Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200110001-4
DARYL
J. BEM AND CHARLES HONORTON
finding a conventionally significant effect. Such is life with small
effect sizes.
Given its larger effect size, the prospects for successfully rep-
licating the psi ganzfeld effect are not quite so daunting, but
they are probably still grimmer than intuition would suggest. If
the true hit rate is in fact about 34% when 25% is expected by
chance, then an experiment with 30 trials (the mean for the 28
studies in the original meta-analysis) has only about
1 chance in
6 of finding an effect significant at the .05 level with a one-tailed
test. A 50-trial experiment boosts that chance to about
1 in 3.
One must escalate to 100 trials to come close to the break-even
point, at which one has a 50-50 chance of finding a statistically
significant effect (Utts, 1986). (Recall that only 2 of the 11 au-
toganzfeld studies yielded results that were individually signifi-
cant at the conventional .05 level.) Those who require that a
psi effect be statistically significant every time before they will
seriously entertain the possibility that an
effect really exists
know not what they ask.
Significance Versus Effect Size
The preceding discussion is unduly pessimistic, however, be-
cause
it perpetuates the tradition of worshipping the
signifi-
cance level. Regular readers of this journal are likely to be fa-
miliar with recent arguments imploring behavioral scientists to
overcome their slavish dependence on the significance level as
the ultimate measure of virtue and instead to focus more of
their attention on effect sizes: “Surely, God loves the .06 nearly
as much as the .05” (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1989, p. 1277). Ac-
cordingly, we suggest that achieving a respectable effect size
with a methodologically tight ganzfeld study would be a per-
fectly welcome contribution to the replication effort, no matter
how untenurable the p level renders the investigator.
Career consequences aside, this suggestion may seem quite
counterintuitive. Again, Tversky and Kahneman (1971) have
provided an elegant demonstration. They asked several of their
colleagues to consider an investigator who runs 15 subjects and
obtains a significant
t value of 2.46. Another investigator at-
tempts to duplicate the procedure with the same number of
subjects and obtains a result in the same direction but with a
nonsignificant value of t. Tversky and Kahneman then asked
their colleagues to indicate the highest level of t in the replica-
tion study they would describe as a failure to replicate. The ma-
jority of their colleagues regarded t =
1 .70 as a failure to repli-
cate. But if the data from two such studies
(t = 2.46 and
t =
1.70) were pooled, the t for the combined data would be about
3.00 (assuming equal variances):
Thus, we are faced with a paradoxical state of affairs, in which the
same data that would increase our confidence in the finding when
viewed as part of the original study, shake our confidence when
viewed as an independent study. (Tversky & Kahneman, 1971, p.
108)
Such is the iron grip of the arbitrary .05. Pooling the data, of
course, is what meta-analysis is all about. Accordingly, we sug-
gest that two or more laboratories could collaborate in a ganz-
feld replication effort by conducting independent studies and
then pooling them in meta-analytic fashion, what one might call
real-time meta-analysis. (Each investigator could then claim the
pooled p level for his or her own curriculum vitae.)
Maximizing Effect Size
Rather than buying or borrowing larger sample sizes, those
who seek to replicate the psi ganzfeld effect might find it more
intellectually satisfying to attempt to maximize the effect size
by attending to the variables associated with successful out-
comes. Thus, researchers who wish to enhance the chances of
successful replication should use dynamic rather than static
targets. Similarly, we advise using participants with the charac-
teristics we have reported to be correlated with successful psi
performance. Random college sophomores enrolled in intro-
ductory psychology do not constitute the optimal subject pool.
Finally, we urge ganzfeld researchers to read carefully the de-
tailed description of the warm social ambiance that Honorton
et al. (1990) sought to create in the autoganzfeld laboratory. We
believe that the social climate created in psi experiments is a
critical determinant of their success or failure.
The Problem of "Other” Variables
This caveat about the social climate of the ganzfeld experi-
ment prompted one reviewer of this article to worry that this
provided “an escape clause” that weakens the falsifiability of
the psi hypothesis: “Until Bern and Honorton can provide oper-
ational criteria for creating a warm social ambiance, the failure
of an experiment with otherwise adequate power can always be
dismissed as due to a lack of warmth.”
