a large sample classroom esp card guessing …...a classroom esp experiment a large-sample classroom...

A CLASSROOM ESP EXPERIMENT

A LARGE-SAMPLE CLASSROOM ESP CARD-GUESSING EXPERIMENT

John Palmer Charles T. Tart

Dana Redington

University of California, Davis

Because of the unreliability of ESP scores contributed by unselected subjects, large samples are often needed to detect significant effects. While such effects are usually quite weak, they nevertheless can contribute important clues to our understanding of the psi process. Indeed, much of what we know about the nature of psi comes from research on unselected subjects. We were presented with an opportunity to collect ESP data from an

unusually large sample of unselected subjects in conjunction with an attempted replication of an experiment designed primarily to demonstrate that subjects with above average ESP ability can learn to stabilize and enhance this ability through feedback training (Tart, 1976). The experiment to be reported here was part of a screening process to select suitable subjects for such training. Its success in this regard will be reported in another paper. We will focus here on how ESP scores in this screening experiment related to certain psychological variables introduced for the purpose of gaining further understanding of the psychology of psi. The one variable systematically manipulated in this experiment

was whether a "clairvoyance" or "GESP" procedure was used. Very briefly, on one run of each session a standard BT procedure (Rhine & Pratt, 1957) was followed, while on the other run one or more experimenters looked at the face of the target card on each trial while attempting to "send" it to the subjects.

Because of its possible relation to the reality of telepathy, GESP versus clairvoyance has been one of the most important conceptual and methodological distinctions in ESP research. Probably the most ambitious research project in which such a manipulation was included was the famous experiment by Coover (19171, who used playing cards as targets. Coover found significant overall evidence of ESP when he pooled his GESP and clairvoyance trials, but he found no significant difference between them. Although this

Th gr th to ma it tw co:

1

ad. se: he ef- Pr( cl;

T h f cot

unse lec ted cant evertheless psi

psi cones

a from an on with 1 1 an learn ining of a ining. Its We will related

lriment Very

.e (Rhine more

:h trial

lt

I . Probably ~lation iho used . evidence

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PARAPSYCHOLOGY

variable has been manipulated frequently in subsequent card-guessing experiments (e.g., Adcock & Quartermain, 1959; Bevan, 1947; Casper, 1951), we are aware of no group experiments that have demonstrated a clear-cut significant difference between these two types of test. Our own reason for introducing this manipulation again was simply to see if it would yield significant results using a larger sample of subjects than had been used in previous research. A related motive prompted us to include a question about subjects'

belief in ESP. A large number of experimental results converge on the conclusion that subjects who believe in ESP ("sheep") score more positively on ESP card tests the first time they are tested than do non-believers ("goats") (e.g., Schmeidler & McConnell, 1958), but such effects are rarely significant in individual experiments with small sample sizes (Palmer, 1971). We hoped that with our unusually large sample a clear-cut con£ irmation of the "sheep-goat hypothesis" could be obtained. Finally, we asked our subjects to rate their moods at the time of

testing. Although the relationship between ESP and mood has been explored in some experiments (e.g., Rogers, 1966) enough consistent results have not accumulated to justify a prediction.

METHOD

Subjects

The great majority of our subjects were students in selected undergraduate classes at the University of California, Davis. Twenty- three classes were tested, ranging in size from eight to 260. The total number of subjects tested in this way was 2360, of whom the majority were students in psychology or biology classes. Although it is inevitable that a small proportion of subjects were tested twice, we think that this percentage is much too small to bias our conclusions. A few subjects (N=65) were recruited in response to media

advertisements soliciting volunteers to participate in screening sessions for the ESP training experiment. Eight such sessions were held, but because the advertisements were not particularly effective, only a handful of persons came to each session. The procedure for these sessions was the same as for the formal classroom sessions.

Experimenters

The experimenters were students in an upper-level undergraduate course in experimental psychology taught by the second author. The


s i x t e e n s t u d e n t s i n t h e c l a s s were d i v i d e d i n t o f i v e teams o f t h r e e t o f o u r s t u d e n t s each . The s t u d e n t s decided t h e composi t ion of t h e teams among themse lves , based p a r t l y on shared p e r i o d s of " f r e e time". Team members were i n s t r u c t e d t o seek ou t p r o f e s s o r s whom they knew and ask f o r 10 t o 15 minutes i n one of t h e i r c l a s s e s t o conduct t h e ESP t e s t i n g . Cooperat ion was g e n e r a l l y good b u t n o t u n i v e r s a l . The a c t u a l procedure f o r conduct ing t h e experiment was worked o u t i n t h e exper imenta l psychology c l a s s , and each team r e h e a r s e d t h e procedure i n f r o n t of t h e i r c l assmates b e f o r e a c t u a l t e s t i n g commenced.

The same s t u d e n t s a l s o conducted t h e s e s s i o n s h e l d i n response t o t h e a d v e r t i s e m e n t s , b u t team compositions g e n e r a l l y were no t mainta ined f o r t h e s e s e s s i o n s .

Procedure

A t t h e beginning of each s e s s i o n t h e team members in t roduced themselves and d i s t r i b u t e d t h e r e c o r d s h e e t s . S u b j e c t s f i r s t were asked t o f i l l i n t h e i r names, a g e s , e t c . , and t o answer t h e mood and b e l i e f q u e s t i o n s . Then one of t h e exper imente r s e x p l a i n e d t h e procedure f o r t h e ESP t e s t .

