Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
November 4, 2016
Document Release Date: 
July 13, 1998
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100014-4.pdf1.78 MB
Approved For R 4ease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96 87R000400100014-4 Parapsychological Monographs A Review of Published Research on the Relationship of Some Personality Variables to ESP Scoring Level GORDON L. MANGAN Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand Published in 1958 PARAPSYCHOLOGY FOUNDATION, INC. 29 West 57th Street, New York 19, N. Y. Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100014-4 Approved For tease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96 187R000400100014-4 Nash and Richards (26) in 1947 first investigated the relationship be- tween a measure of intelligence and scores obtained in a series of PK tests. The I.Q. scores of their 48 college subjects, obtained from the Higher Examination of the Otis Self-Administering Tests of Mental Ability, showed a very small correlation (-.12) with PK scores. Summary on Intelligence and ESP The nature of the relationship between intelligence and ESP scoring level is still undefined. Valid objections, which preclude any clear-cut conclusions being drawn, can be levelled at most of the studies that have been made. In the first place, they have often involved too few subjects, a fact which makes generalization difficult, despite some high correlations. Again, the same intelligence test was never used by two investigators, and since different tests may be sampling different aspects of intellectual ability, the results are not strictly comparable. In addition, not all the intelligence scales or estimates used arc of equal validity, and in two cases, the in- vestigation of the relationship between intelligence and ESP scoring level was a side-issue to the main experiment. One tentative conclusion, however, may be drawn. There seems to be one factor conducive to a correlation between ESP scoring level and intelligence, namely, when the "best" estimate of scores is used as the ESP criterion. By the use of the "best" estimate of scores rather than averages for the ESP criterion, Humphrey found that the correlation between intelligence ratings and ESP scoring increased. An estimate based on the best results achieved should eliminate those fluctuations due to factors other than intelligence, such. as boredom and fatigue, which are known to affect scoring level, and give a purer estimate of ESP to be correlated with in- telligence. Obviously the overall average run scores need not be an ac- curate reflection of the subject's real ESP ability. Ilumphrey's findings particularly suggest either that the more intelli- gent subjects have better ESP, or that the obtained correlations between intelligence and ESP scoring are merely indicative of the subjects' adapt- ability to the test situation. No more definite judgment can be made at this stage. [10] C. E. Stuart was mi lu?rsonality' factors an cxprritncnt involving i their effect Oil LSI' see role of "atfcctahility" mite of iiii success in xlrc he has just prc% In I9-I6 Stuart (52 list of GO items. Suhjec which varied from "li list, which included cv Cu{h'ee su idelits, was iti thc? expcruitent.. `I?ii~ c 'incr;llcd stimulus pi which were closely re, o.tte whether the sul.,i lIicturcs influcnccdtin lic'c claievovauicc tttatchinc mctliod, dc' tit, .. The total LSI I'M only one nun- i rtes mule on the in, to rite fi''c attitudes rc %%:1s no t'vidci'ice, Itow the stimulus picture' St ia,t then separaf tla;t'c hit'h fell near ( =rv(1(?nIle) from time Ili i>i? 'ttl,ject.v to be `'art ,eI of asl)iration" t chance, and ''tin.; I?.al'c"r, Stuart tquatc' ?ala.idcrcd till' ctitrctt nr turf as the "ttnaflcr In the citawinq t :llcct:ail~" crimp ht 1 hti~ard displ:icesnn _~ ht nt?',tti.ve cirv iatts_ ;:r dcv ati,iit (1i--.OOt Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100014-4 ,, Approved For tease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96 -W'787R000400100014-4 Summary of ESP and Interest Ratings The successful discrimination between high and low scaring ESP sub- jects on the basis of ratings oil both the full Interest Inventory and on the restricted 14-item scale, which was reported by Stuart and Humphrey in earlier investigations, did not hold up as well in the later series. The results of these later series, however, are not published in their entirety, but are merely briefly mentioned by Humphrey in a review (19). Whether this decreased efficiency reported was in fact due to the lack of a real relationship between interest ratings and ESP scoring level, or whether it was due mainly to widely differing psychological conditions, such as number of runs per subject, or type of ESP test, which obtained during the later series, cannot be determined from the information available. Inspection of the items of the full scale indicate that they cover fairly well the full range of student activity and interest. Stuart equated "affcctability" with range of interest; this fact, added to the pervasiveness of the scale, seems to indicate that mid-range subjects may be those who are moderate in their interests and who maintain a reasonably temperate attitude towards their environment. Inspection of the 14 items of the restricted scale, however, suggests that they measure what could be loosely described as "social adjustment"; perhaps it would be more correct to say that the scale is heavily weighted in favor of the more social or extravertive activities. The two scales appear to be measuring somewhat different factors, and it would seem essential to analyse the scales against established criteria in order to get at what each scale basically is measuring. Without information so secured, we can merely conclude that although both scales, to a different degree, separate high and low ESP scorers, the personality traits concerned in this differentiation remain in doubt. INTROVERSION-EXTRAV1 Iumphrey first reported an 1iSP Personality Inventory in 19,15 (13). the l;arlhatn College Series I (Cl;s rill(] the Humphrey-Pratt Precognit jrcts; licrnreuter ratings on 6 perso kill ciency, introversion, donhrnanc iousuess were correlated With I s ?r:r,nition series, the CR of the diff r;ttarters of the record page was tak 6w correlations between llcrnrcuter lilt; subjects who were stable, extra however, tended to score positivelx " iplxrsitc characteristics tended to sr lluntphrey (16) later utilized th, drternhiue a cut-off point on the s hit h and low scoring ESP subjects. v r is were judged to be extraverted o tt?'v scored above or below the 50t f hitdiiy significant positive deviatit t: nuts scored at chance. 