Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
November 4, 2016
Document Release Date: 
October 14, 1998
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6.pdf1.3 MB
0 Final Report-Task 6.0.1 March 1989 Covering the Period 1 October 1988 to 15 February 1989 REVIEW OF THE PSYCHOENERGETIC RESEARCH 1 r1 ~1 ~ CONDUCTED AT SRI INTERNATIONAL (1973-1988) (U) By: Edwin C. May Virginia V. Trask Thane J. Frivold Jessica M. Utts Wanda W. Luke Beverly S. Humphrey For Release 2000/08/08`R6Fb0789R002200470001-6 , v . Ravenswoo 333 ? T X~ 21673-2046 ? Telex: 334-486 d For Release ~1 & 908 ~GIA-R 96-00789R002200470001~ 6~, 4} ~, ~~ ~ r y M DUI 4!~',.'A'r~W? 25 pages .... Prepared for: CONTRACTING OFFICER'S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE SRI Project 1291 WARNING NOTICE RESTRICTED DISSEMINATION TO THOSE WITH VERIFIED ACCESS TO THE PROJECT NOT RELEASABLE TO FOREIGN NATIONALS SRI. hA81019diCwu0 CA 94025 r d A Final Report-Task 6.0.1 March 1989 Covering the Period 1 October 1988 to 15 February 1989 REVIEW OF THE PSYCHOENERGETIC RESEARCH CONDUCTED AT SRI INTERNATIONAL (1973-1988) (U) By: Edwin C. May Virginia V. Trask Thane J. Frivold Jessica M. Utts Wanda W. Luke Beverly S. Humphrey Prepared for: O SRI Project 1291 WARNING NOTICE RESTRICTED DISSEMINATION TO THOSE WITH VERIFIED ACCESS TO THE PROJECT Approved by: Copy Z 3 of?.$ Copies MURRAY J. BARON, Director This document consists of 24 pages Geoscience and Engineering Center SRI/GF-0320 CLASSIFIED BY: HQ, USAMRDC (SGRD-ZA) DECLASSIFY ON: OADR NOT RELEASABLE TO FOREIGN NATIONALS 94025 333 Ravenswood AvSErCIRErT CA T led For Rele~as~6i26b6idg/a8Tvi491b d~ -b*89Rb66 200470001-6 For Release 2000/08/08 Hb0789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2009/08fj 'k (U) TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............ . LIST OF FIGURES ............ . I OBJECTIVE ....................................................... 1 II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................... 2 III INTRODUCTION .................................................. 3 IV METHOD OF APPROACH .......................................... 4 A. Analysis Domain .............................................. 4 B. Database Management System ................................... 5 C. Statistical Methods ............................................ 7 V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................... 11 A. Overall Results ............................................... 11 B. Results for Categories Within the Informational Process ............. 12 C. Specific Results for Remote Viewing ............................. 14 REFERENCES .............................................................. 24 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/0 Jf8~RD200470001-6 (U) LIST OF TABLES 1. Definitions And Meta-analysis Formalism (U) 9 2. Statistical Results For Major Classes (U) ............................... . .... 11 3. Statistical Results For Informational Categories (U) ........................ . .. 13 am UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/ 'NQkSj > 12200470001-6 (U) LIST OF FIGURES 1. Categories And Number Of Trials (U) ....................................... 5 2 Database Schema Design For Meta-analysis (U) .............................. 7 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Aw Approved For Release 2000/UN:CIh S ID2200470001-6 I OBJECTIVE (U) (U) The objective of Task 6.0.1 of the FY 1989 Statement of Work (SOW) is to assess, where possible, the experimental results of the research at SRI International since 1973." (U) This report constitutes the deliverable for Statement of Work, Task 6.0.1. UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : SIE.R'gb789R002200470001-6 II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (U) (S/NF) We have conducted a review and analysis of the psychoenergetic research conducted at SRI International from 1 October 1973 to 30 September 1988. The database comprises 117 documents with a total of 5,025 pages. (S/NF) A total of 25,449 trials were conducted under a variety of protocols. Analysis indicates that the odds that our results are not due to simple statistical fluctuations alone are better than 2 x 1020 to 1 (i.e., 2 followed by 20 zeros). Using accepted criteria set forth in the standard behavioral sciences, we conclude that this constitutes convincing, if not conclusive, evidence for the existence of psychoenergetic functioning. (S/NF) The main results are summarized below: e Remote viewing (RV) can provide useful intelligence information. Laboratory and operational remote viewing show the greatest potential for practical applications. s Experienced viewers are significantly better than the general population. ? Approximately 1% of the general population possess a natural remote viewing ability. a Remote viewing ability does not degrade over time. e At this time, there is no quantitative evidence to support a training hypothesis. o Natural scenes are significantly better than symbols as targets for remote viewing. ? Remote viewing quality is independent of target distance and/or size. ? There is no evidence to support that a psychoenergetic interaction with the physical world exists. o Electromagnetic shielding is not effective against psychoenergetic acquisition of information. a A potential central nervous system correlate to remote viewing has recently been identified. SECRET Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/UN:ClL-i -pF1 2200470001-6 III INTRODUCTION (U) (U) Until recently, the task of assessing any general body of published knowledge was formidable. Most of the attempts included review articles that were based primarily upon the informed opinions of the reviewers. It was recognized, however, that in the behavioral sciences specific problems arose that were unique to those disciplines. For example, many of the behavioral results are based on a statistical rejection of a null hypothesis, and, using accepted practices," a successful outcome is declared if the odds that the result is not due to a chance statistical fluctuation are better than 20 to 1. A major problem for reviewers is created when the behavioral sciences' technical journals refuse to publish results that fail to meet this statistical criterion. For example, if only one-in-20 studies is published, then the literature may appear to