The t a r g e t m a t e r i a l c o n s i s t e d of a modif ied deck of 48 p l a y i n g c a r d s , each c o n t a i n i n g 12 a c e s , 12 twos, 1 2 t h r e e s , and 12 f o u r s , w i t h uniform backs . T h i s mas te r deck was t h e n s e p a r a t e d i n t o two decks of 24 c a r d s each . Two of t h e teams ( 3 and 5 ) d i v i d e d t h e mas te r deck i n such a way t h a t each component deck con ta ined an e q u a l number of each t a r g e t , w h i l e t h e o t h e r teams simply d i v i d e d it i n h a l f a f t e r s h u f f l i n g . (The exac t method f o r s p l i t t i n g t h e deck had no t been s p e c i f i e d i n advance.) The s u b j e c t s ' t a s k was t o guess on each t r i a l t h e number of t h e t a r g e t c a r d ; t h u s t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of a h i t was one i n f o u r .

The c a r d s were thoroughly s h u f f l e d b e f o r e t e s t i n g began. Before each r u n , t h e component deck t o be used f o r t h a t run was placed f a c e down on t h e t a b l e i n f r o n t of the c l a s s . One of t h e exper imente r s ( E l ) c a l l e d ou t t h e word "next" o r gave some comparable a u d i t o r y s i g n a l every f i v e seconds. At t h e t ime t h e f i r s t s i g n a l was g i v e n , ano ther exper imenter ( ~ 2 ) picked up t h e t o p c a r d , h e l d i t f o r a couple of seconds , and then placed i t f a c e down oc a n o t h e r p i l e . T h i s p rocess was r e p e a t e d every f i v e seconds u n t i l t h e r u n was completed.

On c l a i r v o y a n c e r u n s , E2 d i d n o t look a t t h e ca rd when he picked i t up. On GESP r u n s , bo th E2 and any o t h e r exper imente r s p r e s e n t e x c e p t E l c o n c e n t r a t e d on t h e f a c e of t h e t a r g e t ca rd d u r i n g each t r i a l . El was k e p t b l i n d a s t o t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e t a r g e t c a r d s , because such knowledge conce ivab le could b e t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e

keypu sub je demog leave given s h e e t were were

s u b j ~ with v i s u . poss a s sur sense ges t l a l s o expel and t Fur t i c o n t ~ himsc

Wht giver team: contx t h e 1 c l a i t

In s e s s i c l a s z d i s t r d i s r c was s

Recor

t a r g e They t o i d

Whe been prof e

4 3 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PARAPSYCHOLOGY

I £ t h r e e of t h e

: r e e 7hom they ) conduct j e r s a l . ?d o u t 2d t h e 5

ponse t o t

d t were mood

e d t h e

a?.-g £8 3 ,

:o two t h e

:d an j iv ided ; t h e < was t o

Before l a c e d

t h e p t h e i t f a c e seconds

e p icked # r e s e n t ng each c a r d s ,

t h e

s u b j e c t s through a u d i t o r y cues ( e . g . , v o i c e i n f l e c t i o n s ) a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e t ime s i g n a l s . Although i t i s t e c h n i c a l l y p o s s i b l e t h a t v i s u a l cues c o u l d have been p rov ided by t h e s e n d e r s , t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y i s ex t remely remote . Such a h y p o t h e s i s r e q u i r e s us t o assume t h a t e x p e r i m e n t e r s t r a i n e d t o be s e n s i t i v e t o t h e problem of s e n s o r y cues were unconsc ious ly making l i p movements o r o t h e r s u b t l e g e s t u r e s t h a t n a i v e s u b j e c t s were c a p a b l e n o t o n l y o f d e t e c t i n g b u t a l s o of decoding w i t h o u t b e n e f i t of feedback, o r t h a t t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r s were s o i n e p t o r d i s h o n e s t t h a t t hey gave o v e r t cues and t h a t none i n t h e c l a s s , d e t e c t i n g such c u e s , c a l l e d them on i t . Fur the rmore , E2 o p e r a t e d beh ind a ca rdboard box o r s i m i l a r c o n t r i v a n c e t h a t s h i e l d e d t h e c a r d s , and t o a l a r g e e x t e n t E2 h i m s e l f , from t h e s u b j e c t s ' view.

When t h e exper imen t began , i t was a g r e e d t h a t t h e GESP r u n be g i v e n f i r s t . About midway through t h e exper imen t , however, t h e teams were a d v i s e d t o b e g i n g i v i n g t h e c l a i r v o y a n c e r u n f i r s t a s a c o n t r o l f o r confounding between t y p e and o r d e r of r u n s . S u b j e c t s i n t h e l a t e r c l a s s e s s imply were i n s t r u c t e d t o f i l l o u t t h e c l a i r v o y a n c e column on t h e r e c o r d s h e e t f i r s t .

I n many of t h e c l a s s e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e l a r g e r o n e s , t h e t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s were r u s h e d and somewhat c h a o t i c . Some s t u d e n t s came t o c l a s s l a t e , t a l k i n g , s h u f f l i n g books , and g e n e r a l l y c r e a t i n g d i s t r a c t i o n s . I n s e v e r a l c l a s s e s "wise guys" t r i e d t o r i d i c u l e and d i s r u p t t h e exper imen t . I n s p i t e o f t h e s e d i f f i c u l t i e s , t h e t e s t i n g was s u c c e s s f u l l y completed i n a l l t h e c l a s s e s .

Recording and a n a l y s i s o f d a t a

Immediately f o l l o w i n g each s e s s i o n , t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r s r ecorded t h e t a r g e t sequences from t h e decks o f c a r d s o n t o s c o r i n g t e m p l a t e s . They l a t e r used t h e s e t e m p l a t e s t o hand s c o r e a l l t h e r e c o r d s h e e t s t o i d e n t i f y p e r s o n s who might q u a l i f y f o r t h e l a t e r t r a i n i n g s t u d y .