'Fhc CR 1. 'P scores for the two groups w,,,is 'I 'a 1 I SP Scoring Levels of Extrt Subjects Scoring above Chance 14 5 19 o,a Ole basis of these results it was `rrlr Percentile on the Iiernr?cu *r fill I:SP card tests than those N%- Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100014-4 Approved ForWlease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96%6787R000400100014-4 The two series on which the prediction was tested were the Pratt- Humph-rey Precognition and the unpublished Lawrence Clairvoyance Series, In the Pratt Humphrey series, the ten extraverts had a deviation of -I--56, and the nine introverts a deviation of --34. The CR of the difference was significant (P - .02). In the Lawrence series, the 9 extraverts made a deviation of +48, the 12 introverts a deviation of --18. The CR of the difference was non-significant (P - .08). The total of 19 extraverts from the two series made a deviation of -{-104, and the 21 introverts a devia. tion of -52. The CR of this difference was significant (P - .005). As shown in Table 5, the consistency of this separation was significant (P .005) with 74 per cent of the extraverts scoring above chance and 76 per cent of the introverts scoring at chance or below. Attempts at Repetition Caspar (5) administered the I3ernreuter Inventory to 20 subjects and obtained 2 GESP and 2 BT runs from each. He classified his subjects as extraverts or introverts on the basis of whether they scored above or below the 50th percentile on the scale. The extraverts had a deviation of +26, and the introverts a deviation of =-18. The CR of the difference was suggestive (P _- .03). Eight of the fourteen extraverts scored above chance, but none of the six introverts did. When evaluated by the exact method, the results are significant (P -- .02). Although. only two studies have been reported with the Bernrcuter, it appears, to be a very promising research tool. In both studies, high and low scoring ESP subjects were separated with a high degree of consistency. In the Nicol and Humphrey study (27) correlations were obtained between ESP scores (Known and Unknown runs) and two measures of introversion-extraversion. Factor T of Guilford's STDCR Inventory is called 'T'hinking Introversion-Extraversion. The thinking introvert is given to reflective thinking and analyzing himself and others, while the opposite holds true for the thinking extravert. The correlations be- tween Factor T and the known ES1' scores was ?-I-.10, with the Unknown scores +.37,* and with total ESP scores +.33. Factor S of this same test is called Social Extraversion,; it correlated +.29 with Known ESP scores, +.21 with Unknown scores, and ?.34 with total ESP scores. None of these correlations was significant, but a significant correlation (-k.54**) was found between Social Extraversion and Self-Confidence (Factor I ) and a suggestive correlation (+.37*) was found between Thinking Extraversion and Self-Confidence. The latter correlations have value in this study. Self-confidence was found to be the factor most highly correlated with total ESP score (r + .55 * A person with a high score on Factor S is characterized as being social, as one who tends to seek social contacts and enjoys the company of others, while low scores indicate shyness and seclusiveness. Summary of Introversion-Extraversion and ESP Scoring Levels In all the studies reviewed in this section, it was found that extraver- sion was associated with higher ESP scores than introversion. This factor, or more precisely, the scales on which this factor is measured, separated out high and low scorers with a high degree of consistency. Unfortunately, however, it is not clear which aspects of behavior are included under the terra extraversion, and for evaluative purposes it would seem essential to have more specific information on the factors underlying this broad [16 ) ,, ,nprchcnsive Cate 'gory. P . n,ension scales, such &; ,e factor, and it is uncert. i.,clors as, or example, ' tcrm3 of classification oil t' Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100014-4 Approved ForIease 2001/03/07 : C.IA-RDP9660787R000400100014-4 . `Do you believe in the cxia_ -css ESP abilities?' If we split -cr category including mein,. tv or the other, we find that I by Schrneidler and Bevan.'' ,lislicd,data bearing on the c 10. nut of 6 cases, the sheep had sheep, with one exception ?., with 2 exceptions, hacl t subjects who, for conven_ ,ern lumped together as in- ;idcrable variation. els, which was reported in ,at Groups (Petrol) :Is Scoring Chance Totals 18 10 10! 12! 16! 28! 121 6! 0! 10! scored above chance and is pattern of scoring was oIle-tailed probability is c (IP, _ .01). ran be considered as at- estion which needs to be as confirmation of Sell. a" criterion on which the idler herself changed the series reported in 1943 Ieir attitude to psychic dance in particular; the na would occur, or who -rejected the possibility. , the two categories arc chance". There seems to flats, who rejected the 'orc at chance; on the who accepts the reality Ks to score at chance in test situation. This could be a matter of confidence rather than belief. ill her later series, Schmeidlcr defined sheep as those who thought ,t paranormal success in the experiment was at least a possibility, :,:us as those who denied that there was any possibility of paranormal ,,cress under the conditions of the experiment. In her 1954 P-F study, :.luneidler used essentially the same criterion, although some of the ::,,Ills in the sentence completion questionnaire, used to rate