provide evidence for a phenomenon, but taken with the 19 unpublished studies for every published one, there is no evidence for a phenomenon. This particular difficulty is called "the file drawer problem." (U) This and other problems resulting from the diversity and difficulty of the behavioral sciences have been addressed in a new review technique known as meta-analysis.2-4 Meta-analytical procedures are most useful when a large number of diverse studies is under consideration. Meta-analysis provides techniques to clarify the impact of the file drawer problem and to enable us to combine diverse experiments in a meaningful manner. (U) The results of SRI's psychoenergetic research encompass a wide variety of experiments and thus can be addressed with these techniques. The analysis of the SRI data, however, is simplified because there is no file drawer problem. All experiments that were conducted have been reported, and thus are included in the analysis. (U) This report describes the database, the analysis techniques, and the results of 16 years of psychoenergetic research conducted at SRI International. (U) References may be found at the end of this report. UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 aw Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :SECORET0789R002200470001-6 IV METHOD OF APPROACH (U) (3) RV-012s-remote viewing where the targets are drawn from specific targets of interest to the intelligence community. (4) Search-remote viewing where the targets are generally known but their location is unknown (e.g., a specific military aircraft is known to have crashed-where is it?). (S/NF) The domain of this meta-analysis includes all government-sponsored intelligence applications and psychoenergetic research conducted at SRI International, or under the auspices of its subcontractors, from 1 October 1973 to 30 September 1988. A priori declared demonstrations or other activities that were not under the control of SRI International were not included in the documentation. All other forms of experimentation were included in SRI International technical reports, unclassified journals, or publications, and thus were part of this analysis. This database comprises 117 documents with a total of 5,025 pages. (U) By definition, there is no file drawer problem in this analysis; all items that met the above criteria were included regardless of their results. Care was exercised to avoid multiple entries of the same data. (1) (S/NF) All psychoenergetic phenomena fall broadly into two classes: (2) Causal Processes-those putative phenomena that involve an anomalous interaction with matter (e.g., remote action). Information Processes-those phenomena that involve a passive transfer of information (e.g., remote viewing, search), The psychoenergetic effort has been divided into various categories within these processes. The various categories within this domain are defined as follows: (1) Forced-Choice-remote viewing where the targets are drawn from a limited (and known) set of potential symbols (e.g., the integers 0, 1). (2) RV-Lab-remote viewing where the targets are drawn from a large set of potential material (e.g., photographs of natural scenes, natural physical locations), and the experiments are conducted under strict laboratory conditions. SECRET Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : SIE.GRci'gb789R002200470001-6 (U) For the purpose of this analysis, all putative causal-process experiments are considered under the general heading of remote action. (U) Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of these categories and the total number of individual trials that were conducted within each category. Psychoenergetics 26,074 Informational 25,045 Forced Choice 19,715 Causal 1,029 RV-Ops 106 Search 4,153 RV-Lab 1,071 FIGURE 1 (U) CATEGORIES AND NUMBER OF TRIALS (S/NF) The total number of psychoenergetic trials (26,074) was collected in 154 different experiments involving 227 different subjects.* All the data were entered into a computer database management system (DBMS). B. (U) Database Management System 1. (U) Database Requirements (U) One of the main purposes of performing a meta-analysis is to be able to look at data gathered from multiple studies conducted under a wide variety of circumstances. In order to collect and store the data in a meaningful way, one must know what kind of data manipulations will be performed. To evaluate the effect of certain parameters on psychoenergetic functioning, we needed to focus our attention on the conditions of a wide array of potentially important variables. As a result, the database design is primarily determined by the data and provides for the selection of information, by experiment, given parameter specifications. * (U) The number of subjects does not include the preliminary mass screening partici- pants. The formal screening participants were, however, included in the analysis. SECRET Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000I$S-FtED02200470001-6 2. (U) Database Design (U) The database schema that was used consists of four basic tables (people, documents, experiments, and units), and two basic relationships (author and parameter). See Figure 2 for an illustration of this schema. The units-table contains information about the lowest level of statistical analysis in a given experiment. For example, if 6 viewers participated in 20 trials each, the database would contain 6 unit entries-one for the overall result for each viewer. (U) Although our database management system is a relational database, our requirements were inherently hierarchical. That is, each of the documents contains several experiments, and each of our experiments contain several trials. In order to minimize the redundancy within the database, we attempted to include all pertinent information as high in the hierarchy as possible. That is, if a parameter or condition applied to an entire experiment, we would record that data at the experiment level. If, on the other hand, the parameter varied across units within a given experiment, we made provision to record those data as a function of unit instead. (U) The analyses of most of our experiments contain both individual and group statistics. In order to prevent any trial from being "counted" multiple times, we required that all experiments be broken up into the "units" which represent the basic grouping of