When t h e exper imen t was o v e r , a l l t h e r e c o r d s h e e t s (which had been s t o r e d i n s e p a r a t e p a c k e t s f o r each s e s s i o n ) were g i v e n t o p r o f e s s i o n a l puncher s a t t h e U.C. Davis Computer C e n t r e . These keypuncher s , who had no i n t e r e s t i n t h e exper imen t . t r a n s f e r r e d s u b j e c t s ' ESP r e s p o n s e s , mood and b e l i e f r a t i n g s , c l a s s code, and demographic d a t a o n t o IBM c a r d s . The keypunchers were i n s t r u c t e d t o l e a v e columns b lank i f no r e s p o n s e o r an ambiguous r e s p o n s e was g i v e n on a p a r t i c u l a r t r i a l o r q u e s t i o n , and t o i g n o r e r e c o r d s h e e t s t h a t o b v i o u s l y were n o t completed i n good f a i t h . A l l c a r d s were v e r i f i e d a f t e r b e i n g punched i n i t i a l l y . The t a r g e t sequences were punched and v e r i f i e d by t h e f i r s t a u t h o r d i r e c t l y from t h e s c o r i n g t e m p l a t e s .

A computer program was w r i t t e n t o punch a new deck of c a r d s


c o n t a i n i n g number of h i t s on each run f o r each s u b j e c t , a long wi th o t h e r in fo rmat ion ( c l a s s code, mood, b e l i e f , e t c . ) t r a n s f e r r e d d i r e c t l y from t h e ca rds punched by t h e keypunchers. The program was w r i t t e n such t h a t ca rds were n o t punched f o r any s u b j e c t who d i d n o t make 48 s c o r a b l e ESP responses . The e f f e c t of t h i s d e c i s i o n was t o s u b s t a n t i a l l y reduce the sample s i z e , from 2425 t o 1835. Although some of t h e s e d a t a may have been s a l v a g e a b l e ( e . g . , d a t a from s u b j e c t s who s u c c e s s f u l l y completed one of t h e two r u n s ) , t h i s c o n s e r v a t i v e procedure l e f t us wi th q u i t e a h e a l t h y sample s i z e and maximized t h e chances of e l i m i n a t i n g s u b j e c t s who were confused about the procedure o r who d id n o t t a k e t h e t e s t s e r i o u s l y .

Simple s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s ( t t e s t s , c o r r e l a t i o n s , one-way ANOVAs) were p e r f o m e d on t h i s new deck of ca rds u s i n g programs i n t h e SPSS package ( ~ i e & H u l l , 1970) . The more complex a n a l y s e s w i l l be desc r ibed i n t h e n e x t s e s s i o n . A l l p v a l u e s a r e t w o - t a i l e d u n l e s s s t a t e d o t h e r w i s e .

RESULTS

The mean ESP s c o r e f o r the 1835 q u a l i f y i n g s u b j e c t s was 12.06, which d id n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h e expected mean of 12.00 ( t z 0 . 8 9 ) . Likewise , t h e v a r i a n c e of 8 .94 was a lmost i d e n t i c a l t o t h e expected v a r i a n c e of 9 . 0 0 based on t h e normal approximat ion t o t h e b inomia l , i . e . , NPQ (CRZ0.22). Scores ranged from 3 t o 23.

However, when t h e t o t a l ESP s c o r e s were broken down i n t o GESP and c l a i r v o y a n c e s u b s c o r e s , a more i n t e r e s t i n g p a t t e r n emerges. The r e l e v a n t means a r e l i s t e d i n t a b l e 1. "Order" i s a be tween-sub jec t s

TABLE 1

Mean ESP s c o r e s on GESP and c l a i r v o y a n c e runs

GESP Clairvoyance T o t a l

Order 1 6 .11 6.06 12.17 (N=850)

Order 2 6.19 5.79 11.98 (N=985)

T o t a l 6 .15 5.91

v a r i a "Orde means repre

A t on on unequ t h i s unwei, g ives they 1

compu score .

The

s i g n i f - scored c la i rvc they a: the sec s i g n i f j main ef cons idc

In te expecte o v e r a l l

MENT

I was . d I was

3 t a t h i s

e f u s e d

s i n w i l l

u n l e s s

which t = 0 . 8 9 ) . 2cted n i r '

2 and

j e c t s


v a r i a b l e t h a t r e f e r s t o which type of r u n was a d m i n i s t e r e d f i r s t . "Order 1" means t h a t t h e GESP run was g i v e n f i r s t , w h i l e "Order 2" means t h a t t h e c l a i r v o y a n c e run was g i v e n f i r s t . The columns r e p r e s e n t t h e GESP and c l a i r v o y a n c e means, i r r e s p e c t i v e of o r d e r .

A t w o - f a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e (ANOVA) w i t h r e p e a t e d measures on one f a c t o r (Winer, 1962) was performed on t h e s e means. The unequal s i z e s o f t h e two groups on t h e b e t w e e n - s u b j e c t s f a c t o r i n t h i s and subsequen t r n u l t i f a c t o r ANOVAs were c o r r e c t e d by t h e unweighted means s o l u t i o n (Winer , 1962, p .374) . T h i s p rocedure g i v e s e q u a l we igh t t o each g roup , i . e . , i t t r e a t s t h e g roups a s i f t hey were of e q u a l s i z e . These m u l t i f a c t o r ANOVAs were e a c h computed t w i c e on an e l e c t r o n i c c a l c u l a t o r , u s i n g means, sum s c o r e s , e t c . , p rov ided by t h e SPSS o u t p u t .