the sub- ??ct's attitude to the test situation as such, furnished additional informa- :on on his attitude of belief. Bevan's criteron was somewhat different. Ile first of all asked his .uhjccts whether they accepted ESP as an established fact. If they did :;ut they were goats; if they did, after laboratory methods of testing ESP were demonstrated, they were asked, "Do you think that ESP can be measured by the techniques just explained to you?" If the answer was "no" or "don't know", the subject was disqualified. All subjects placed themselves on a continuum from belief to disbelief; Bevan thus obtained a category of inclecisives. For the purpose of comparing Bevan's and tichrneidler's work, the inclecisives should be combined with the sheep. In series A of his experiment, Caspar asked his subiects whether they believed in ESP (sheep), whether they were undecided (indecisives), or whether they disbelieved (goats). In the second series, however, his subjects were asked three questions; "Do you know what the term ESP means?", "Do you believe that ESP is a theoretical possibility?", "Do you believe that you yourself have ESP ability?" As Caspar himself points out, question three of the questionnaire, concerning the sub- ject's belief in his own ESP ability, resembles most Schmeidler's criterion. He reports that, in the limited part (Series B) of his experiment that can he compared with her results, the sheep (sheep and indecisives) averaged -1.89 hits per run, and the goats 4.97; a more detailed analysis is not presented. Kahn's criterion was whether subjects thought that ESP is theoreti- rally possible (1) in this particular experiment, (2) under other circum- stances. Ile found that one group of subjects considered ESI' "impossible here only", that is, in the test situation. These have been entered in fable 10 as indecisives, but, in accordance with Schmcidler's final critt~ion, they should be included in the goat category, together with the "impossible anywhere" group. Kahn further questioned his sub- jects on whether tticy expected to score above chance, at chance, or below chance. This overlaps with Schmeidler's initial criterion; Kahn, however, treats this as a separate analysis, bearing on the confidence of the subject in the experimental situation. 1?ilbcrt considered both those subjects who were rated as "believes in ESP and thinks he will do well in the experiment" and "believes in 1';SP but doubts that he will do well in the experiment" as sheep; those who were doubtful about the whole thing, who rejected ESP corn- pletely or who gave contradictory responses, were goats. His criterion is sinlila.r to Schmeidler's; his results may be fairly compared with hers. Woodruff and Dale asked their subjects three questions; "Do you believe in the existence of ESP?", "Do you believe you possess ESP abilities?", "I think my results in the above experiment are `above t:hance', `at chance', `below chance'." Unfortunately, however, they ,Wade no overall sheep-goat assessment on all three items of their ques- tionnaire. The subjects' scoring averages can merely be presented in terms of classification on each item singly. [35] Approved For'Fe~easex`001%0/07:`'CIA= 1096-007878000400100014-4 Approved For "ease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96`+9d787R000400100014-4 Experimenter Type ESP Sub. Runs Dev. Score Sub. Runs Dev. Scoi Bevan GESP Cl 20 232 +110 5.47 10 120 +2 5.0. Caspar GESP Cl 4.89 4`t: Eilbert Cl 37 185 +39 5.21 4 20 _2_'t Kahn Cl 62 733 +42 5.06 12 143 +13 5-'" Petrof Cl 29 232 d-1 5.00 10 80 -18 4 Dale and Woodruff (a) (b) (c) Cl Cl Cl 460 1040 1500 +20 -3 -9 5.04? 4.997 4.99 1500 920 460 d-35 +58 -1-64 Inspection of the Table shows that in three cases the sheep (slit `? and indecisives) scored higher than the goats, in three cases the C higher than the sheep. Although the various experimenters in U. cases obtained successful discrimination of high and low ESP in terms of the sheep-goat criterion as each one defined it, these t'" not be regarded as repetitions of Schmcidler's results. COMBINATIONS OF RO1: WITH ATTITUDES OI" ll The Rorschach is a widely arc' cards, administered in a ponds by reporting what he '''lie underlying principle is t such ambiguous material, tin ielf into the material. This s, patterning of the subject's uni "omc indications about many he is rigid or flexible in his all give, creative, anxious, inteilcc A quantitive index of the sl through use of a check list de utore check marks are given to in an atypical manner, ant a single score representing the In the ESP series, an iutrnt iuhjccts then classified tltcrosc ru,tupleted 3 clairvoyance ru nitrir results as the target of , soceeded until a total of 9 Hie group Rorschach test w?, ,Ilk blots on a large screen. '1 `r4ty. 1'he Rorschach records w a':d subjects having 10 check a ,iccts with 11 or more ch rliniinate any possibility inneidler was kept ignor:a "Ill checked by an assistant In preliminary work with ':tneidler noticed that U ".`tt the sheep-goat rating, i P 'coring levels. Ihe poorly ndjisted suhjc the difference between the well adjusted suhjc -nn of Nve11 adjusted sbc well adjusted goats 'sm., '.'Atrtd in future cries, at, r fall of 19'15. R'.,r':chach data frt. _zrnts (1 i j Nvcrc ana'y7c [36] In considering these various analyses, it appears that no strict answer can be given to the question of whether Schmcidler's results have been repeated. In the first place, her criterion was initially a shifting one, and the criteria others workers used clifl'cred from hers, in some cases considerably. In addition, there were differences existing in subjects (high school, volunteers and college), differences in targets (ESP sym- bols, IBM sheets), differences in number of runs per subject (4,5,6,8,12), differences in ESP situation (clairvoyance and GESP), and differences in the experimenters (seven different experimenters). The question is an extremely important one, however, and some sort of comparison, however crude, seems necessary. This is attempted in Table 12 by fitting the various criteria to Schmeidler's as closely as possible. Thus, since Schmeidler combined indecisive and sheep, in Table 12 Bevan's, Petrof's and Eilbert's indecisives are combined with their sheep. In Kahn's experiment, the indecisives were those who con- sidered that ESP was "impossible here only," i.e. in the test situation. These are included in the goat category in accordance with Schmcicller's final criterion. Only that section of Caspar's results which he himself claimed to be comparable with Schtneidler's results is included in Table 12. In the Woodruff and Dale experiment, no break-down is given for the whole series. Differentiation in terms of three items, each of which partly includes the sheep-goat criterion, is presented here. 