trials upon which a hypothesis was being tested. Thus, any given trial appears only once in the database yet we can reconstitute the group statistics at a later time. (U) This approach offers two advantages. First, any arbitrary parameter which does not have an explicit slot in the database can be stored, thus providing flexibility. Second, we can distinguish between "independent variables" and "incidental variables." The former are variables which are intentionally manipulated by the experimenter, and the latter are actually parameters which the experimenter either could not control or treated as insignificant. (U) Some of the documents detail multiple analyses for a given experiment in order to compare and evaluate standard and new analytic techniques. For this effort, however, we required that only one analysis be recorded for each experiment, since our primary focus was to evaluate the parameters that effect psychoenergetic functioning and not to compare different evaluation techniques. In determining which analysis to enter into the database, we always chose a blind method over a post hoc method. If a choice still remained, we then always chose the technique that had been developed first. UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/JJN:CIhAPRi 1b2200470001-6 Experiment Principal Investigator rrE- Subject ID C Parameters Relationship UNCLASSIFIED FIGURE 2 (U) DATABASE SCHEMA DESIGN FOR META-ANALYSIS (U) The Appendix contains examples of the DBMS input sheets that were used to encode psychoenergetic data for the database, and the instructions that were given to analysts. They are included in the Appendix for completeness; there is no further discussion about them in this report. (U) Effect sizes were calculated for each experiment or condition using the formula given by Rosenthal:2 where n is the number of trials and z is the usual normalized output score. If no z score was given for an experiment, but a p value was, the z that would have given that p value was computed and used in the formula. The exception to this procedure was for experiments based on a sum-of-rank statistic. For those, a more appropriate effect size formula was used and is given by "M UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 )- One-to-Many Relationship -~ Entity Approved For Release 2000U (' PA[S64f01'9D02200470001-6 (U) d= R1 whe re S is the average rank and R is the number of choices for each rank. (U) Experiments can be categorized in accordance with a number of specific variables (e.g., type of feedback, type of target, distance between the viewer and the target). Effect sizes can be examined within a given category and compared across categories. For each categorization, the following questions are of interest: (1) (2) Question 2: Is the level of psychoenergetic functioning constant across all experiments within a category? Question 1: Is there any evidence of psychoenergetic functioning within each of the individual categories? (3) Question 3: Is the level of psychoenergetic functioning constant across categories? (4) Question 4: If there are differences across categories, what is the relative size of the effect in each category? (U) Table 1 shows the notation that is used in the formalism that answers these questions. (U) To answer question 1, compare the average z score in each category with the standard normal tables. (U) To answer question 2, compute k mi Qw= > 2: nij(dij-di.)Z. i=ij=i If effect sizes are homogeneous within categories, the distribution of Qw will be approximately X2 with v = (Emi - k) degrees of freedom. The hypothesis of homogeneity is rejected if Qw is large compared to the chi-square table entry with v degrees of freedom. To test for homogeneity within a single category, i, compute mi 2 QWi= nij(dij-di.) j=1 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/ CJJ-JkJ~i'IE02200470001-6 (U) Similarly, the distribution of Qwi will be approximately X2 with v = (m; - k) degrees of freedom, and can be examined as above. Table 1 (U) DEFINITIONS AND META-ANALYSIS FORMALISM Basic Definitions k = number of categories ml = number of experiments in category i; i = 1, ... , k dij = effect size for experiment j in category i; i = 1, ... , k; j = 1, ... nij = number of trials in experiment j in category i zij = z score for experiment j in category i Computed Quantities ni. _ ni j = number of trials Jj Y nijdij Within Category i di. = ' = average effect size ni. Zij zi. = J = di. T= average z score n.. _ ni. = total number of trials Across Categories Y, nijdij d.. 1 = overall average effect size n.. z.. = fin d. , = overall average z score (U) To answer question 3, compute k QB = > ni.(di. -d..)2. If effect sizes are homogeneous across categories, the distribution of QB will be approximately X2 with v = k-1 degrees of freedom. Therefore, the hypothesis of homogeneity across categories is rejected if QB is large compared to the appropriate entry in the chi-square table with v degrees of freedom. UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/WNQAPSS ID2200470001-6 (U) Finally, to answer question 4, approximate 95% confidence intervals may be computed for the average effect size within a category using d;. f 1.96 771. UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : 5IE-T0789R002200470001-6 V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (U) (U) The results of the meta-analysis are presented here, where possible, in quantitative analytic terms, and various interpretations are discussed in detail. In addition, items that cannot be analyzed are discussed from a qualitative perspective. (U) The analysis proceeds in a top-down fashion in accordance with the hierarchy shown in Figure 1. (U) The overall analysis was conducted from three different perspectives: (1) All of the data, regardless of the purported skill of the subjects, (2) A subset of the data contributed by an experienced group of viewers, G1 (i.e., long-term, generally accepted expert viewers-002, 009, 131, 372, 414, and 504) (3) All of the data except for the group GI (i.e., All-G1). Table 2 shows the number of trials n, total z score, p value, and effect size d for informational and putative causal processes and for the combination of the two. (U) STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MAJOR CLASSES Class Perspective n z p * d Psychoenergetics All 25,449 9.37 3.69 (-21) 0.059 01 9,825 