The r e s u l t s o f t h e f i r s t a n a l y s i s a r e summarized i n t a b l e 2 . The

TABLE 2

Summary of a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (Type of r u n by o r d e r )

Source SS DF MS F

A (Orde r ) 9 . 1 3 1 9 . 1 3 2.04 S u b j e c t s w l g r p s . 8186.74 1833 4.47

B (Type of r u n ) 45 .63 & &

1 45.63 9.89& A x B ( P o s i t i o n of r u n ) 28.29 1 28.29 6 .13 B x S u b j e c t s w l g r p s . 8455.16 1833 4 .61

s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t on t y p e of t e s t i n d i c a t e s t h a t s u b j e c t s s c o r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more p o s i t i v e l y on t h e GESP r u n t h a n on t h e c l a i r v o y a n c e r u n . The s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n r e f l e c t s t h e f a c t t h e y a l s o s c o r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more p o s i t i v e l y on t h e second r u n of t h e s e s s i o n t h a n on t h e f i r s t r u n ; i n o t h e r words , t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t " i n c l i n e e f f e c t " . Given t h e absence of a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r o r d e r , t h e s e two s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s may be cons ide red a d d i t i v e .

I n t e rms o f t h e d i v e r g e n c e o f v a r i o u s r u n - s c o r e means from t h e expec ted v a l u e o f 6 .00, t h e f o l l o w i n g e f f e c t s were n o t e d . The o v e r a l l mean f o r t h e GESP r u n s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y above chance


TABLE 3

Mean ESP s c o r e s on GESP and c l a i r v o y a n c e runs f o r each team

GESP Cla i rvoyance T o t a l t d i f f .

Team 1 6.27 5.67 11.94 4.896 1 1 . 0 2 ~ (N = 628) T e a m 2 6 .22 5 .88 12.10 1.70 3 .48 (N = 238) Team 3 6.20 6.29 12.49 0 .40 0 .21 ( N = 181) T e a m 4 6 . 0 4 6 .14 12 .18 0 .72 0 .27 (N = 533) Team 5 5 .98 5.79 11.77 0 .84 0.99 ( N = 204)

6 : p c.001 a : p a i r w i s e comparisons based on ANOVA ( t a b l e 4 )

TABLE 4

Summary of a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (Type of r u n by team)

Source

A (Team) 40.61 4 10.15 2.27 S u b j e c t s w/grps . 7966.42 1779 4 . 4 8

B (Type of r u n ) 24.87 6 1 24.87 5.42& A x B ( I n t e r a c t i o n ) 48.35 4 12.09 2.63 B x S u b j e c t s w/grps . 8167.42 1779 4.59

(x=6. was n, seconr t = 2 . 5 ~ s i g n i : 1, tht above ( c l a i r (x=5. ;

Post score: sub jec ana lys ANOVA conf i r was no Team 1 compar c l a i r v p < .oo when c conser-

The c (;=6.2' s i g n i f : s t r a i g l means t

On t k cons i s t

The E

f o r eac r e s u l t s non-sig t h a t th

The m a n a l y s i added w I t s o h i n c 1 i n e t e s t e d 1

e f f e c t 1 r ega rd 1

s o i t i: s i g n i f i c

EXPERIMENT EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PARAPSYCHOLOGY

(x=6.15, t=2 .94 , p < .!I) whi le t h e mean f o r t h e c l a i r v o y a n c e runs was no t s i g n i f i c a n t ( ~ ~ 5 . 9 1 , t = 1 . 8 0 ) . The o v e r a l l mean f o r t h e second run of each s e s s i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y above chance (x=6.13, t -2 .54, p < . 0 2 ) whi le t h e mean f o r t h e f i r s t run was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t ( ~ ~ 5 . 9 4 , t ~ 1 . 3 2 ) . As f o r i n d i v i d u a l c e l l means of t a b l e 1, t h e lower l e f t c e l l (GESP when g iven second) was s i g n i f i c a n t l y above chance (x=6.19, t=2 .62 , p < . 0 1 ) , w h i l e t h e lower r i g h t c e l l ( c l a i r v o y a n c e when g iven f i r s t ) was s i g n i f i c a n t l y below chance (x=5.79, t = 3 . 2 0 , p < . 0 1 ) .

Post-hoc a n a l y s e s r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e e f f e c t of type of test on ESP s c o r e s d i f f e r e d among t h e f i v e exper imenter teams. (Data from s u b j e c t s t e s t e d i n t h e s p e c i a l s e s s i o n s were excluded from t h e s e a n a l y s e s ) . The r e l e v a n t means a r e reproduced i n t a b l e 3 and t h e ANOVA i n t a b l e 4 . The s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t i n t a b l e 4 conf i rms t h a t t h e s u p e r i o r i t y of GESP over c l a i r v o y a n c e s c o r i n g was n o t c o n s i s t e n t a c r o s s teams. I n s p e c t i o n of t a b l e 3 r e v e a l s t h a t Team 1 i s l a r g e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h i s s u p e r i o r i t y . P a i r w i s e comparisons f o r each team s e p a r a t e l y r e v e a l t h a t t h e GESP- c l a i r v o y a n c e d i f f e r e n c e i s h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r Team 1 0?=11.02, p < .001) , and t h i s d i f f e r e n c e remains s i g n i f i c a n t (p < .05) even when c o r r e c t e d f o r m u l t i p l i c i t y of comparisons by t h e h i g h l y c o n s e r v a t i v e S h e f f e t e s t ,

The GESP mean f o r Team 1 s u b j e c t s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y above chance (xZ6.27, t z 3 . 1 5 , p < . 01) w h i l e t h e c la i rvoyance mean was s i g n i f i c a n t l y below chance (x=5.67, t33.85, p < . 0 0 1 ) . A s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d t t e s t a s s e s s i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e befween t h e s e two means was h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t ( t z 4 . 8 9 , dfC627, p=10 ) .