'Table 12 Sheep-Goat Data of Other Workers VX_ roved For Release 2,QQ_9Q107Rfl04001000'114'=a Approved Fos (ease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96 0787R000400100014-4 t appears that no strict answer Schcncidler's results have been n was initially a shifting one, (red from hers, in some cases !ifferences existing in subjects Clcrences in targets (ESI' syni- ,f runs per subject (4,5,6,8,12), and GESP), and differences erimenters). Ione, however, and some sort -ccssary. This is attempted in to Schmcidler's as closely as ce.d indecisive and sheep, In indccisives are combined with rclecisives were those who con- 113'," i.e. in the test situation, accordance with Schmeidlcr's ?ar's results which he himself s results is included in Table 0., no break-down is given for ,)f three items, each of which presented here. Av. Score Sub. 4.89 Av. Runs Dev. Score 120 .1.2 5.02 5.21 4 5.06 12 5.00 10 3.04 x.997 11.99 1500 +35 5.02 920 +58 5.06 460 +64 5.14 rec cases the sheep (sheep s, in three cases the goats nos experimenters in most acigic and low ESP scorers one defined it, these need results. COMBINATIONS OF RORSCIIACH ADJUSTMENT RATINGS WITH ATTITUDES OF BELIEF AND ESP SCORING LEVEL The Rorschach is a widely used projective test consisting of 10 stand- ard cards, administered in a set order; to these cards, the subject re- sponds by reporting what he sees or what the blots represent to him. The underlying principle is that in order to structure anything from such ambiguous material, the subject must project something of him- self into the material. This structuring is interpreted as reflecting the patterning of the subject's unconscious needs and drives, thereby giving some indications about many facts of his personality, such as whether he is rigid or flexible in his approach to situations, whether he is impul- sive, creative, anxious, intellectually ambitious, socially withdrawn. A quantitive index of the subject's overall adjustment can be made through use of a check list devised by Dr. Ruth Munroe (24). One or more check marks are given for each Rorschach category responded to in an atypical manner, and these check marks are added to obtain a single score representing the subject's degree of adjustment. In the ESP series, an introduction was given by Schmeidler and the subjects then classified themselves as sheep or goats. The subjects next completed 3 clairvoyance runs (a unit of 75 trials), and then checked their results as the target order was read aloud to them. The testing proceeded until a total of 9 runs had been completed in this fashion. T1,.e group Rorschach test was administered by projecting slides of the ink blots on a large screen. This was given either before or after the ESP tests. The Rorschach records were scored by Munro's check list method, and subjects having 10 checks or fewer were rated as well adjusted, while subjects with 11 or more checks were ,at--d poorly adjusted. In order to eliminate any possibility of bias when scoring the Rorschach records, Schnncidler was kept ignorant of the subject's ESP score, which had been checked by an assistant and then later double checked. In preliminary work with 85 subjects from two earlier series (39), Schmcidler noticed that when an adjustment rating was combined with the sheep-goat rating, it was possible to obtain greater separation of I:SP scoring levels. The poorly adjusted subjects scored at approximately the chance level, but the difference between the sheep and goats became more marked for the well adjusted subjects. She advanced the hypothesis that this pattern of well adjusted sheep scoring higher than poorly adjusted sheep and well adjusted goats scoring lower than poorly adjusted goats would be found in future series, and large scale testing cf this hypothesis began in the Fall of 1945. When Rorschach data from 250 subjects tested in II classroom cx- periments (41) were analyzed, the differec.~c in average run score found [37] Approved.. or Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100014-4 Approved For~Rlease 2001/03/07: CIA-RDP90787R000400100014-4 significant (P = .0002) but Nance, thus confirming the ,u in later experiments re- ew article (32) presented a experiments utilizing the ^ctobcr 1945 and December I in Table 13. Adjustment Ratings No. Runs Av. Score 1121 4.97 2205 4.95 -cn the average scores of significant (P .000003). means of the poorly ad- 1.4). and Goat Groups jects Scoring below Chance Totals 37 (1 (I.#) 3001 COMBINATIONS OF RORSCIIACH SEVEN SIGNS WITH ATTITUDES OF BELIEF AND ESP SCORING In an attempt to explore further the relationships between Rorschach variables and ESP scoring, Schmcidler decided to analyze the 250 Ror- schach protocols from her first work (41) for particular categories that seemed to appear more frequently in the records of high and low scoring subjects. She isolated 7 factors or signs whose presence in a subject's record seemed to act as deterrents to ESP scoring. If these seven signs are analyzed in terms of their interpretative signifi- cance, three patterns of "response tendencies" seem to emerge. A cold, withdrawn, restricted attitude can be inferred from the presence of F+%, Mr., and no shock; extreme impulsiveness or lack of emotional control from the presence of CF+ and C+; and excessive, near-com- pulsive mental activity or "quantity ambition" from the presence of R+ and total movemcnt++. Thus, subjects who have even one of these seven signs