6.86 3.46 (-12) 0.069 All-G1 15,624 6.53 3.46 (-11) 0.052 Informational All 24,450 9.07 5.83 (-20) 0.058 G1 9,702 6.69 1.14 (-11) 0.068 All-G1 14,748 6.25 1.96 (-10) 0.052 Causal All 999 2.42 6.39 (-03) 0.077 G 1 123 2.06 1.99 (-02) 0.171 All-G1 876 1.89 2.95 (-02) 0.064 SECRET (U) Powers-of-ten are shown in parentheses. SECRET Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 MW Approved For Release 2000/08/08 AM- PREOT789R002200470001-6 (U) The number of trials shown in Table 2 differs slightly from those shown in Figure 1. A few trials in each category were analyzed from a post-hoc point of view and therefore have not been included in the formal analysis. (S/NF) The heterogeneity of effect size within each group for all classes is very large (i.e., the chi-squares for within-groups were large). This is to be expected for such a global analysis and is frequently seen in meta-analyses of psychological data.5 The sources of the within-group variation include the psychoenergetic skill level of the subjects and fundamental differences between psychoenergetic tasks. (S/NF) The data, regardless of subjects or process, show strongly significant evidence for psychoenergetic functioning (p ~ 3.69 x 10-21). Both the informational and putative causal processes show significant evidence of psychoenergetic functioning, as well. (S/NF) Since p values are strongly dependent upon the number of trials, the modern trend in meta-analysis is to consider the trial-independent measure of effect size. From this point of view, the magnitude of the psychoenergetic functioning appears roughly constant for all the data shown in Table 2, and, according to Cohen's criteria for the interpretation of effect size,* corresponds to small effects. 6 The method of calculating overall effect size, however, involves a weighted average (see Table 1) and thus may not provide an accurate picture of the size of the psychoenergetic functioning within a given category. To obtain more insight into the nature of the functioning, we must examine the data within each category. B. (U) Results for Categories Within the Informational Process (S/NF) Table 3 shows the number of trials, total z score, p value, and effect size for categories within the informational process. The data show strongly significant evidence for psychoenergetic functioning for all categories regardless of subjects. The effect size, however, begins to demonstrate category differences. (S/NF) The forced-choice effect size (d = 0.052) is equivalent to the overall effect size shown in Table 2 (d = 0.059). Since the forced-choice category accounts for 77% of the total number of trials, the effect-size averaging technique biases the overall result. For example, the effect size (d = 0.209) for the RV-Lab category is significantly larger than for the Forced-Choice case (X2 = 22.70, v = 1; p < 6.63 X 10-6). The RV-Lab effect sizes meet Cohen's criterion for a medium-sized behavioral effect. (U) Values of 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 correspond to small, medium, and large effects, respectively. SECRET Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : S,GRpkE(1789R002200470001-6 (U) STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR INFORMATIONAL CATEGORIES Category Perspective n z p* d Forced-Choice All 19,675 7.42 6.12 (-14) 0.052 01 9,487 5.82 2.92 (-09) 0.060 All-G1 10,188 4.69 1.39 (-06) 0.046 RV-Lab All 966 6.49 4.33 (-11) 0.209 GI 196 5.39 3.49 (-08) 0.385 All-G1 770 4.55 2.71 (-06) 0.164 RV-Ops All 9 3.98 3.45 (-05) 1.326 01 9 3.98 3.45 (-05) 1.326 All-G 1 - - - - RV-Search All 3,790 2.61 4.53 (-03) 0.042 G1 - - - - All-G1 3,790 2.61 4.53 (-03) 0.042 SECRET * (U) Powers-of-ten are shown in parentheses. (S/NF) For the RV-Lab category, the experienced group, G1, performs significantly better than the novice, larger group (X2 = 7.63, v = 1; p C 0.0057). (S/NF) As in the overall analysis, the data analyzed in Table 3 show a large heterogeneity of effect size within each category. The heterogeneity of effect size, however, is significantly reduced for the experienced subjects in the RV-Lab category. This reduction may result from a more uniform skill level of the subjects in group G1; this is in general agreement with our qualitative assessment of their abilities. (S/NF) Only 8.5% of the remote viewing operational trials were analyzed as a formal experiment. The effect size for these exceeds Cohen's definition of a large effect. The intelligence requirements of operational remote viewing, however, are less dependent upon the quality of the viewing than they may be on other factors. Excellent remote viewing does not necessarily imply good intelligence information. (S/NF) Because of the usual sensitivities associated with intelligence data, obtaining evaluations of the operational remote viewing has continued to be difficult. SECRET Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/08: S)EFCRf 0T789R002200470001-6 (S/NF) In the RV-Search category, 91.3% of the data were collected under laboratory conditions by novice subjects. The remaining trials were conducted under operational conditions, and intelligence analysis is not available. The small effect size (d = 0.042) is commensurate with that found in other laboratories, and may reflect our lack of understanding about how to elicit this form of psychoenergetic functioning. C. (U) Specific Results for Remote Viewing (U) In this section we address the specific questions posed in the SOW. In any kind of an investigation where the general results fall under a statistical regime (i.e., z scores less than about 5), no hard definitions exist for definitive conclusions. The problem is confounded in behavioral science because many factors, beyond the particular independent variable in question, may significantly alter the outcome of an experiment. In trying to assess a large body of literature, as more constraints are placed on the outcomes, fewer within-group trials are available for analysis; thus, statistical conclusions become more difficult. This is also true for psychoenergetic research. Yet, it is possible to describe trends, to suggest ways of improving experiments based upon earlier results, and to obtain clear insights into factors that may affect psychoenergetic functioning. (S/NF) To ensure the most reliable interpretations of results in what follows below, group G1 has been used for the quantitative discussion. As was shown in Section V.