On t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e s i g n i f i c a n t i n c l i n e e f f e c t was g e n e r a l l y c o n s i s t e n t a c r o s s t h e f i v e teams ( s e e t a b l e s 5 and 6 ) .6

The sheep-goat h y p o t h e s i s was no t suppor ted . The mean ESP s c o r e s f o r each response a l t e r n a t i v e a r e p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 1. The r e s u l t s of a one-way ANOVA comparing t h e s e means t o one ano ther was n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t (F=0.74). The only encouraging s i g n was t h e f a c t t h a t t h e extreme "goats" s c o r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y below chance on t h e

The main e f f e c t f o r p o s i t i o n of r u n i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h i s a n a l y s i s p r i m a r i l y because t h e "unweighted means" procedure g i v e s added weight t o t h e r e s u l t s of teams who t e s t e d t h e fewest s u b j e c t s . I t s o happens t h a t s u b j e c t s t e s t e d by t h e s e teams d i d n o t show t h e i n c l i n e e f f e c t o r d i d n o t show i t a s s t r o n g l y a s t h e teams who t e s t e d most of t h e s u b j e c t s , hence t h e o v e r a l l s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e e f f e c t was reduced. On t h e o t h e r hand, team d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h i s r e g a r d were no t s t r o n g enough t o y i e l d a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n , s o i t i s proper t o conclude t h a t t h e i n c l i n e e f f e c t d i d n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s a f u n c t i o n of team.


TABLE 5

Mean ESP s c o r e s on f i r s t a n d s econd r u n s f o r e a c h team

Team 1 5 .86 6 . 0 8 1 . 7 5 (N = 6 2 8 ) Team 2 5 .90 6.19 1 .45 (N = 238 ) Team 3 6 .20 6 .29 0 .40 (N = 1 8 1 ) Team 4 5 .94 6 . 2 4 2.39' (N = 5 3 3 ) Team 5 5.97 5 .79 0 . 8 4 (N = 2 0 4 )

TABLE 6

Summary of a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e ( P o s i t i o n of r u n by team)

S o u r c e S S DF MS F

A (Team) 40 .61 4 1 0 . 1 5 2 .27 S u b j e c t s w / g r p s . 7966.42 1779 4 . 4 8

B ( P o s i t i o n o f r u n ) 14.37 1 14 .37 3 .10 A x B ( ~ n t e r a c t i o n ) 22.38 4 5 .59 1 . 2 1 B x S u b j e c t s w / g r p s . 8248.12 1779 4 .64


basis of a one-tailed test (x=11.14, tz1.73, p < .05). The Pearson correlation between ESP scores and belief ratings was -.00. Likewise, there was no significant relationship between ESP scores

and mood ratings. The correlation here was -.02. Finally, there was no evidence of a sex difference. The mean ESP score for 825 males was 12.14 compared to 11.99 for 952 females. The difference did not reach significance (t=1.03). For none of the above individual difference variables was there a

significant interaction with type or position of run.

DISCUSSION

We are aware of no nonparapsychological explanation that can reasonably put forward to account for the results of this experiment. experiment. The safe-guards against sensory cues have already been described. Even if one were to propose sensory cues as the explanation for the significant positive GESP scoring of subjects tested by Team 1, this could not account for the even more significant negative scoring of these subjects under clairvoyance conditions. Although we are confident that recording errors were minimal in

this experiment, we are not prepared to conclude they were nonexistent. Even professional keypunchers will occasionally make errors on a task of this magnitude. Although the experimenters were instructed to double check the recording of target sequences, it is possible a few mistakes may have been made here as well. As a check on the target sequences, the first author examined each one to see if each symbol appeared an equal number of times. Out of 31 such sequences, he found only one where one symbol appeared too often at the expense of another symbol. What is important, however, is not to eliminate all errors but

to eliminate systematic errors that might bias the results. Recording of the target sequences was unbiased, because neither the experimenters nor the first author had knowledge of the distributions of subjects' responses at the time. Unfortunately, due to an oversight on the part of the first author in giving instructions to the experimenters, tally marks were made next to the hits on the record sheets of about two thirds of the subjects. Thus, the keypunchers did have partial information about the target sequences in many of the classes, and this information could conceivably have led to systematic recording errors. Such recording errors are unlikely, first, because the keypunchers

had little or no reason to make motivated errors and, second, because the significant effects involved differences between run scores rather than total scores. Nevertheless, an empirical check

ERIMENT

a r s o n

P s c o r e s e r e was ma le s d i d n o t

t h e r e a

p e r i m e n t . y b e e n

j e c t s

",-. , r s e n c e s , 1 . As ach

Out e a r e d

b u t

n e r t h e r i b u t i o n s

i o n s t o t h e

quenc e s l y h a v e

punc he r s J

r u n check


was made by compar ing t h e r e s u l t s o f c l a s s e s whe re t a r g e t i n f o r m a t i o n was r e c o r d e d on t h e r e c o r d s h e e t s w i t h r e s u l t s f rom c l a s s e s where i t was n o t . The GESP - c l a i r v o y a n c e e f f e c t was a c t u a l l y s t r o n g e r i n t h o s e c l a s s e s whe re t h e t a r g e t i n f o r m a t i o n was n o t r e c o r d e d (Most o f t h e s e c l a s s e s we re t e s t e d by Team 1 ) . A l though t h e i n c l i n e e f f e c t a p p e a r e d p r e d o m i n a n t l y i n t h o s e c l a s s e s whe re t h e t a r g e t i n f o r m a t i o n was r e c o r d e d , t h i s e f f e c t c a n h a r d l y b e a t t r i b u t e d t o r e c o r d i n g e r r o r s , b e c a u s e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t o r d e r o f r u n s was n o t p r e s e n t on t h e r e c o r d s h e e t s . I f t h e k e y p u n c h e r s , f o r examp le , h a d a t e n d e n c y t o make more e r r o r s on t h e f i r s t r u n t h e y punched , t h i s would somet imes b e t h e f i r s t and some t imes t h e s e c o n d r u n of t h e s e s s i o n . I n c o n c l u s i o n , we c a n n o t s e e how r e c o r d i n g e r r o r s c a n a c c o u n t f o r t h e r e s u l t s of t h i s e x p e r i m e n t .