present in their record could be considered to have a s/iecific maladjustment which might prevent them from demonstrating ESP. After having empirically determined these seven signs from this collection of 250 records, Schmcidler went on to gather new data from other subjects to see if the seven signs would continue to show the same relationship to ESP scoring. The two review articles (33, 34), which report further testing with the Rorschach, indicate that absence of seven signs continued to be associated with higher scoring, i.e., her data show that sheep in whose records these signs do not appear score higher than sheep in general, and goats from whose records the signs are ab- Table 15 ESP Data of 250 Subjects from whom 7 Signs were Empirically Derived 7 Signs No. Subjects No. Runs Average Score Sheep Present 66 590 4'II4 Absent 51 459 5.44 Goats Present 62 559 5.09 Absent 71 638 4.73 -ted subjects arranged in own indicates that when p were positive scorers, hance scorers. The chi- `illy a one-tailed test of ins were predicted from sent score lower than goats in general. Table 15 shows the scoring levels of the original 250 subjects from whose records the data were derived; Table 16 shows the scoring level of 329 additional subjects whose rec- ords were subjected to a similar analysis. [39] pp roved aivib fib /07j :ii4-1 P96- 07 Uoi k 0100014-4 Approved For %Oease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP961-W787R000400100014-4 The Rosenzweig Picture-Frustration Study (P-F) is a projective tech. nique used to obtain a measure of a person's reaction to frustration. It consists of a booklet of 24 cartoons, each depicting an unpleasant or frustrating circumstance, such as missing a train, in which one person makes a remark of frustrating significance, depriving or blaming the other. The subject responds on behalf of ti-ie frustrated person. The drawings are deliberately crude, having only indistinct facial features and a minimum of background provided. The test can be. scored for several different categories but so far only three have been used for research in parapsychology. These three are defined as follows: Extrapunitiveness-refers to aggression overtly directed toward the environment in the form of blaming some outside force for the frustra- tion or of placing someone else under an obligation to solve the diffrcult~'. Intropunitivencss-aggression is expressed overtly by the subject against himself in a martyrlike fashion with an acknowledgment of guilt or shame, or by assuming the responsibility to clear up the situation. Impunitiveness-aggression is evaded or avoided in any overt form, and the situation is interpreted as being insignificant or no one's fault or as likely to solve itself if the subject simply waits or conforms. The first indication that the P-F might be a useful test in parapsychology grew from a thesis study by L. Eilbert at CCNY. An article by filbert and Schmcidler (7) reported that when the P-F scores of Eilbcrt's sub- jects were divided into four quartiles, the differences between ESP scores obtained by subjects in the first and fourth quartiles were suggestive (P around .05). The correlation of _-.32 between extrapunitiveness and ESP score was significant (P - .01) but the correlation of +.28 for in- tropunitivcness and +.22 for impunitiveness were only suggestive (P = .04 and .07 respectively). Schmeidlcr (43) then attempted to see if similar results could be ob- tained from analysis of P-F scores which she had obtained during several years of testing. She had P-F scores for 446 subjects and obtained a correlation of -.09 between ESP scores and extrapunitiveness (P ==.03) and a correlation of -{-.10 with impunitiveness (P -= .02). When her re- sults were combined with filbert's, the correlation of -.12 between ESP scores and extrapunitiveness was significant (P --.005), and the correlation of +.12 with impunitiveness was also significant (P =-.003). These combined data were also analyzed by comparing the difference in mean ESP score between the subjects scoring in the lowest 10%o and highest 10% of the Rosenzweig categories. The mean score of the least extrapunitive (lowest docile) subjects was 5.20, while the mean score of the most cxtrapunitive (highest docile) subjects was 4.86. This difference (423 in mean score was significant (P 01 11itivc subects was 4, of 11 IIIIPU v'a . this difference in scoresthe 5.2.7; scoring directions were in all cases in, than for the goats. In fact, most of tin tioned were independently significant for the goats. Despite the fact that significant co; twee, the P-F and ESP scores, the cur the relationships measured would scorn ,night be expected since the P-F scorc- the subjects would respond to a nnildli life. This does not necessarily nick. be expressed in an ESP situation. It N ideas as to how the subject interprcu'c joyable experience, the aggressive tci annoying situation would have little LSP situation. To test this assumption, Schtncidlei in a group setting with the P-F and annoying the subjects found the l:Sl' di ance was based upon a combined scot naire, a variation of the incomplete >c of a paragraph written on the subject" sentence method contributed roost he, Ratings were made along a 7 point rating, the greater was the clegrec of .jects. Since the P-F scores were dct projection into a moderately frustrate hand that only the P-F scores of suL ,moderately frustrating would be co annoyance ratings of 5 or 6 were sole' annoyed group. Although the correlations betwec, 266 subjects were in the cxpccted insignificant. IIowc-cr, when the moderately frustrated subjects wer statistically significant for extralnani impunitiveness (r =- -}-.21, P =-- .01 cntly significant for the sheep, but Schmeidlcr's interpretation of the habitual response to mild frustration and hostile while making F, SP resl'c mildly frustrating, and would thci ct subjects who characteristically rt';u punitive fashion would emphasize t ately frustrating experiment and co-( fore, make higher ESP Scores. I he it correlation for the intropuni-ovably virtue of being a goat, was 1 toward the experiment, he nevoid, in