Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200430001-0 As the sender continually and repeatedly viewed the target, the screening participants wrote and/or drew their perceptions on specially prepared forms that provided an original and a carbon copy. At the end of several minutes, the original responses were collected and sealed in an envelope while the viewers retained the copies for comparison with the feedback. After all responses were sealed for safekeeping, a phone call to the sender revealed the target and, with a second copy of the target pool on video disks, the audience was allowed to view the target film clip as feedback. Trials 2, 3, and 4 proceeded in the same manner. 4. Analysis Quantitative scoring presents several problems when testing groups of viewers. Because all viewers have seen the same four targets, a single judge cannot produce an independent rank ordering for each viewer. Therefore, since the goal was to find natural talent for additional testing, a more qualitative assessment was done by the analysis staff to find any viewers who had produced striking matches to discrete target elements. Another difficulty with having multiple viewers for the same target material is what is called stacking in the parapsychological literature. This refers to the fact that human viewers have common response biases, and if the targets selected happen to correspond to these biases, then the perceived strength of the match can be inflated. For example, if it happens that most people have a tendency to mention water in their first remote viewing trial, and the first target happens to contain a significant amount of water while the remaining targets do not, then a fortuitous match can occur just because of this response bias. If a different set of targets is selected for each viewer, this problem does not occur. Since there was no way address this problem and still screen large groups of people together, a qualitative assessment for the first stage of screening was necessary. Two independent analysts made the qualitative assessments of the responses from the first level of screening. These assessments formed the basis for deciding which persons to invite for the second-stage screening. The qualitative judging was based on a seven-point rating scale shown in Table 2. Analysts were instructed to start at the top of the scale and find the largest rating that describes the match between a response and its intended target. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200430001-0 Table 2 QUALITATIVE RATING SCALE. 7 = Excellent correspondence, including good analytical detail (e.g., naming the site), and with essentially no incorrect information. 6 = Good correspondence with good analytical information (e.g., naming the function), and relatively little incorrect information. § = Good correspondence with unambiguous unique matchable elements but with some incorrect information. 4 = Good correspondence with several matchable elements intermixed with incorrect information. 3 = Mixture of correct. and incorrect elements, but enough of the former to indicate viewer has made contact with the site. 2 = Some correct elements, but not sufficient to suggest results beyond chance expectation. 1 = Little correspondence. 0 = No correspondence. Cc. Second-Stage Screening Protocol 1. Viewers The goal of second-stage screening was to select exceptional individuals who could eventually participate in applications-oriented research. Individuals who showed qualitative evidence of RV ability in the mass screening described above, either by producing an average qualitative rating above three or producing a qualitative rating of six or seven on one trial were invited to participate in the second round of screening in an RV laboratory. 2. Targets Targets for second-stage screening were the same as for first-stage screening. 3. Session Protocol Since most applications do not provide a sending individual, the sender was eliminated in the second-stage screening. As before, targets were randomly preselected and 7 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200430001-0 their associated target numbers were sealed in opaque envelopes and stored in the department safe. Before each trial, the RV monitor for that trial selected an envelope. A laboratory RV session began with the monitor and viewer seated at opposite ends of a table in an RV laboratory. When the viewer indicated a readiness to begin, the monitor gave a previously agreed-upon stimulus word (i.e., “target”), and the viewer put down target impressions in the form of pictures and/or written words. The session ended when a viewer had exhausted his/her impressions. After copying the response, the monitor and viewer moved to the locked feedback room where target material was stored. The monitor then opened the envelope to ascertain the target number, activated a TV screen and displayed the target filmclip as feedback for the RV session (the viewer, of course, was not allowed to add anything to the response). 4. Analysis Quantitative analysis presents no problem if each viewer is tested individually as was the case in the second-stage of screening. Each RV response was ranked using the visual correspondence method by an independent analyst who was otherwise uninvolved with the experiment. In this procedure the target and its three companions from the designated category were presented in random order. The analyst rank—-ordered the targets in order of decreasing similarity to the response (i.e., a rank of 1 means that the target best matches the response, and a rank of 4 means the worst match). The output from each trial was the rank number the judge assigned to the correct target. The sum of ranks over the total number of trials was used to calculate p-values and effect sizes (r) for each of the second-stage participants. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200430001-0
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200430001-0 III RESULTS A. Summary Four groups ranging in size from 12 to 139 were screened at the first stage for a total of 190 individuals. Of that number, 18 showed qualitative evidence of ability to report target-related material, and 9 of the 18 participated in second-stage screening. Two showed strong evidence of RV ability. Six persons in a fifth group were tested with independent trials at the first stage and one showed evidence of RV ability. B. First-Stage Results Table 3 shows the results of first-stage screening. A total of 154 individuals participated in two separate screening sessions at SRI International. The first session was conducted in the Geoscience and Engineering Center and was open to Center employees. Fifteen individuals participated in that session and three were selected to participate in second-stage screening. The second session was open to all SRI employees at the Menlo Park facility and 139 persons attended. Twelve of these were selected for additional testing. Twenty-four persons were screened at one government agency. Qualitative judging produced two persons who were selected for second-stage screening. The final group screened was twelve people from the SSE, one of whom was selected to participate in additional trials. Table 3 RESULTS OF FIRST-STAGE SCREENING No. of Participants | No. Selected for Second Stage 3 12 2 1 1 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200430001-0 SRI International, SRI International, Government Agency, Society for Scientific Exploration Government Agency2