V a r i o u s randomness c h e c k s on t h e p o o l e d t a r g e t r u n s e q u e n c e s o f e a c h team r e s u l t e d i n o n l y one s i g n i f i c a n t d e p a r t u r e f r om r andomness , a n outcome q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h c h a n c e p r o b a b i l i t i e s . The one s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t was a d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e f r e q u e n c y o f o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e f o u r t a r g e t s i n t h e GESP and c l a i r v o y a n c e s e q u e n c e s o f Team 4 ( x 2 = 9 . 2 7 , d f = 3 , p < . 0 5 ) . F u r t h e r a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d t h a t t h i s e f f e c t was a t t r i b u t a b l e a l m o s t e n t i r e l y t o t h e t a r g e t s e q u e n c e u sed i n one c l a s s c o n s i s t i n g o f o n l y 1 7 s u b j e c t s . The r e s u l t s f r om t h i s c l a s s t e n d e d t o d i l u t e b o t h s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s r e p r e s e n t e d i n t a b l e 2 .

The o n l y o t h e r p o t e n t i a l c r i t i c i s m we can t h i n k of t h a t m e r i t s d i s c u s s i o n i s p o s s i b l e b i a s i n t r o d u c e d by a " s t a c k i n g e f f e c t l ' ( G r e v i l l e , 1 9 4 4 ) . T h i s b i a s r e s u l t s f rom t h e f a c t t h a t a l l s u b j e c t s i n e a c h c l a s s r e sponded t o t h e same t a r g e t o r d e r . A l though i t would h a v e been a p r a c t i c a l i m p o s s i b i l i t y t o g e n e r a t e a s e p a r a t e t a r g e t o r d e r f o r e a c h s u b j e c t i n t h i s e x p e r i m e n t , t h e r e w e r e 3 1 t a r g e t o r d e r s ( 4 8 t r i a l s e a c h ) o v e r a l l , and t h e m o s t f r e q u e n t l y c a l l e d t a r g e t o r d e r a p p l i e d t o o n l y 210 s u b j e c t s , 11% of t h e t o t a l s amp le o f 1 , 8 3 5 . Thus t h e s t a c k i n g e f f e c t i s q u i t e d i l u t e d . We a r e i g n o r a n t o f how a p r o p e r c o r r e c t i o n f o r t h e s t a c k i n g e f f e c t c o u l d be a p p l i e d t o t h e a n a l y s e s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e l a s t s e c t i o n . However, e x t r a p o l a t i n g f rom a comment by J . G . P r a t t ( p e r s o n a l commun ica t i on ) t h a t c r i t i c a l r a t i o s a r e g e n e r a l l y r e d u c e d a b o u t 10% by s i m p l e s t a c k i n g e f f e c t c o r r e c t i o n s , we n o t e t h a t a l l o u r s i g n i f i c a n t t e s t s t a t i s t i c s r ema in s i g n i f i c a n t a f t e r s u c h a r e d u c t i o n . I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s o b t a i n e d i n t h i s e x p e r i m e n t a r e r o b u s t enough t o w i t h s t a n d any r e a s o n a b l e c o r r e c t i o n f o r a s t a c k i n g e f f e c t , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e t h e s t a c k i n g e f f e c t is o n l y p a r t i a l . (One m e a s u r a b l e symptom o f b i a s p roduced by a s t a c k i n g e f f e c t would be an a r t i f a c t u a l i n c r e a s e i n t h e v a r i a b i l i t y o f c l a s s means o n t h e ESP t e s t combined w i t h a r e d u c t i o n o f w i t h i n - c l a s s v a r i a b i l i t y o f t h e ESP s c o r e s . These e f f e c t s would b o t h c o n t r i b u t e t o a s i g n i f i c a n t


one-way ANOVA comparing t h e mean ESP s c o r e s o f t h e 23 c l a s s e s . The f a c t t h a t such an a n a l y s i s produces a v e r y s m a l l F r a t i o ( F

2 2 . 1 7 8 4 ~ 0 .64) i s f u r t h e r ev idence t h a t a s t a c k i n g e f f e c t i s n o t a s e r i o u s s o u r c e of b i a s i n t h i s e x p e r i m e n t . )

Having concluded t h a t t h e p s i e f f e c t s i n t h i s exper imen t a r e genuine by g e n e r a l l y accep ted me thodo log ica l and s t a t i s t i c a l s t a n d a r d s , we now a d d r e s s t h e q u e s t i o n o f how such e f f e c t s a r e t o be i n t e r p r e t e d . The more t h e o r e t i c a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g o f t h e s e e f f e c t s i s p robab ly t h e s u p e r i o r r a t e of s c o r i n g on t h e GESP r u n s . The f a c t t h a t t h i s e f f e c t v a r i e d a s a f u n c t i o n of team i n d i c a t e s t h a t some k ind o f exper imen te r e f f e c t i s i n v o l v e d . Although s u b j e c t s were n o t randomly a s s i g n e d t o t h e teams, t h e s u b j e c t p o p u l a t i o n was s o homogeneous t h a t i t i s u n l i k e l y s u b j e c t d i f f e r e n c e s a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i n t e r a c t i o n . Of g r e a t e r r e l e v a n c e , i n our judgment, i s t h e f a c t t h a t members of Team 1 ( t h e team most r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e main e f f e c t ) s t r o n g l y b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e GESP p rocedure was more l i k e l y t o be e f f e c t i v e than t h e c l a i r v o y a n c e p rocedure . T h i s a t t i t u d e e a s i l y cou ld have been communicated t o t h e i r s u b j e c t s by s u b t l e v e r b a l and /o r nonverba l c u e s , t h e r e b y a f f e c t i n g t h e i r m o t i v a t i o n and t a s k o r i e n t a t i o n on t h e two t y p e s of t e s t . Such d i f f e r e n c e s i n t u r n could have i n f l u e n c e d ESP s c o r i n g . Thus one need n o t assume " a c t i v e agen t t e l e p a t h y " o r any p a r a p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n t r i b u t i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r s , a l t h o u g h t h i s remains a p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t d e s e r v e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The f a c t t h a t GESP s u p e r i o r i t y seems t o depend on t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r s may a l s o h e l p e x p l a i n why i t has n o t been found i n e a r l i e r expe r imen t s .