-B, this group possessed the most homogeneous set of data for the RV-Lab category and demonstrated a significant amount of remote viewing ability. 1. (U) Selection/Screening (S/NF) The selection of individuals who are able to accomplish remote viewing both in an operational setting and in the laboratory is of paramount importance. As is shown in Section V.-B., above, group GI provides the best results for both types of remote viewing. Throughout the history of the program at SRI, 6 individuals have been able to demonstrate consistent functioning over a long period of time. This does not mean that, after vigorous searching, only 6 have been found. Rather, given our applications-oriented charter for most of the time period in question, we had little impetus to find other viewers. During fiscal years 1986-1988, it became clear that a greater number of talented viewers was needed for both applications and research. SECRET Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA7FGRcE7F9R002200470001-6 (S/NF) Prior to FY 1986, little was known about how to select good viewers. There was little systematic research either at SRI or within the field in general, and what was available was inconclusive or contradictory. The effort that began in FY 1986 encompassed a broad approach to the problem. We initiated three different types of quantitative approaches: self-report personality tests, neuropsychological testing, and behavioral testing (i.e., the Personality Assessment System-PAS). In addition, we used one heuristic approach, which simply asked individuals to try remote viewing. (S/NF) The heuristic approach has been quite successful. The efficiency (i.e., the number of talented viewers found divided by the total number screened) is approximately 1% in the general population (i.e., groups of self-selected volunteers). Based upon the results of a mass screening effort, two individuals have been asked to be regular contributors to the project. (S/NF) One other heuristic source of good viewers is individuals who have noticed a psychoenergetic ability in their lives. Many viewers in group G1 came to the project in this manner, and a new viewer, claiming similar experiences, was identified in a recent screening effort. This viewer produced an effect size of 0.440 in 6 remote viewing trials, which contained many striking qualitative correspondences between targets and responses. (S/NF) Of the quantitative techniques, the neuropsychological approach was not successful at predicting performance. The PAS, however, predicted performance of 9 viewers to a significant degree. (S/NF) By far, the best way to select viewers as of this writing is to use individuals who either have abilities measured in other laboratories, or who have had strong personal experiences. (S/NF) One technique not mentioned above holds great promise for the future. Three individuals from group GI who participated in a neurophysiological study of correlates with remote viewing produced unusually large central nervous system responses to light stimuli directed at the eyes. More work is needed to determine if this simple test might be the most effective way to screen for individuals with excellent remote viewing ability. SECRET Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : SIE MT6789R002200470001-6 2. (U) Targeting (S/NF) Targeting is a general term to describe the method by which a viewer is directed to the intended target. Common techniques that have been employed include the following: (1) Beacon-an individual at the site of the intended target. (2) Coordinates-the geographical or military coordinates of the intended target. (3) A tr -a word or phrase (e.g.,"target") or other abstract representation of the intended target. (4) Self-none of the above, the viewer initiates the collection of data. We examined these techniques in order to determine which provides the best access to a remote target. (S/NF) For these four targeting techniques, 183 trials were identified-the remainder, 13 trials, were listed as "unknown" targeting. The effect size for viewings initiated by these targeting techniques was 0.401, leading to a p value of 2.92 X 10-8. Thus, there is significant evidence for remote viewing functioning. The between-groups chi-square is significant (X2 = 12.58, v = 3; p S 0.0058), indicating that the effect sizes resulting from these targeting techniques are not drawn from the same population. (S/NF) It is difficult, however, to attribute the significant differences to targeting techniques alone. In none of the experiments could the targeting technique be used as a valid independent variable, because, in all cases, the viewers and experimenters were not blind to the targeting condition. Thus, it is possible, even likely, that the viewers' scientific or emotional bias toward one technique or another confounds the interpretation. Other factors, such as feedback time and type, or potential physics models of information transfer, also confound the interpretation. (S/NF) Given these caveats, beacon targeting appears to provide the best and most stable results (n = 66, z = 5.305, p < 5.65 x 10-8, d = 0.653). 3. (U) Evaluation and Analysis (U) The evaluation and analysis of remote viewing data has undergone significant improvement during our 16 years of investigation. Beginning as a simple blind matching by judges, the techniques have been improved by the addition of concept analysis (the paraphrasing of a complex response), discrete descriptor analysis (defining targets and response as the yes/no answers to a predetermined set of descriptors), and fuzzy set descriptors (defining targets and responses as fuzzy sets). SECRET Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : C FRf b'789R002200470001-6 (S/NF) The fuzzy set technique has also been applied to intelligence simulation experiments and found to provide a useful estimate of remote viewing accuracy (the percent of the intended target that was described correctly) and viewer reliability (the percent of the viewer's response that was correct). (S/NF) For rapid evaluation of laboratory experiments, rank-order judging of targets within preselected (i.e., by fuzzy set techniques) target packets is recommended. For more accurate measures of remote viewing ability, however, the full fuzzy set analysis is suggested. Determining whether the fuzzy set technique can be applied to intelligence situations is a topic for further investigation. 