Alas,
it is true; we devoutly wish
it were otherwise. But the
operation of unknown variables in moderating the success of
replications is a fact of life in all of the sciences. Consider, for
example, an earlier article in this journal by Spence ( 1 964). He
reviewed studies testing the straightforward derivation from
Hullian learning theory that high-anxiety subjects should con-
dition more strongly than low-anxiety subjects. This hypothesis
was confirmed 94% of the time in Spence’s own laboratory at
the University of Iowa but only 63% of the time in laboratories
at other universities. In fact, Kimble and his associates at Duke
University and the University of North Carolina obtained re-
sults in the opposite direction in two of three experiments.
In searching for a post hoc explanation, Spence ( 1 964) noted
that “a deliberate attempt was made in the Iowa studies to pro-
vide conditions in the laboratory that might elicit some degree
of emotionality. Thus, the experimenter was instructed to be
impersonal and quite formal
.
.
. and did not try to put [sub-
jects] at ease or allay any expressed fears” (pp. 135-136). More-
over, he pointed out, his subjects sat in a dental chair, whereas
Kimble’s subjects sat in a secretarial chair. Spence even consid-
ered “the possibility that cultural backgrounds of southern and
northern students may lead to a difference in the manner in
which they respond to the different items in the [Manifest Anx-
iety] scale” (p. 136). If this was the state of affairs in an area of
research as well established as classical conditioning, then the
suggestion that the social climate of the psi laboratory might
affect the outcome ofganzfeld experiments in ways not yet com-
pletely understood should not be dismissed as a devious attempt
to provide an escape clause in case of replication failure.
The best the original researchers can do is to communicate as
complete a knowledge of the experimental conditions as possi-
ble in an attempt to anticipate some of the relevant moderating
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200110001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200110001-4
ANOMALOUS INFORMATION TRANSFER
/ariables. Ideally, this might include direct training by the orig-
nal researchers or videotapes of actual sessions. Lacking these,
however, the detailed description of the autoganzfeld proce-
dures provided by Honorton et al. (1990) comes as close as cur-
rent knowledge permits in providing for other researchers the
“operational criteria for creating a warm social ambiance.”
Theoretical Considerations
Up to this point, we have confined our discussion to strictly
empirical matters. We are sympathetic to the view that one
should establish the existence of a phenomenon, anomalous or
not, before attempting to explain
it. So let us suppose for the
moment
that we
have
a genuine anomaly
of information
transfer here. How can it be understood or explained?
The Psychology ofPsi
In attempting to understand psi, parapsychologists have typi-
cally begun with the working assumption that, whatever its un-
derlying mechanisms, it should behave like other, more familiar
psychological phenomena. In particular, they typically assume
that target information behaves like an external sensory stimu-
lus that is encoded, processed, and experienced in familiar in-
formation-processing ways.
Similarly,
individual
psi
perfor-
mances should covary with experimental and subject variables
in psychologically sensible ways. These assumptions are embod-
ied in the model of psi that motivated the ganzfeld studies in the
first place.
' The ganzfeld procedure.
As noted in the introduction, the
ganzfeld procedure was designed to test a model in which psi-
mediated information is conceptualized as a weak signal that
is normally masked by internal somatic and external sensory
“noise.” Accordingly, any technique that raises the signal-to-
noise ratio should enhance a person’s ability to detect psi-medi-
ated information. This noise-reduction model of psi organizes
a large and diverse body of experimental results, particularly
those demonstrating the psi-conducive properties of altered
states ofconsciousness such as meditation, hypnosis, dreaming,
and, of course, the ganzfeld itself (Rao & Palmer, 1987).
Alternative theories propose that the ganzfeld (and altered
states) may be psi conducive because it lowers resistance to ac-
cepting alien imagery, diminishes rational or contextual con-
straints on the encoding or reporting of information, stimulates
more divergent thinking, or even just serves as a placebo-like
ritual that participants perceive as being psi conducive (Stan-
ford, 1987). At this point, there are no data that would permit
one to choose among these alternatives, and the noise-reduction
model remains the most widely accepted.
The target.