Given t h e l egendary prominence of d e c l i n e e f f e c t s i n ESP t e s t i n g ( P r a t t , 19491, t h e i n c l i n e e f f e c t t h a t emerged i n t h i s exper imen t was i n i t i a l l y a b i t of a shock t o u s . On t h e o t h e r hand, two r u n s i s a q u i t e b r i e f ESP t e s t , and one would r e a l l y n o t e x p e c t a d e c l i n e e f f e c t t o t a k e h o l d t h i s q u i c k l y . It i s o u r s u s p i c i o n t h a t t h e i n c l i n e e f f e c t came abou t because o f t h e h a r r i e d n a t u r e o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n . S u b j e c t s had v e r y l i t t l e o p p o r t u n i t y t o g e t s e t t l e d b e f o r e t h e f i r s t r u n was suddenly f o i s t e d upon them, and t h i s may have been r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e chance s c o r i n g on t h i s r u n . By t h e second r u n we may assume they had become adap ted t o t h e t e s t i n g r o u t i n e and were b e t t e r a b l e t o e x e r c i s e t h e i r p s i c a p a b i l i t i e s .

The f a i l u r e of t h e "sheep-goat" h y p o t h e s i s t o be suppor t ed i s p a r t i c u l a r no tewor thy . Although i t h a s g e n e r a l l y been t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e f i r s t a u t h o r t h a t t h e r e s u l t s o f i n d i v i d u a l exper imen t s a s such shou ld n o t be g i v e n much we igh t i n e v a l u a t i n g t h i s h y p o t h e s i s (Pa lmer , 1971) , t h e p r e s e n t exper iment i s an e x c e p t i o n f o r two r e a s o n s . F i r s t , t h e sample s i z e was s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e t h a t a r e a l

e f f sho

was I f u se c l a 195 whe a s k Pa11 tha: p re - whe:

C sup: t h e shet

con! I1

b a s < beer

p rec w i l l 2 is de th i n s c v a r i i s rr expe

d e g r t r a i t y p e e a r l Such than

XPERIMENT 5 3 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PARAPSYCHOLOGY

ses. The

F22, 1784= serious

are a 1 art to

e effects The fact

were not S 0

- tht' n a i c

lih~ 1:; t u J i . ;ubt le iv *;on re4 . in assume

tio on on ssibility ty seems i t has

P testing periment two runs t a decline t the f the .ity to get em, and this run. o the

, i

-ted is position

iments as lypothesis 3r two 2at a real

effect of the magnitude expected on the basis of previous research should be statistically significant. Second, there was independent evidence of genuine ESP in the data. The one secondary finding that supported the sheep-goat hypothesis

was the significant psi missing on the part of the extreme goats. If Schmeidler's original sheep-goat classification scheme had been used, this finding would have been somewhat impressive, because she classified all but extreme goats as sheep (Schmeidler & McConnell, 1958). However, the question asked in our experiment was not whether ESP was possible in the testing situation (the question asked by ~chmeidler), but whether ESP existed at all. According to Palmer (19711, the question we asked represented criterion 2 rather than Schmeidler's criterion 1, and criterion 2 was found in previous research to separate high and low scorers most effectively when undecideds were classified as goats (Palmer, 1971).

Clearly, the sheep-goat hypothesis based on criterion 2 was not supported in this experiment. In an earlier experiment reported by the first author (but conducted by ~chmeidler) where the various sheep-goat criteria were compared, criterion 2 was not only unsuccessful in providing significant support for the sheep-goat hypothesis, but it produced a reversal of the predicted effect. Classification by criterion 1, howver, yielded a significant confirmation of the sheep-goat hypotheses (Palmer, 1973).

In his original monograph, Palmer (1971) concluded that on the basis of evidence available at the time both criteria 1 and 2 had been shown to discriminate above and below chance scorers to a significant degree on first testing. The results of the present experiment and the one cited in the previous paragraph have convinced him that criterion 2 should be excluded as a successful predictor. This does not mean that experiments using criterion 2 will not on occasion produce positive results; after all, criterion 2 is rather highly confounded with criterion 1. Nor should the dethronement of criterion 2 necessarily be considered a setback, insofar as it helps define more precisely the nature of the believe variable that does correlate with ESP scores. Clearly, criterion 1 is more sensitive than criterion 2 to the nature of the experimental situation, which research has shown to be increasingly important in determining the outcome of ESP experiments. To the degree that believe in ESP reflects some underlying personality trait, it is also possible that due to cultural changes certain types of people who tended to disbelieve in ESP at the time of the early sheep-goat experiments now are inclined to believe in it. Such a factor would tend to affect criterion 2 classification more than criterion 1 classification, because the latter is more


situation specific. It is the first author's position that this experiment should be

construed neither as confirming nor disconfirming the sheep-goat hypothesis on criterion 1. All of the extreme goats in this experiment would be classified logically as goats by criterion 1 as well as by criterion 2, but so would some other subjects who believed that ESP was possible but not with this experimental procedure. Several subjects spontaneously wrote on their record sheets that while they believed strongly in ESP, they did not believe it could be demonstrated in this experiment, either because they did not believe it could be shown in card tests or that it couldn't be shown in the somewhat chaotic circumstances alluded to previously. There may have been a fair number of criterion 1 goats among the criterion 2 sheep who scored poorly in the experiment. Had these subjects been classified according to criterion 1, it is conceivable that a significant sheep-goat effect would have been demonstrated.

