: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200550001-7 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 296 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research compare the 32 psi scores with a mean chance expectation (MCE) of 50%. Because a directional (i.e., psi hitting) prediction was made in this case, a one-tailed test was planned, with alpha set at .05. 3. A determination of whether a psi effect occurred in the MULTIPLE SEEDS condition. For this analysis, a single-mean f¢ test would be used to compare the 32 psi scores with an MCE of 50%. Because a directional (i.e., psi hitting) prediction was made in this case, a one-tailed test was planned, with alpha set at .05. RESULTS For each session, a total score was calculated for all 12 recording epochs (6 calm-aim and 6 activate-aim). This total score was divided into the sum of the mean electrodermal activity scores for the 6 calm-aim epochs; the process was repeated for the activate-aim epochs. In the ab- sence of a-psi effect, these two ratios [C/((A + C), AXA + ©)] should approximate 50%. A psi effect would be evidenced by a set of calm-aim percentage scores that were significantly lower than 50%. An analysis (independent samples t test) was performed to determine whether there was a scoring difference in the runs conducted by the two different experimenters. The scores were found not to differ significantly for the two experimenters. Therefore, scores were pooled across experi- menters for the following analyses. Our first analysis was a determination of whether the 32 subjects’ SINGLE-SEED calm-aim percentage scores differed significantly from their MULTIPLE-SEEDS calm-aim percentage scores. Because our prior research has indicated that the percentage scores in these bio-PK experi- ments do not depart significantly from a normal distribution, we tested the SINGLE SEED versus MULTIPLE SEEDS within-subjects contrast by means of a matched f test. The mean calm-aim percentage score was lower (i.e., more in the direction of psi hitting) in the SINGLE SEED (xX = 42.62%, SD = 19.20) than in the MULTIPLE SEEDS (X = 52.06%, SD = 21.59) condition. This difference very closely approached statistical significance (2[31] = 1.75, p = .08, two-tailed). Our second analysis tested for the presence of a psi effect in the SINGLE SEED condition. This effect was assessed by means of a single- mean ¢ test in which the 32 calm-aim percentage scores were compared with a mean chance expectation of 50%. The mean calm-aim percentage score was significantly below chance (i.e., in the expected psi hitting direction), yielding the following summary statistics: X = 42.62%, SD = 19.20, [31] = 2.14, p = .019, one-tailed. Our third analysis tested for evidence of a psi effect in the MULTIPLE SEEDS condition. This effect was assessed by means of a single-mean t test in which the 32 calm-aim percentage scores were compared with MCE = 50%. The mean calm-aim percentage score was slightly and nonsigni- Intuitive Data Sorting and Bio-PK 297 ficantly above chance (i.e., in the unexpected missing direction), yielding the following summary statistics: X = 52.06%, SD = 21.59, 431] = —0.53, p = .70, one-tailed. In summary, the above three formal, a priori analyses provided strong evidence for a psi effect in the SINGLE SEED condition (p = .019), no evidence for a psi effect in the MULTIPLE SEEDS condition (p = .70), and a psi score superiority of the SINGLE SEED over the MULTIPLE SEEDS condition that very closely approached significance (p = .08, two-tailed). DISCUSSION S = In the pilot study that preceded this experiment, no evidence of 3 psi effect was found in the data. We hypothesized that the absence of psiqnay have been contributed by negative moods in all participants (subject in- fluencers, and experimenters) due to the extreme length of the exjeri- mental sessions (often 2/2 hours long). Therefore, we drastically Hort- ened the session lengths, hoping to eliminate this negative factorfOur modifications (described earlier) appear to have been successful beguuse evidence for psi did emerge in the present experiment. - K The major hypothesis that was being tested in this study, derivedSrom an IDS conceptualization of the bio-PK effect, was that greater psi s¢oring would occur in the condition in which there were multiple opportifgities ’ for intuitive data sorting (i.e., the MULTIPLE SEEDS condition) than in the condition in which there was only one such opportunity (i.e. the SINGLE SEED condition). The outcome of this experiment was nofpon- sistent with this informational interpretation of the bio-PK effect. Signifi- cant psi scoring occurred in the “‘older”’ condition that had been in@ffect in all of our prior bio-PK research—namely, a SINGLE SEED condyion. Significant psi scoring failed to emerge in the new condition that w& hy- pothesized to favor enhanced intuitive data sorting (i.e., the MUL'8PLE SEEDS condition). In fact, the superiority of the SINGLE SEED SOndi- tion over the MULTIPLE SEEDS condition closely approached statistical significance. Had the conditions comparison actually reached signifi-. cance, that finding of superior SINGLE SEED condition perforsance would have been quite difficult to explain in IDS terms. As it mm the absence of MULTIPLE SEEDS condition superiority is not congstent with an informational interpretation, but is more congruent with alcausal or psychokinetic interpretation of the bio-PK effect. ao] The reason for the absence of a significant bio-PK effect in the S{UL- TIPLE SEEDS condition is not clear. One might speculate that the Srovi- sion of a second, potentially effective, psychic task in that conditiog-may have resulted in a form of ‘‘distraction’’ that could have disrupfed the influencer’s PK performance, mediated perhaps by an increased diffusion or ‘‘spreading thin’’ of the influencer’s attention (see Braud, 1978, for an