a. frustrating situation, and i,c` would take upon himself the rc'i". lie would, therefore, tend to r.,ni.m Approved For Release 2001/03/07 CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100014-4 Approved ForIease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP960787R000400100014-4 stcr, and through securing positiv, r in such a situation. Such finclinc, i subject's scoring level in an ESI, know is how the ESP situation is VALUE-RATINGS AND ESP There is one article by Schmcidler reporting on the use of the A p rt- Vernon Study of Values (AVSV) in an ESP experiment (35). This indicates in which of six different value areas (theoretical, religious, social, economic, political, or aesthetic) a subject seems to identify him- self most. Scores are obtained in terms of percentile ranks and subjects scoring high in one or two areas must necessarily score low in the remain- ing ones. Although it had been found that sheep made higher ESP scores than goats, it is apparent that the subjects' answers to the theoretical question of whether ESP exists or not did not separate them into clearly distinct groups with favorable or unfavorable attitudes toward the experiment. Some of the sheep might find. the experiment boring oirritating and some of the goats might like competitive tasks and enjoy playing g g games". Schmcidler had earlier suggested (44) that the sheep-goat dichotomy would be most meaningful for subjects to whom theoretical problems are important (that is, subjects with high theoretical scores on the AVSV). Table 19 to file Rank on Theoretical ESP Data Arranged According AVSV Scale of Sheep Coats Percentile No. Runs Diff. in Ave. Score No. Runs Ave. Score Ave. Score P All Subjects 504 5.30 455 4.93 .37 .002 Below 90 384 5.18 367 4.95 .23 .06 `88 85 4 85 4 .83 .002 90 or Above 120 5.68 . . 95 or Above 5.95 24 4.38 1.57 .001 100 24 6.54 8 4.50 2.04 .006 The hypothesis stated before these data were gathered therefore was that the difference in scoring level between the sheep and goats would be grcatcr for those subjects who had a strong theoretical orientation. The problem of whether ESP could be demonstrated in the test situation should then be one that takes on personal significance for these subjects, since it is closely related to their systems of values or expectancies. Such [45] p~r`oisedFor~ a x`2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100014-4 Approved ForIease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96%-0787R000400100014-4 subjects would presumably identify more closely with the purpose of the experiment, that is, to show the presence or absence of ESP. A total of 63 sus ccts from four different psychology classes were tested in a classroom setting. Each subject was supposed to classify him- self as a sheep or goat, make 8 ESP runs, and complete the AVSV. The theoretical scale of the AVSV was then scored and subjects receiving a percentile rank of 90 or above were considered to be theoretical subjects. Table 19 shows the results of the various breakdowns which were made to compare theoretical and non-theoretical subjects. In Table 19 it is shown that the difference between the mean scores of the non-theoretical sheep and goats was not significant (P == .06), but when the theoretical sheep and goats are considered, the difference between their average scores is over three times as great as the difference of the non-theoretical subjects (P = .002). From the table, it appears that the differences in scoring level continue to become larger as the degree of theoretical orientation becomes more marked; the P values associated with these differences are significant or highly suggestive. The interpretation advanced is that subjects who place increasing emphasis on theoretical values are able to exhibit a corresponding increase or decrease in their ESP score. Generally, the number of cases in each category is too small for such generalization. In addition, however, when the three categories (90 or above, 95 or above, and 100) in Table 19 are considered as discrete rather than continuous categories (ic., 90-94, 95-99, 100), as they should be in any valid comparison of scoring levels, the differences in scoring 'Table 20 ESP Data Arranged According to Percentile Rank on Theoretical Scale of AVSV (Amended Figures) Percentile No. Runs Ave. Score Diff. in No. Runs Ave. Score Ave. Score P All Subjects 504 5.30 455 4.93 .37 .002 Below 90 384 5.18 367 4.95 .23 .06 90 or Above 120 5.68 88 4.85 .83 .002 90 to 94 80 5.55 64 5.03 .52 .06 95 to 99 16 5.07 16 4.32 76 .14 100 level between the sheep and goats at each level of theoretical orientation cease to be significant except in the case of the 3 subjects on the 100th percentile. These amended figures are shown in Table 20. It is apparent that although there are significant differences in scoring level bctwcc17 theoretical and non-theoretical sheep and goats as groups, the im- pressive progression of theoretical level with ESP scores does not stand I'll under strict evaluation. [46) From this review of the pc; studies, it seems that some pr. the personality characteristic: subjects. As a generalization somewhat extraverted, secure. ably disposed towards ESI', it, tend to score high, while su tend to score low. It was stated at the begiiu propriatc to review the ESP two basic approaches of Ilu spects; on the one hand, in other in the consistercY of t In general, IIumplrrcy I cr of questionnaires, or from a qualities exhibited in drawn either by herself or by otlu'i although she did have sour rived from the ESP maters: reuter and the Stuart litter It is generally recognized! limitations. Regardless of tl be rernernb'red that Unit > "surface" traits like cxp; measuring instrument its, -U :end to give rise to spurious the well-known "halo" C11' ,w..rnreuter and Guilford {actor of the attitude of th condition his responses to ,a A second factor is the tc shown to affect responses o'1. :t similar influence on seer q'ply particularly to the !hc fact that some sO!t;ed -cnn expansive to comp'.' would, presumably, clranC +;nreliability lies in thr fa .,f drawings dispiaycd ,,ot probably