It is our general conclusion that the results of this research lend additional support to the proposition that experimenters, experimenter attitudes, and the nature of the experimental situation are important variables in ESP experiments. Careful attention to these factors in the design and execution of such experiments should significantly increase the likelihood of obtaining strong and reliable ESP effects.

ABSTRACT

As part of a larger experiment designed to locate talented subjects for extended ESP training, over 2,000 college students were administered 48 ESP card-guessing trials in a classroom setting. Half of the trials were given in the GESP mode and half in the clairvoyance mode, the order being reversed about halfway through the experiment. The experimenters were students in an experimental psychology class, divided into five teams.

Subjects scored significantly higher on the GESP run than on the clairvoyance run, although this effect was almost entirely attributable to subjects tested by one of the five teams. Subjects also scored significantly higher on the second run than on the first run, regardless of type. The means for both the GESP run and the second run were significantly above chance. The hypothesis that there would be a significant positive relationship between ESP scores and level of belief in ESP was not supported. Various nonparapsychological interpretations of the findings were

considered and rejected. It was concluded that the results lend further support to the notion that experimenter variables play an

We are providir have bet We, o!

worked t conditic exper ime Bogart, Stanley Stevens, W. Tsue, This s

Parapsyc

REFERENC

Adcock, Quartem

Bevan, J

Casper, C

Coover , J

Greville,

Nie, N.H. Hull, C.H

-ion 1 as 10

:a1 tcord lot - because lt i t .uded to 1 goats

1 been

jearch :rs, situation io- '0 It

strong and

subjects e tting. the through riment a1

n on the

Subjects the first

nd the that ESP scores

ings were lend

play an

55 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PARAPSYCHOLOGY

important role in ESP experiments.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We are indebted to The Foundation, San Francisco, Cal., for providing financial support without which this research would not have been possible. We, of course, are indebted to the student experimenters who

worked hard and enthusiastically to complete this experiment under conditions that were difficult and often frustrating. The experimenters were: Jandy R. Anderson, Diana V. Bailey, David N. Bogart, B. Thomas Bollinger, Jeffrey A. Giannini. Susan M. Jones, Stanley L. Lefton, Janet L, McCullough, William F. Meese, Dan R. Stevens, Curtis J. Swedlow, Julie Tenenberg, Mark R. Trabing, David W. Tsue, Thomas C. Watling, and Thomas W. Whitson. This study has been reported at the 19th Annual Convention of the

Parapsychological Association, 1976, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

REFERENCES

Adcock, C.J. Some problems in group testing of ESP. Quartermain, D. J. Parapsychology, 1959, 23, 251-256.

Bevan, J .M. The relation of attitude to success in ESP scoring. J. Parapsychology, 1947, 11, 296-309

Casper, G.W. A further study of the relation of attitude to success in ESP scoring. J. Parapsychology, 1951, 15, 139-145.

Coover, J.E. Experiments in psychical research. Psychical Research Monograph No. 1. Stanford: Stanford University, 1917.

Greville, T.N.E. On multiple matching with one variable deck. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1944, 15, 432-434.

Nie, N.H. Hull, C.H.

SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1970.

5 6

Palmer , J.

Palmer , J .

P r a t t , J . G .

Rhine, J.B. P r a t t , J . G .

Rogers , D.P.


Sor ing i n ESP t e s t s a s a f u n c t i o n of b e l i e f i n ESP: P a r t 1. The sheep-goa t e f f e c t . J. A.S.P.R., 1971, 65 , 373-408.

ESP s c o r i n g a s p r e d i c t e d from four d e f i n i t i o n s of t h e sheep-goat v a r i a b l e . I n W.G. R o l l , R.L. M o r r i s , and J . D . Mor r i s ( ~ d s . 1 , Research i n parapsychology, 1972. Metuchen, N . J. : Scarecrow P r e s s , 1973, 37-39.

The meaning of performance curves i n ESP and PK t e s t d a t a . J . Parapsychology, 1949, 1 3 , 9-22.

Parapsychology: F r o n t i e r s c i e n c e of t h e mind. S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l . : Thomas, 1957.

Negat ive and p o s i t i v e a f f e c t and ESP run-score v a r i a n c e . J. Parapsychology, 1966, 30, 151-159.

Schmeid le r , G . R . ESP and p e r s o n a l i t y p a t t e r n s . McConnell, R . A . Wes tpor t , Conn.: Greenwood P r e s s , 1958

T a r t , C.T. Learn ing t o u s e e x t r a s e n s o r y p e r c e p t i o n . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1976, i n p r e s s . ( P r e l i m i n a r y v e r s i o n pub l i shed a s P a r a p s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs No. 15. New York: Parapsychology Foundat ion, 1975) .

Winer, B . J. S t a t i s t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s i n e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.

Taken i s c i e n t i Nether1 found i S t a t e s , remark modern phenome and p a r t o t h e those o. parapsy,

Also p l a c e i l

19th cel by t h e 1 app l i ca t magnetic and i t r. manifes t t h e Eurc t e c h n i q ~ t h e leng t o s a y t under th of them. mesmeris s p i r i t o magnetic undeniab deceased f i r s t ha existent, f l u i d e , ' s u r v i v a l of cormnu1

a large sample classroom esp card guessing …...a classroom esp experiment a large-sample classroom...

Documents