CIA-RDP96-00789R002200550001-7 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 - 298 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research elaboration of this ‘‘spreading-thin possibility’’). If this were indeed the case, it would constitute a remarkable finding, because the potential effec- tiveness of the multiple button presses in the MULTIPLE SEEDS but not in the SINGLE SEED condition is not discernible at a conventional senso- rimotor level (due to the double-blind stratagem by which the effective- ness of button presses was disguised for both influencer and experi- menter). The potential efficacy of button. presses in the MULTIPLE SEEDS but not in the SINGLE SEED condition would have to be dis- cerned at another level, viz., via psi functioning. This issue certainly war- rants additional investigation. Artifact Analyses In all of our previous bio-PK experiments that did not involve an ex- plicit IDS element, the scheduling of the sampling epochs was completely predetermined and entirely beyond the normal sensorimotor control of the influencer. In the IDS bio-PK experiment reported here (as well as in its pilot study), however, the initiation of sampling epochs came under the control of the influencer. It is important, therefore, to rule out the possi- bility that the influencer could have initiated sampling epochs on the basis of knowledge of the time course of the subject’s electrodermal activity, derived through observation of the polygraph tracing. Two possibilities of artifactual inflation of scoring rate must be ruled out. The first possibility to be considered is whether the influencer might have observed the chart tracing, waited until an electrodermal response burst was beginning to occur, then quickly pressed the button in order to capture that burst within the next sampling epoch. The possibility of this particular artifact may be ruled out completely because of the relative du- rations of electrodermal response bursts and the button press sampling epoch interval. Response bursts were typically a few seconds in duration and rarely, if ever, as long as 10 seconds. The button press sampling epoch interval, on the other hand, was 30 to 40 seconds in duration. Thus, even if the influencer could have noted the onset of a lengthy response burst and pressed the button immediately, the burst would have been over long before the sampling epoch began. In fact, this was the rationale for selecting the particular button press sampling epoch interval used in this study. The second artifact possibility to be considered is whether the influencer may have taken advantage of feedback-discerned trends in electrodermal activity in order to initiate sampling at optimal times. This would require a consistent relationship between electrodermal activity at time t and elec- trodermal activity occurring more than 30 to 40 seconds later. The pres- ence or absence of such a relationship could be determined by means of Intuitive Data Sorting and Bio-PK 299 autocorrelation procedures carried out at increasing lag lengths. Ideally, continuous records would be available that could be divided into a large number of adjacent sampling intervals of short duration. The records could be examined by autocorrelation techniques for lags corresponding to frac- tions of a second to several seconds or minutes, in order to determine the presence and temporal characteristics of possible trends. Such fine- grained, continuous records were not available in these studies. However, electrodermal activity had been sampled, averaged, and printed for the 30-second intertrial or rest periods immediately preceding each of the 12 sampling epochs. The influencer typically pressed the button almost im- mediately after one sampling epoch in order to begin the next interval as quickly as possible; the latter interval consisted of the 0- to 10Recond random delay yielded by the seeded algorithm, a 30-second integial or rest period, and the 30-second sampling epoch itself. Thus, in the Gesent experiment, mean electrodermal activity data were available ff what closely approximated 24 successive 30-second periods. An autocorglation coefficient calculated for Lag 2 would provide a good estimate of pos- sible trend for electrodermal activity at time t to be related to @tivity shortly after 30 to 40 seconds had elapsed. Such Lag 2 autocoryglation coefficients. were calculated for each of the 32 sessions of the SENGLE SEED condition and for each of the 32 sessions of the MULSIPLE SEEDS condition. The autocorrelations were found to be quité?small and were not significantly different from zero for either the SENGLE SEED condition (X = 0.059, (31) = 1.51, p = .14, two-tailedior the MULTIPLE SEEDS condition (X = 0.027, 7{[31] = 0.78, p & .44, two-tailed).? 7 < As an additional check of the trend artifact possibility, we calcul@jed the overall correlation between the 64 Lag 2 autocorrelation coefficients and the 64 bio-PK scores (i.e., the calm-aim percentage scores) of the @resent experiment. The correlation was nonsignificant and was con pei Goring to zero (r = —.00278); it indicated no relationship between psi Scoring and electrodermal temporal trend at the appropriate time intervakoThus, ; =) both artifact possibilities may be effectively ruled out for this expanment. 2 Autocorrelation coefficients (r,) were calculated according to the formula: n—-k SG — 2) (44 — 2) tal R= Si - 2? rl Approved For Release Where k = the lag number z, = raw score at time t n = total number of values being correlated Z += mean score