Thble 4.
0-7 Point Assessment Scale
Score
Description
n
Excellent correspondence, including good analytical detail, with essentially no
incorrect information
Good correspondence with good analytical information and relatively little
incorrect information.
Good correspondence with unambiguous unique matchable elements, but
some incorrect information.
n
Good correspondence with several matchable elements intermixed with
incorrect information.
Mixture of correct and incorrect elements, but enough of the former to indicate
receiver has made contact with the site.
Some correct elements, but not sufficient to suggest results beyond chance
expectation.
Little correspondence.
No correspondence.
Figures 1 through 3 (pages 13 through 15), illustrate the application of this scale and show that the quali-
ty of an AC response is not indicated by a first-place ranking.
All three examples were given a rank of
one in a blind analysis from our 1992 study. The response to the waterfall target in Figure 1 included a
number of pages of material about a city and other man-made elements. In all of our analyses, we strict-
ly adhered to the concept that any material a receiver deletes from the response prior to feedback is not
counted in the analysis. As the receiver deleted the descriptions of man-made elements during the trial,
the response in Figure 1 is considered as complete. This target-response pair received a score of seven.
Figures 2 and 3 show examples of scores offour and one , respectively.
In both cases, these responses
were not edited by the receiver.
Hypotheses
The overall null hypothesis was that the effect sizes will not be significantly different from zero. A t- test
were used to test the hypothesis that the quality ofAC, as measured by rank-order, does not depend
upon target type.
Data Analysis and Results
The analysis for this study was partially automated. All the trial information was stored in a computer
file and could be read only by the analysis program to guard against inadvertent display. An analyst
initiated the program and selected which receiver to analyze.
Since the program kept track of the re-
sults, it instructed the analyst which response to examine for the current trial.
If the target for that trial
was dynamic, the program instructed the analyst to insert enough disks, which were unlabeled with re-
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200220001-2
Target AlW8WftffeFDi^8§ftS^P02/05/1 7
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200^g^3^ust 1 g94
gard to content, so that the target and four decoys could be copied to the computer hard disk. If the trial
target was static, this step was unnecessary, as the static targets were already present on the hard disk.
A randomized order of the decoys and the target were presented in tabular form. A mouse click on the
target name would launch either the dynamic or static display of the selected target. By this method, an
analyst could review the entire target pack and rank-order them as usual. The ranks were entered into
an appropriate place on the computer form. The ratings were done at the same time and entered into
the form. Only after the completion of the analysis for this single trial was the data was locked into a file.
The analyst could then, and only then, learn the correct answer. The results for individual receivers
were maintained in separate files. Three receivers participated in 10 trials for each target type and a
fourth, 372, participated in 15 trials per target type. Tables 5 shows the average rank, the effect size and
its associated p-value for the static target condition. We see that the combined data is significant and
three of the four receivers produced independently significant results.
Thble 5.
Results for Static Targets
Receiver
<Rank>
ES
p-value
2.20
0.565
0.037
372
1.87
0.801
9.7 xlO" 4
389
3.10
-0.071
0.589
518
1.90
0.778
7.2 x 10~ 3
Tbtals
2.22
0.550
1.1 x 10~ 4
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200220001-2
Target te8HagrWfite^002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-°0789R00320(^3e%-iust 1994
BEGIN
10:30 AM
putty bails - almost cotton -like.
Cottony
putty
splotches.
Movement —
whizzing
through these cottony putts fast
Damp-
ness. A long walkway & metal girders.
Figure 3.
BREAK
I keep wanting to say - specifically - air-
field landing strip.
Flat land.
Big airplanes
would land hare
like naval carriers. Has a
broken white line down the center of strip &
you sae it straight on — like you would be
coming in for a landing.
Target and response with a rating of 1.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200220001-2
Target
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200^^0^ust 1994
Rank-order
We observed a statistically significant increase ofAC for the static targets in the 1993 trials as compared
to that of the 1992 trials (t = 1.68, df = 143, p< 0. 047). Three of the four receivers produced indepen-
dently significant results in the 1993 study and improved their results compared to those of 1992. Thus,
the second hypothesis (i.e., an increase in^lC for static targets) was supported.
Thble 6 shows the same data for the dynamic targets.
Thble 6.
Results for Dynamic Targets
Receiver
<Rank>
ES
p-value
1.70
0.919
1.8 xlO" 3
372
1.93
0.754
1.8x10-3
389
3.00
0.000
0.500
518
2.40
0.424
0.091
Totals
2.22
0.550
1.1 xlO" 4
Using the rank-order statistics above, we saw no difference between static and dynamic targets in this
study. The first hypothesis was confirmed: we observed a significant increase ofAC with dynamic tar-
gets in 1993 from that of 1992 (t = 3.06, df= 143, p<1.3x 10~ 3
).
General Discussion and Conclusions
In our first experiment, we found that static targets were better than with dynamic ones. We hypothe-
sized that this difference resulted from a combination of the target pool design and the receivers’ ex-
pectations. Following this idea, May, Spottiswoode, and James (1994a) define targetpool bandwidth as
the number of differentiable cognitive elements in a target pool. They suggest that a target pool, such as
our original static pool, which contains enough elements to prevent guessing, while at the same time
allowing for some internal editing of receivers’ imagination, is optimal with regard to the reduction of
noise.
In the first experiment, the dynamic target pool did not fit this ideal. When we constructed a
better dynamic pool for the second experiment, we observed commensurate increases in the effect
sizes. May, Spottiswoode, and James suggest that their target pool bandwidth concept is testable, and it
is our hope that these tests will be conducted in the near future.
In the second experiment, even after correcting possible defects in our target pool design, we were un-
able to observe a significant target type dependency. On the other hand, the direction for a replication
is clear.
May, Spottiswoode, and James (1994b) suggest that they have identified an intrinsic target
property that correlates with the quality ofAC (i.e., gradient of Shannon’s entropy).
If this is true, then
there might be a fundamental argument that implies that dynamic targets should be better than static
targets, all else being equal.
If a dynamic and static target pool were constructed on the basis of the
largest possible gradients of Shannon’s entropy, then we would expect a significant improvement of the
AC effect size and a result that strongly favors the dynamic targets.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200220001-2
Target^RB«rtFBfe»8gi^02/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200^Ai&ust 1994
As we stated above, receiver 372 participated in 10 additional trials during which the target material was
silently displayed, unattended, in an adjacent room.
In a post hoc analysis, receiver 372 produced an
average rank of 1. 80 (ES = 0. 849\ Z = 168, p <3.7 X 10 “•*) for these trials and an average rank of L 95
(ES = 0 742, Z = 3.32, p < 4.
x /0 ”*) for the original 20. The f-score for the difference was 0.276
(df = 25, p < 3. 7, £5 = 0.343). Although there was not a significant difference, the effect size is quite
large. Perhaps displaying the targets during the sessions is helpful, but a new experiment is needed to
test this hypothesis.
Finally, we comment upon the sender condition. Our results show, as in forced-choiceAC, that a sender
is not a requirement.
It is reasonable to expect that if the sender condition is not blind, then some de-
pendencies might be observed.
Dr. Robert Morris and the research group of the Psychology depart-
ment at the University of Edinburgh are currently conducting a study to answer the necessary and/or
sufficient requirement of a sender.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200220001-2