There are also a number of plausible hypotheses
that attempt to account for the superiority of dynamic targets
over static targets: Dynamic targets contain more information,
involve more sensory modalities, evoke more of the receiver’s
internal schemata, are more lifelike, have a narrative structure,
are more emotionally evocative, and are “richer” in other, un-
specified ways. Several psi researchers have attempted to go be-
yond the simple dynamic-static dichotomy to more refined or
theory-based definitions ofa good target. Although these efforts
have involved examining both psychological and physical prop-
erties oftargets, there is as yet not much progress to report (Del-
anoy, 1990).
The receiver.
Some of the subject characteristics associated
with good psi performance also appear to have psychologically
straightforward explanations. For example, garden-variety mo-
tivational explanations seem sufficient to account for the rela-
tively consistent finding that those who believe in psi perform
significantly better than those who do not. (Less straightfor-
ward, however, would be an explanation for the frequent finding
that
nonbelievers
actually perform
significantly worse than
chance [Broughton, 1991, p. 109].)
The superior psi performance of creative or artistically gifted
individuals—such as the Juilliard students—may reflect indi-
vidual differences that parallel some of the hypothesized effects
ofthe ganzfeld mentioned earlier: Artistically gifted individuals
may be more receptive to alien imagery, be better able to tran-
scend rational or contextual constraints on the encoding or re-
porting of information, or be more divergent in their thinking.
It has also been suggested that both artistic and psi abilities
might be rooted in superior right-brain functioning.
The observed relationship between extraversion and psi per-
formance
has been
of theoretical
interest
for many
years.
Eysenck ( 1 966) reasoned that extraverts should perform well in
psi tasks because they are easily bored and respond favorably to
novel stimuli. In a setting such as the ganzfeld, extraverts may
become “stimulus starved” and thus may be highly sensitive to
any stimulation, including weak incoming psi information. In
contrast, introverts would be more inclined to entertain them-
selves with their own thoughts and thus continue to mask psi
information despite the diminished sensory input. Eysenck also
speculated that psi might be a primitive form of perception an-
tedating cortical developments in the course of evolution, and,
hence, cortical arousal might suppress psi functioning. Because
extraverts have a lower level of cortical arousal than introverts,
they should perform better in psi tasks (the evolutionary biology
of psi has also been discussed by Broughton,
1991, pp. 347-
352).
But there are more mundane possibilities. Extraverts might
perform better than introverts simply because they are more
relaxed and comfortable in the social setting of the typical psi
experiment (e.g., the “warm social ambiance” of the autoganz-
feld studies). This interpretation is strengthened by the observa-
tion that introverts outperformed extraverts in a study in which
subjects had no contact with an experimenter but worked alone
at home with materials they received in the mail (Schmidt &
Schlitz,
1989). To help decide among these
interpretations,
ganzfeld experimenters have begun to use the extraversion scale
of the NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae,
1992),
which assesses six different facets of the extraversion-introver-
sion factor.
The sender.
In contrast to this information about the re-
ceiver in psi experiments, virtually nothing is known about the
characteristics of a good sender or about the effects ofthe send-
er’s relationship with the receiver. As has been shown, the initial
suggestion from the meta-analysis of the original ganzfeld data-
base that psi performance might be enhanced when the sender
and receiver are friends was not replicated at a statistically sig-
nificant level in the autoganzfeld studies.
A number of parapsychologists have entertained the more
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200110001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200110001-4
DARYL
J. BEM AND CHARLES HONORTON
radical hypothesis that the sender may not even be a necessary
element in the psi process. In the terminology of parapsychol-
ogy, the sender-receiver procedure tests for the existence of te-
lepathy, anomalous communication between two individuals;
however, if the receiver is somehow picking up the information
from the target itself, it would be termed clairvoyance, and the
presence of the sender would be irrelevant (except for possible
psychological reasons, such as expectation effects).
At the time of his death, Honorton was planning a series of
autoganzfeld studies that would systematically compare sender
and no-sender conditions while keeping both the receiver and
the experimenter blind to the condition of the ongoing session.
In preparation, he conducted a meta-analytic review ofganzfeld
studies that used no sender. He found 12 studies, with a median
of 33.5 sessions, conducted by seven investigators. The overall
effect size (tt) was .56, which corresponds to a four-alternative
hit rate of 29%. But this effect size does not reach statistical
significance (Stouffer z =
1.31, p = .095). So far, then, there is
no firm evidence for psi in the ganzfeld in the absence of a
sender. (There are, however, nonganzfeld studies in the literature
that do report significant evidence for clairvoyance, including a
classic card-guessing experiment conducted by J. B. Rhine and
Pratt [1954].)