the explanauu 'tth such scales as the M. :'eneral explar. ation apps a ir< ; _ .YCA9SAM00400100014-4 Approved For1i+ (ease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96787R000400100014-4 y with the purpose of the ncc of ESP. psychology classes were supposed to classify him- omplete the AVSV. The and subjects receiving a _o be theoretical subjects. -towns which were made bjects. ictween the mean scores t significant (P = .06), K)nsidcrcd, the difference pis great as the difference nn the table, it appears ao become larger as the c marked; the P values ,r highly suggestive. The !ace increasing emphasis rresponding increase or =.)ry is too small for such three categories (90 or r considered as discrete -99, 100), as they should e differences in scoring Rank on Theoretical yures) Dif#. in Score Ave. Score P 13 .37 .002 3f theoretical orientation 3 subjects on the 100th _l,able 20. It is apparent 71 scoring level between its as groups, the iin- cores does not stand ill) CONCLUDING REMARKS From this review of the pertinent data of most of the ESP-Personality studies, it seems that some progress has been made towards determining the personality characteristics of groups of high- and low-scoring ESP subjects. As a generalization, we might judge that subjects who are somewhat extraverted, secure, temperate, well-adjusted, who are favour- ably disposed towards ESP, and who have a high theoretical value system tend to score high., while subjects who possess opposite characteristics tend to score low. It was stated at the beginning of this monograph that it seemed ap- propriate to review the ESP-Personality research in two sections. The two basic approaches of Humphrey and Schmcidler differ in two re- spects; on the one hand, in type of measuring instrument used, on the other in the consistency of the results achieved. In general, Humphrey made her personality assessments by means of questionnaires, or from a more or less objective estimate of certain qualities exhibited in drawings. Her results were usually not repeatable either by herself or by other experimenters working along similar lines, although she did have some repeated success with the E-C rating de- rived from the ESP material itself, and partial success with the Bern- reuter and the Stuart Interest Inventory. It is generally recognized that the questionnaire method has severe limitations. Regardless of the stability of the factor itself, and it must be remembered that Humphrey was largely concerned with transitory, "surface" traits like expansion-compression, security-insecurity, the treasuring instrument itself is subject to irrelevant influences which tend to give rise to spurious measurements. In self-rating scales, there is the well-known "halo" effect, and the amount of "halo" in such scales as Ilernrcuter and Guilford-Martin is considerable. The strong general factor of the attitude of the subject to the experimental situation may condition his responses to a considerable degree. A second factor is the temporary mood of the subject. This has been shown to affect responses on the Bernrcuter scale, and it probably exerts a' similar influence on security-insecurity assessments. It would seem to apply particularly to the expansion-compression ratings, judging from the fact that some subjects rated by one judge were found to change from expansive to compressive in the one experimental session, and would, presumably, change from day to day. An additional sourcz of unreliability lies in the fact that ratings by two judges on the same set 'If drawings displayed not a great deal of consistency. The second factor It probably the explanation of the non-repeatability of the E-C studies; Iitli such scales as the Maslow and Bernreuter, however, the first, snore ecneral explanation appears more pertinent. [47] Approved o':s I '=Rb'P9S-007'87R000400100014-4 Approved ForeIease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP9660787R000400100014-4 Schmeidlcr generally used attitude classifications and projective techniques. She obtained consistent results, and her experiments were generally repeatable. Insofar as the sheep-goat classification is cun. cerned, however, the question remains of precisely what factors are icl- volved in this differentiation. In the first place, is it possible for a subject to give an unequivocal answer to the question of his attitude towau?l]; parapsychology, which is a multi-dimensional subject? Ile may acecl-a one aspect of psi (telepathy, for example), and reject another (clair. voyance, for example); in such a case, differentiation must obviou~,hv be made along these lines. Further, it is possible that in addition to ill(. theoretical acceptance of ESP other factors such as confidence, interc,t in the experiment, and willingness to co-operate might be concerned in the sheep-goat differentiation. If these additional factors are involve(], the subject's answer might merely reflect much deeper multiphasic motivational factors. Concerning the personality measurements obtained from projective tests, it is generally agreed that the factors measured on Rorschach and the P-F Scale are basic fundamental aspects of personality structure. Because of the endurance of this structure, one would expect to get repeatability of differentiation in terms of Rorschach and P-F criteria providing the tests themselves are reliable. When we describe separa- tion in terms of Rorschach or P-F variables, we are describing a somewhat gross estimate in each case, and it seems reasonable enough to assume that the Rorschach estimate of adjustment and the P-F estimates of extrapunitiveness and intropunitiveness, in their gross evaluation, arc reliable enough measures. Since there has been repeated success in dis- criminating high and low scorers on the basis of these criteria, we imply that there is a relationship between these deeper factors and E SP. It must be remembered that in all ESP experiments, the role of the experimenter is a vital one. A factor which might contribute to consistency or lack of it in any series of ESP experiments is the delicate experimenter-subject relationship. The