4. (U) Training (S/NF) Six training efforts were conducted during the time period under consideration; three were qualitative and three were quantitative. There is no overall quantitative evidence that remote viewing can be taught to novice viewers. Of the qualitative efforts, two were conducted with client personnel as viewers, and one was conducted with SRI personnel. All three showed some qualitative evidence, however, that training improves remote viewing skill. (S/NF) Quantitative experiments were conducted with 1.8 novice viewers in three separate experiments comprising 481 trials. In the first group, the novices were self-selected on the basis of strong interest and previous personal experiences. None had participated in prior laboratory experiments. The six viewers in this group produced overall significant evidence for remote viewing (n = 169, z = 1.719, p : 0.043, d = 0.132). None of the viewers, however, individually or collectively demonstrated significant evidence that training helps a viewer to improve. (S/NF) The second group of 9 viewers was selected because the Personality Assessment System predicted that they would exhibit a wide range of remote viewing ability. Overall, their data did not reach statistical significance (n = 221, z = -0.971, p G 0.834, d = -0.065). While the best viewer produced an effect size of 0.170, none of the viewers' data reached statistical significance. None of these viewers individually or collectively demonstrated significant evidence that training helps a viewer to improve. (S/NF) In the third group of 3 novice viewers, one demonstrated significant evidence for improvement (n = 26, z = 3.01, p { 0.0013, d = 0.590). (S/NF) While significant evidence for remote viewing has been observed, whether training can improve remote viewing skill has yet to be substantiated quantitatively. It is possible that knowledge has not yet advanced to the point where we know how to train. Since the data from viewers in group GI have remained stable over time, we conclude that simple practice does not appear to improve performance. SECRET Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : 5IE 29-T0789R002200470001-6 (S/NF) SRI recommends that investigations into training be continued. In the meantime, good viewers are more easily found than trained. (U) Feedback is defined as providing the viewer with information about the intended target after a remote viewing experiment. Very few experiments were devised to test the role of feedback in determining remote viewing quality. In the early phases of the project, the primary objective was to provide as good a result as possible, and since feedback appeared not to hinder remote viewing, most of the early sessions always included it in one form or another. (S/NF) The strongest evidence about the role of feedback is provided by the FY 1987 tachistoscope experiment. In that study, subliminal or minimal visual feedback was provided to the viewers. Two of the four viewers produced independent evidence for remote viewing ability (n = 40; z = 2.30, p C 0.012, d = 0.363, and z = 4.43, p :!!g 4.78 x 10-6, d = 0.700, respectively). Neither of these viewers showed any dependency upon the intensity of the visual feedback, including zero intensity (i.e., no feedback at all). (S/NF) The question of the role of feedback was examined for group G1. We examined feedback time (i.e., the time duration after a session before feedback was provided), and feedback type (e.g., site, false site, verbal, visual). We found that there were substantial and significant differences among the various feedback times and among the various feedback types. (S/NF) To interpret these differences with regard to feedback is difficult. For example, the significant difference between a 1-hour delay compared to a 5-minute delay may result from the fact that most of the 5-minute delay feedback intervals occurred in experiments in which photographs were used as targets. Since the longer delay occurred in experiments that used beacons and natural sites as targets, one interpretation is that the observed differences are attributable to target type rather than feedback interval. (S/NF) A similar problem arises in the feedback type category. One clear result, however, does emerge. The effect sizes for feedback of natural sites (d = 0.734) is significantly larger than for feedback of the incorrect natural site (d = -0.137. X2 = 4.55, v = 1; p " 0.042). Giving false feedback appears to inhibit remote viewing. (S/NF) A recent study indicates that feedback in remote viewing experiments is not essential.7 This result is in qualitative agreement with the findings from our tachistoscope experiment. In forced-choice experiments, however, Honorton found that the role of feedback in the precognition experiments was critical.8 SECRET Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : (- ,QREEOT789R002200470001-6 (S/NF) While the quantitative results are mixed, viewers indicate that feedback is psychologically important. We conclude, therefore, that feedback should be provided whenever possible. 6. (U) Effect of Distance (S/NF) We examined the effect of distance on the quality of remote viewing. Distances were divided into four ranges: < 1 km, < 50 km, < 5000 km, and > 5000 km. For the group G1, there was no effect of distance on the quality of remote viewing (X2 = 3.56, v = 2; p E 0.167). It is possible to be definitive about this particular result since all confounding variables tend to increase the chi-square rather than decrease it. 7. (U) Effect of Size of Target (S/NF) Only one experiment has been conducted that directly addresses this issue. Photographs were reduced to a spot size of approximately 1 mm in diameter. One viewer from group G1 produced significant results (n = 6, z = 2.10, p E 0.018, d = 0.857). We are able to conclude that targets 1 mm in diameter do not inhibit remote viewing quality. No data are available on targets of varying sizes. 