The Physics ofPsi
The psychological level of theorizing just discussed does not,
of course, address the conundrum that makes psi phenomena
anomalous in the
first place: their presumed incompatibility
with our current conceptual model of physical reality. Parapsy-
chologists differ widely from one another in their taste for theo-
rizing at this level, but several whose training lies in physics or
engineering have proposed physical (or biophysical) theories of
psi phenomena (an extensive review of theoretical parapsychol-
ogy was provided by Stokes, 1987). Only some of these theories
would force a radical revision
in our current conception of
physical reality.
Those who follow contemporary debates in modern physics,
however, will be aware that several phenomena predicted by
quantum theory and confirmed by experiment are themselves
incompatible with our current conceptual model ofphysical re-
ality. Of these,
it is the 1982 empirical confirmation of Bell’s
theorem that has created the most excitement and controversy
among philosophers and the few physicists who are willing to
speculate on such matters (Cushing & McMullin, 1989; Her-
bert,
1987). In brief, Bell’s theorem states that any model of
reality that is compatible with quantum mechanisms must be
nonlocal: It must allow for the possibility that the results of ob-
servations at two arbitrarily distant locations can be correlated
in ways that are incompatible with any physically permissible
causal mechanism.
Several possible models of reality that incorporate nonlocal-
ity have been proposed by both philosophers and physicists.
Some of these models clearly rule out
psi-like information
transfer, others permit it, and some actually require it. Thus, at
a grander level of theorizing, some parapsychologists believe
that one of the more radical models of reality compatible with
both quantum mechanics and psi will eventually come to be
accepted. If and when that occurs, psi phenomena would cease
to be anomalous.
But we have learned that all such talk provokes most of our
colleagues in psychology and in physics to roll their eyes and
gnash their teeth. So let’s just leave it at that.
Skepticism Revisited
More generally, we have learned that our colleagues’ tolerance
for any kind of theorizing about psi is strongly determined by
the degree to which they have been convinced by the data that
psi has been demonstrated. We have further learned that their
diverse reactions to the data themselves are strongly determined
by their a priori beliefs about and attitudes toward a number of
quite general issues, some scientific, some not. In fact, several
statisticians believe that the traditional hypothesis-testing meth-
ods used in the behavioral sciences should be abandoned in fa-
vor of Bayesian analyses, which take into account a person’s a
priori beliefs about the phenomenon under investigation (e.g.,
Bayarri & Berger, 1991; Dawson, 1991).
In the
final analysis, however, we suspect that both one’s
Bayesian a prioris and one’s reactions to the data are ultimately
determined by whether one was more severely punished in
childhood for Type I or Type II errors.
References
Atkinson, R„ Atkinson, R. C, Smith, E. E„ & Bern, D. J. (1990). Intro-
duction to psychology ( 1 0th ed.). San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jo-
vanovich.
Atkinson, R„ Atkinson, R. C., Smith, E. E., & Bern, D. J. (1993). Intro-
duction to psychology (
1 1th cd.). San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jo-
vanovich.
Avant, L. L. (1965). Vision in the ganzfeld. Psychological Bulletin, 64
246-258.
Bayarri, M. J„ & Berger,
J. (1991). Comment. Statistical Science,
6,
379-382.
Blackmore, S. ( 1 980). The extent of selective reporting ofESP ganzfeld
studies. European Journal ofParapsychology, 3 , 213-219.
Bozarth, J. D., & Roberts, R. R. (1972). Signifying significant signifi-
cance. American Psychologist, 27, 774-775.
Braud, W. G., Wood, R., & Braud, L. W. (1975). Free-response GESP
performance during an experimental hypnagogic state induced by
visual and acoustic ganzfeld techniques. A replication and extension.
Journal oftheAmerican Societyfor Psychical Research, 69, 105-1 13.
Broughton, R.
S. (1991). Parapsychology: The controversial science.
New York: Ballantinc Books.