effect of such a factor is very difficult to estimate, as it involves the personalities of the experimenter and the subject, and their interaction. In considering this problem of consistency of results, however, cognizance should be taken of the possible effects of such a factor. It must be emphasized that at this stage of ESP-personality research, more successful predictions of ESP scoring levels have been made on a group than on an individual basis. Certainly the greatest amount of re- search effort has been directed towards differentiation of scoring levels on the basis of single personality measurements. This is a. separation in terms of direction rather than amount of deviation, and as such, is generally not discriminating enough for the purposes of in'diviclual pre- diction. For example, though Schmeidler's poorly adjusted group, as a group, scored around chance, the variation in range of individual scores, from very high to very low, was statistically significant. Better prediction of direction of group deviation has resulted from the use of combinations of personality measurements, rather than single dimensions. Evidence for the efficiency of such combinations is offered by Humphrey with combinations of E-C and Interest ratings, and E-CX, and Security-Insecurity ratings, by Schmeicller with combinations of sheep-goat and adjustment criteria, sheep-goat and "absence of seven signs" criteria and sheep-goat and value ratings and by Nicol and Iluin- phrey with a combination of confidence and emotional stability factors. [48] These combinations permitted measures used in isolation, Schmcidler's AVSV study i the sheep-goat attitudinal clay: linear relationship between 1.`1 orientation. Although no su ic predictions were made. ( fort r (numbering 1-5). 1),0 with theoretical orientation it criticisms notwithstanding, this this area. Of major importance is the some success in predicting irn_l personality ratings, using no, level of s mreporle(l ost promi.-ir the approach In the final evaluation, it .a unique factors in a suhjcct s possesses marked tendencies i stimulated to competition, it predicting the direction, and. ESP deviation. The qucstiou characteristics possesscd by th similar in kind to those posse ~' above chance, and whether therefore, might reasonable' the characteristics possessed to be one of the major probie The answer ma of Nvell the coil, intensive study p '' jects, and direct oslp'fasu l.1 displayed by g' p' on the other, from develop( techniques for sclccting melt" levels, solely on the basis ul tests and assessments. Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400100014-4 Approved FortIease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96Y0787R000400100014-4 .cations and projective d her experiments veer, :tt classification is con_ ;cly what factors are in. is it possible for a subject of his attitude towards -iubjcct? He may accept d reject another (clair. ntiation must obviously that in addition to the h as confidence, interest ite might be concerned anal factors are involved, _ich deeper multipliasic btained from projective _,urcd on Rorschach and K)f personality structure. is would expect to get schach and P-F criteria len we describe sepa.ra- a?e describing a somewhat -liable enough to assume id the P-F estimates of -ir gross evaluation, arc repeated success in dis- these criteria, we imply factors and E SP. )eriments, the rcle of the 2h might contribute to -periments is the delicate if such a factor is very dies of the experimenter siclering this problem of -Cl. be taken of the possible "',SP-personality research, Is have been made on a c greatest amount of rc- itiation of scoring levels ;. This is a separation in -iation, and as such, is rposes of individual pre- Worly adjusted group, as in range of individual -aUly significant. on has resulted from the %nits, rather than single t combinations is offered .nterest ratings, and E-C -r with combinations of and "absence of seven and by Nicol and Ilurn- notional stability factors. These combinations permitted greater differentiation than any of the measures used in isolation. c eared Once Scsheeple0ast AVSV attitudinal study ti'n, there app nee the sheep_ a iedictions were made, linear relationsh~~ ~hwnol st~P ly scoring v id ualap degree of theoretical orientation. r ou -is which in some cases were very small predictions wcr). One for g point out that the progression of ESP scores One must 1 impressive as it appears; these (numbering ical with theoretical orientation is not as criticisms notwithstanding, this study is an important contribution in this area. unip Nico Of major importance is tiindividual by SP scores froxm a knowl dgerof some success in predicting multiple regression analysis. Although the personality ratings using level of success reported is not high) the method is a valuable one, the approach most promising. In the final evaluation, it appears clear that if. something is known he unique factors in a subject's personality make-up, if, possesses marked tendencies towards social participation, or is easily stimulated to competition, it is possible to utilize this informatio n in ree, t of e predicting the direct. uc t on sill re nainscof rwh ttl erg the personality and, a much ESP deviation. The? q Jb rare simil ae ki tosthOsdpossessed by groups of subjeccts who scoresligl tly above in n kind evel above chance, and whet whether the a.ttrilnite d tof differences in is nount of therefore, might reasonably possessed or to motivational factors. This appears the cli t problems in this area of ESP personality research. to beone of the ma~orsources-on from lYl two The answer may well c C1 e fro ty makeup of the fc ~lvel gh cori di~g sub- j ects,i study of the persona and, jests, and direct comparison with what is known of the aligrioup'ri and, bscctotrecr positively, displayed by groups of subjects who ing on the other, from dcvi ldividuals and predicting their probable scoring techniques for selecting ersonality levels, solely on the basis of measurements on a number o# p tests and assessments. [ 491 .,,prove se- -i1/03 - CIA-ROP9'6-007878000400100014-4