8. (U) Physiological Correlates to Remote Viewing (U) In the field in general, the search for physiological correlates has not been successful. Early results indicated that an individual should be moderately relaxed and as free from physiological stress as possible (e.g., headaches, bathroom demands). These results are not surprising in that it is likely that such a "physiological" state would be optimal for any human activity. (S/NF) SRI has examined neurophysiological correlates to remote viewing in two separate experiments. Specifically, the central nervous system appears to respond to a remote light flash, and thus provides a correlate to remote viewing. For the two experiments, a total of four viewers (all from group G1) produced independent significant changes in a-production in correlation with remote light stimuli.9,10 (S/NF) SRI recommends that the effort to isolate particular parts of the central nervous system that respond to remote stimuli be continued. The potential for screening and training are significant. SECRET Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 %LA* T0789R002200470001-6 9. (U) Psychological Correlates to Remote Viewing (S/NF) Psychological correlates to remote viewing have provided weak, but significant, evidence for correlations with some forms of psychological variables. In the early work with the Personality Assessment System, SRI found that many of the group G1 viewers clustered near each other in PAS space. In later work, the PAS predicted viewer performance to a significant degree. SRI's work with self-report personality tests has not been successful; however, Honorton reports small, but significant correlations with the thinking/feeling dimension in the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory.]] In general, psychological correlates have been weak and/or unreliable. 10. (U) Shielding and ELF (S/NF) The main purpose of searching for shielding against psychoenergetic functioning is to provide for a secure environment. I. M. Kogan proposed a model of psychoenergetic information transfer based on extremely low-frequency (ELF) electromagnetic radiation.12 In that model, Kogan proposed that the brain is, in effect, a 10-Hz oscillator and the body is a crude antenna. Radiation at that frequency would exhibit many of the properties of psychoenergetic functioning known at that time. (S/NF) Too few data were collected under known shielding conditions to make definitive statements with regard to shielding. Two trials were collected in a 30-dB shielding at 10 Hz. These trials showed significant evidence of remote viewing (n = 2, z = 1.92, p C 0.027, d = 1.358). In another experiment, when the target material was contained in a SCIF, significant evidence for remote viewing was observed (n = 6, z = 1.91, p G 0.028, d = 0.780). The trend, however, is clear: electromagnetic shielding does not inhibit psychoenergetic acquisition of target material. 11. (U) Audio Analysis (S/NF) In a single study involving 6 trials with a single viewer from group G1, a significant correlation of remote viewing quality with the audio/linguistic character of the response was found (n. = 6, r = 0.995, p < 0.050, d = 0.800). One purpose for determining within-session correlations with remote viewing quality is to provide for an independent and a priori measure of quality. (U) SRI recommends that this type of investigation be continued to determine the degree to which the result can be generalized across viewers. SECRET Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :SIE"'gb789R002200470001-6 12. (U) Search and Tracking (S/NF) As was seen in Section V.-B., above, significant evidence for search was found overall (n = 3,790, z = 2.61, p ~ 0.0045, d = 0.042). Most of these trials were collected in experiments using computer techniques. In a few experiments, however, the target material was physical objects in a laboratory setting. The effect sizes from these experiments do not differ significantly from the overall result. (S/NF) Search has always been a challenge. On a few occasions, operational use of search has proved extremely useful data, but on the average, both the laboratory experiments and operational use have been disappointing. SRI recommends continued effort in search to determine those factors that can enhance a potentially very useful phenomenon. 13. (U) Precognitive Remote Viewing (S/NF) The first SRI precognition experiment provided significant evidence of the phenomenon (n = 4, z = 1.73, p G 0.042, d = 0.864).13 From FY 1975 to FY 1987, precognition was not studied in any systematic manner. During FY 1987, one experiment was conducted using natural sites as targets and one of the group G1 viewers. The result was not significant (n = 10, z = -0.476, p < 0.683, d = -0.150). A second experiment using novice viewers was conducted in the same year. This also did not reach a significant level (n = 55, z = 0.070, p G 0.472, d = 0.064). Therefore, the results of SRI's investigations are mixed. However, in a recent meta-analysis of the precognition forced-choice literature conducted by one of SRI's subcontractors, 50 years of experimentation involving 50,000 subjects showed highly significant evidence for the phenomenon (n ste 108, z = 24.23 , p C 4 X 10-52, d = 0.041). This result is consistent with the forced-choice real-time studies conducted at SRI (d = 0.052). (S/NF) Taken as a whole, there appears to be compelling evidence for precognition. When precognition is used as the underlying assumption for a heuristic model of psychoenergetic functioning, 15 years of random number generator data fall on the predicted theoretical curve.14 14. (U) Analytics (Forced-Choice) (U) Forced-choice remote viewing (defined in Section IV.-A.) has traditionally provided weak but consistent evidence for a psychoenergetic phenomenon. In the experiments conducted during the Rhine era, over one million trials were conducted with ESP cards (i.e., a one-in-five target system).15 Strong significances were observed, but effect sizes were of the order of 0.02. SECRET Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : SlE T0789R002200470001-6 (S/NF) Table 3 shows the results for 19,675 trials collected at SRI since 1973. The effect size is consistent with the early results of Rhine (d = 0.052). In fiscal years 1986-1988, one of the viewers from group G1 was able to increase the effect size by a factor of 10 (n = 50, p C 0.00015, d = 0.51), meeting Cohen's definition of a strong effect. While there was significant improvement with this viewer during the three years, the number of formal trials was small, and thus interpretation is difficult. (S/NF) SRI recommends that a forced-choice investigation be continued to determine if such strong effects can be observed in other viewers. 