Broughton, R. S., Kanthamani, H., & Khilji, A. (1990). Assessing the
PRL success model on an independent ganzfeld data base. In
L.
Henkel & J. Palmer (Eds.), Research in parapsychology 1989 (pp. 32-
35). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
Child, I. L. ( 1 985). Psychology and anomalous observations: The ques-
tion of ESP in dreams. American Psychologist, 40, 1219-1230.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psy-
chological Science, 1 , 98-101.
Costa, P. T. Jr, & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality In-
ventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI):
Professional manual.
Odessa,
FL:
Psychological Assessment Re-
sources.
Cushing,
J.
T., & McMullin,
E.
(Eds.). (1989). Philosophical conse-
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200110001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200110001-4
ANOMALOUS INFORMATION TRANSFER
quences of quantum
theory: Reflections on
Bell's theorem. Notre
Dame, IN: University ofNotre Dame Press.
Dawson, R. (1991). Comment. Statistical Science, 6, 382-385.
Delanoy, D. L. (1990). Approaches to the target: A time for reevalua-
tion. In L. A. Henkel & J. Palmer (Eds.), Research in parapsychology
1989 (pp- 89-92). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
Dingwall, E. J. (Ed.). (1968). Abnormal hypnotic phenomena (4 vols.).
London: Churchill.
Druckman, D., & Swets, J. A. (Eds.). (1988). Enhancing human perfor-
mance: Issues, theories, and techniques. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Eysenck, H. J. (1966). Personality and extra-sensory perception. Jour-
nal ofthe Societyfor Psychical Research, 44, 55-7 1
.
Gilovich, T. ( 1 99 1 ). How we know what isn ’t so: Thefallibility ofhuman
reason in everyday life. New York: Free Press.
Green, C. E. (1960). Analysis of spontaneous cases. Proceedings ofthe
Societyfor Psychical Research, 53, 97- 1 6 1
.
Harris, M. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1988a). Human performance research:
An overview. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Harris, M.
J., & Rosenthal, R. (1988b). Postscript to "Human perfor-
mance research: An overview." Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Herbert, N. (1987). Quantum reality: Beyond the new physics. Garden
City, NY: Anchor Books.
Honorton, C. ( 1 969). Relationship between EEG alpha activity and ESP
card-guessing performance. Journal ofthe American Societyfor Psy-
chical Research, 63, 365-374.
Honorton, C. (1977). Psi and internal attention states. In B. B. Wolman
(Ed.), Handbook of parapsychology (pp. 435-472). New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Honorton, C. (1979). Methodological issues in free-response experi-
ments. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research,
73,
381-394.
Honorton, C. (1985). Meta-analysis of psi ganzfeld research: A response
to Hyman. Journal ofParapsychology, 49, 51-91.
Honorton, C. (1992, August). The ganzfeld novice: Four predictors of
initial ESP performance. Paper presented at the 35 th annual conven-
tion of the Parapsychological Association, Las Vegas, NV.
Honorton, C., Berger, R.
E., Varvoglis, M.
P., Quant, M„ Derr,
P.,
Schechter, E.
I., & Ferrari, D. C. (1990). Psi communication in the
ganzfeld: Experiments with an automated testing system and a com-
parison with a meta-analysis of earlier studies. Journal of Parapsy-
chology, 54, 99-139.
Honorton, C„ Ferrari, D. C., & Bern, D. J. (1992). Extraversion and
ESP performance: Meta-analysis and a new confirmation. In L. A.
Henkel & G. R. Schmeidler (Eds.), Research in parapsychology 1990
(pp. 35-38). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
Honorton, C., & Harper, S. (1974). Psi-mediated imagery and ideation
in an experimental procedure for regulating perceptual input. Jour-
nal ofthe American Societyfor Psychical Research, 68, 156-168.
Honorton, C„ & Schechter, E.
I. (1987). Ganzfeld target retrieval with
an automated testing system: A model for initial ganzfeld success. In
D. B. Weiner & R. D. Nelson (Eds.), Research in parapsychology
1986 (pp. 36-39). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
Hyman, R. (1985). The ganzfeld psi experiment: A critical appraisal.
Journal ofParapsychology, 49, 3-49.
Hyman, R. (1991). Comment. Statistical Science, 6, 389-392.
