Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200580001-4
•
a short break before beginning the next trial.
Because the response sheets include carbonless carbon paper, the participants have copies of their
original responses and can compare their individual responses with the target material during the
feedback phase of each trial.
5.
Analysis
Quantitative scoring presents several problems when testing groups of subjects. Because
all subjects have seen the same four targets, a single judge cannot produce an independent rank
ordering for each person.
Therefore, since the goal was to find persons with high-quality natural
talent for additional testing, a more qualitative assessment was done by the analyst to find any
individuals who had produced striking matches to discrete target elements.
Qualitative assessments of the responses from the
first stage of screening formed the
basis for deciding which persons might be invited for second-stage screening.
The qualitative
judging was based on the seven—point rating scale shown in Table 2.* An analyst was instructed to
start at the top of the scale and find the highest rating that describes the match between each
response and
its intended target, post hoc.
Table 2
Qualitative Rating Scale
Scale
Criteria
Excellent correspondence, including good analytical detail
(e.g., nam-
ing the
site by name), and with essentially no incorrect information.
Good correspondence with good analytical information
(e.g., naming
the function), and relatively
little incorrect information.
B
Good correspondence with unambiguous unique matchable elements,
but some incorrect information.
D
Good correspondence with several matchable elements intermixed with
incorrect information.
D
Mixture of correct and incorrect elements, but enough of the former
to indicate viewer has made contact with the
site.
B
Some correct elements, but not sufficient to suggest results beyond
chance expectation.
i
Little correspondence.
No correspondence.
*
In other work, this seven-point scale was found to correlate with “blind”
analysis
(r=0.56, df=34, p^5x
10” 5).
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200580001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200580001-4
C.
Second-Stage Screening Protocol
1.
Viewers
The
goal of second-stage screening
is to
select exceptional individuals who could
participate in research.
Individuals who showed qualitative evidence of remote viewing ability in
the group screening described above, either by producing an average qualitative rating above three
or producing a qualitative rating of six or seven on at least one trial are invited to participate in a
second round of individualized screening in the laboratory.
2.
Targets
Targets for second-stage screening were the same as for the initial group screening.
3.
Session Protocol
For the second-stage screening, no sender was used. Before a session begins, a remote
viewing monitor
(i.e., an individual who interviews the viewer) selects the top opaque envelope,
containing a target number as described above, from a randomly ordered stack of envelopes. The
monitor places that sealed envelope adjacent to the video disk unit which is locked in a separate
and isolated room during the remote viewing session. The sequence of events for each trial was as
follows:
•
The monitor and viewer enter a remote viewing laboratory which
is isolated from the
target room.
They
sit opposite each other across
a table
in
a
well-lit,
office-type
environment.
(This
is SRI’s standard remote viewing protocol.)
•
After a brief relaxation period, the viewer is instructed to describe the target with written
words and drawings.
•
The remote viewing session is five to fifteen minutes. During this time, the monitor is free
to seek clarification from the viewer about words, drawings, and other information that
arise during the session.
(NOTE:
The monitor
is blind to the target selection.)
•
The data (response papers)
is collected, secured, and copied.
•
The viewer and monitor leave the remote viewing laboratory and enter the target room.
The target is displayed on a video monitor for the viewer as feedback.
(NOTE:
The
viewer only has a copy of his/her response. Thus, there is no opportunity to add anything
to the response.)
4.
Analysis
Quantitative analysis presents no problem
if each viewer is tested individually.
Each
response was ranked against the intended target and its three associated decoys by an independent
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200580001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200580Q01-4
analyst (who was otherwise uninvolved with the experiment)
.
In this procedure, the target and its
three
decoys
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 analyst assigned to the correct target. The sum of ranks
over the total number of trials was used to calculate p-value and effect size (r) for the second-stage
viewer.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200580001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200580001-4
III
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A.
Summary
In FY 1989 three groups ranging in size from 26 to 125 were screened at the first or group
stage for a total of 256 individuals. Of that number eight showed qualitative evidence of ability to
report target-related material.
B.
First-Stage Results
Table 3 shows the results of first-stage screening. A total of 256 individuals participated in
three separate screening sessions at SRI International. The first session was open to members and
guests of a university alumni group.
Twenty-six individuals participated in that session and none
were selected to participate in second-stage screening. The second session involved members and
guests of a San Francisco Bay Area social/cultural club; 105 persons submitted responses. Seven of
these were selected for individualized testing. The third and final session was open to members and
guests
of another
university alumni
group;
125
persons participated
in the
four-trial
series.
Qualitative judging produced one person who was selected for second-stage screening.
Table 3
Results of First Stage Screening
Organization
# of Participants
# Selected for Stage
II
1.
Peninsula Stanford
Club
2. San Francisco Mensa
105
3.
Stanford Alumni Club
125
of Palo Alto
Qualitatively, the San Francisco Mensa organization appears to be a better population for
screening for remote viewers, because seven individuals met the a priori criteria for inclusion in the
second-stage screening, and only none or one did from the other two groups, respectively.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200580001-4