Hyman, R., & Honorton, C. ( 1986). A joint communique: The psi ganz-
feld controversy. Journal ofParapsychology, 50, 351-364.
Kennedy, J. E. (1979). Methodological problems in free-response ESP
experiments. Journal oftheAmerican Societyfor Psychical Research,
73, 1-15.
Metzger, W. (1930). Optische Untersuchungen am Ganzfeld:
II. Zur
phanomenologie des homogenen Ganzfelds [Optical investigation of
the Ganzfeld:
II Toward the phenomenology of the homogeneous
Ganzfeld]. Psychologische Forschung, 13, 6-29.
Morris, R. L.
( 199 1). Comment. Statistical Science, 6, 393-395.
Myers,
I. B. & McCaulley, M. H. (
1 985). Manual: A guide to the devel-
opment and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Nisbett, R. E„ & Ross,
L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and
shortcomings ofsocialjudgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice Hall.
Palmer,
J. (1978). Extrasensory perception: Research findings. In
S.
Krippner (Ed.), Advances in parapsychological research (Vol. 2, pp.
59-243). New York: Plenum Press.
Palmer, J. A., Honorton, C., & Utts, J. (1989). Reply to the National
Research Council Study on Parapsychology. Journal ofthe American
Societyfor Psychical Research, 83, 31-49.
Parker, A. (1975). Some findings relevant to the change in state hypoth-
esis’ In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, & R. L. Morris (Eds.), Research in
parapsychology, 1974 (pp. 40-42). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
Parker, A. (1978). A holistic methodology in psi research. Parapsychol-
ogy Review, 9, 1-6.
Prasad, J., & Stevenson,
I. (1968). A survey of spontaneous psychical
experiences in school children of Uttar Pradesh, India. International
Journal ofParapsychology, 10, 241-261.
Rao, K. R., & Palmer, J. (1987). The anomaly called psi: Recent re-
search and criticism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 539-55 1
.
Rhine, J. B., & Pratt, J. G. (1954). A review of the Pearce-Pratt distance
series of ESP tests. Journal ofParapsychology, 18, 165-177.
Rhine,
L.
E. (1962). Psychological processes in ESP experiences.
I.
Waking experiences. Journal ofParapsychology, 26, 88-111.
Roig, M., Icochea, H„ & Cuzzucoli, A. (1991). Coverage of parapsy-
chology in introductory psychology textbooks. Teaching ofPsychol-
ogy, 18, 157-160.
Rosenthal, R. (1978). Combining results of independent studies. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 85, 185-193.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null
results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-64 1
.
Rosenthal, R. (1990). Replication in behavioral research. Journal ofSo-
cial Behavior and Personality, 5, 1-30.
Rosenthal, R. ( 1 99 1 ). Meta-analytic proceduresfor social research (Rev.
ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1989). Effect size estimation for one-
sample multiple-choice-type data: Design, analysis, and meta-analy-
sis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 332-337.
Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1989). Statistical procedures and the
justification of knowledge in psychological science. American Psy-
chologist, 44, 1276-1284.
Sannwald, G. (1959). Statistische untersuchungen an Spontanphiino-
mene
[Statistical investigation of spontaneous phenomena].
Zeit-
schrift fur Parapsychologie and Grenzgebiete der Psychologie, 3, 59-
71.
Saunders, D. R. (1985). On Hyman’s factor analyses. Journal ofPara-
psychology, 49, 86-88.
Schechter, E. I. ( 1 984). Hypnotic induction vs. control conditions: Illus-
trating an approach to the evaluation of replicability in parapsychol-
ogy. Journal ofthe American Society for Psychical Research,
78, 1-
27.
Schlitz, M. J., & Honorton, C. ( 1 992). Ganzfeld psi performance within
an artistically gifted population. Journal ofthe American Societyfor
Psychical Research, 86, 83-98.
Schmeidler, G. R. (1988). Parapsychology andpsychology: Matches and
mismatches. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Schmidt, H., & Schlitz, M. J. ( 1 989). A large scale pilot PK experiment
with prerecorded random events. In L. A. Henkel & R. E. Berger
(Eds.), Research in parapsychology 1988 (pp. 6-10). Metuchen, NJ
:
Scarecrow Press.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200110001-4