15. (U) Conducting an RV Experiment (S/NF) No formal experimentation has been conducted to examine session parameters that enhance remote viewing. SRI does not use any formal induction technique, and the sessions are conducted in a businesslike atmosphere with the viewer and monitor sitting upright and opposite each other across a table. Since the overall effect size (d = 0.385) observed for group GI meets Cohen's definition of a medium-sized effect, these session conditions do not appear to hinder the phenomenon. (S/NF) The first step in investigating countermeasures for remote viewing is to examine whether it is possible to shield against psychoenergetic intrusion, As was discussed in Section V.-C.-10, E&M shielding does not appear to be effective. (S/NF) To provide an effective shield or a useful physical countermeasure, it must be determined whether psychoenergetic phenomena interact with the physical world. In the remote action studies conducted at SRI, most of the studies have not demonstrated any evidence of psychoenergetic interaction with the physical world. (S/NF) Two exceptions are worthy of discussion. In a study conducted in FY 1979 involving random number generators, the significant results were consistent with the historical database of such experiments. Later, it was shown that these results are not due to a physical interaction, but rather due to precognition.14 (S/NF) During FY 1975, a striking anomaly was observed when one of the viewers from group GI attempted to influence a shielded magnetometer. The device was perturbed in a significant manner, but no other experiments were conducted that showed similar non-statistical results. SECRET Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :5lE!c.ET0789R002200470001-6 (S/NF) In an experiment designed to replicate claims made in the People's Republic of China, SRI determined the degree to which pulses from a photomultiplier tube correlated with the quality of remote viewing. While strong evidence for remote viewing was seen, no significant correlations with the tube output were observed. (S/NF) At this time, there is no evidence that psychoenergetic phenomena can be shielded against nor effectively countermeasured. SECRET Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :St 111 789RO02200470001-6 REFERENCES (U) 1. Zimbardo, P., Psychology and Life, 12th Ed., Scott, Foresman and Company, Boston, MA, p. 54 (1988) UNCLASSIFIED. 2. Rosenthal, R., Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research, Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 6, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA (1982) UNCLASSIFIED. 3. Light, R. J. and D. B. Pillemer, Summing Up, The Science of Reviewing Research, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1984) UNCLASSIFIED. 4. Hedges, L. V. and I. O1kin, Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis, Academic Press, Inc., New York, NY (1985) UNCLASSIFIED. 5. Feingold, A., "Matching for Attractiveness in Romantic Partners and Same-Sex Friends: A Meta-Analysis and Theoretical Critique," Psych. Bull., Vol. 104, No. 2, pp. 226-235 (1988) UNCLASSIFIED. 6. Cohen, J., Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, (rev. ed.) Academic Press, New York, NY (1977) UNCLASSIFIED. 7. Targ, E., R. Targ, and O. Lichtarge, "Realtime Clairvoyance: A Study of Remote Viewing Without Feedback," The Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association 28th Annual Convention, Tufts University, Medford, MA, pp. 335-342 (August 1985) UNCLASSIFIED. 8. Honorton, C., D. B. Ferrari, and G. Hansen, "Meta-Analysis of Forced-Choice Precognition Experiments," Psychophysical Research Laboratories' Technical Report (1989) UNCLASSIFIED. 9. May, E. C., R. Targ, and H. E. Puthoff, "Possible EEG Correlates to Remote Stimuli Under Conditions of Sensory Shielding," Proceedings of Electro77 Professional Program of the IEEE, Special Session on the State of the Art in Psychic Research, New York (April 1977) UNCLASSIFIED. 10. May, E. C., W. W. Luke, and T. J. Frivold, "Neurophysiological Correlates to Remote Viewing (U)," SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, Final Report-Objective D, Task 1, Project 1291 (December 1988) SECRET. 11. Private communication. 12. Kogan, I. M., "Is Telepathy Possible?" Radio Eng., Vol. 21, P. 75 (January 1966) UNCLASSIFIED. 13. Puthoff, H. E. and R. Targ, "A Perceptual Channel for Information Transfer Over Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective and Recent Research," Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 64, No, 3, pp. 329-354 (March 1976) UNCLASSIFIED. 14. May, E. C., D. I. Radin, G. S. Hubbard, B. S. Humphrey, and J. M. Utts, "PSI Experiments with Random Number Generators: An Informational Model," SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, Final Report Project 8067 (October 1985) UNCLASSIFIED. 15. Honorton, C., "Error Some Place!," Journal of Communication, pp. 103-116 (Winter 1975) UNCLASSIFIED. SECRET Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/ CI-A IBED2200470001-6 Appendix CODING SHEETS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE META-ANALYSIS (This Appendix is UNCLASSIFIED) UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/UN CgL-"SIf IfiD02200470001-6 Unit Information Page: Coder I. D: Date: Form I.D: Unit Data Unit Name Session Viewer Viewer within Condition Trial Experiment 0: Unit 1. D. Viewer I. D, 1. D. Experienced Novice Monitor I. D, Start Date Date Duration Start Time Time Duration Viewer Location SRI Home: Client: Field: 0: Inten-~ tional . ^ Parameters That Differ Circle or write in all appropriate conditions Statistics Data # of Trials Raw Score Judgement Score I 2 3 4 Z-Score P-Value Effect Size UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RD3Pg6-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000UN lS R 02200470001-6 Page: 1 Coder I. D: Date: Form I.D: Data Title Authors RI Number Proiect Document m Classification Total Number of Peaes Type of Report Final Mid-year Interim Quarterly Progress Monthly Progress 0: Date gf Publication 1 1 1 Rules for Meta-analysis Coding Organization 1. Use one Publication Information sheet for each publication. 2. Use as few Experiment Information sheets as necessary. 3. A Unit is the smallest level at which the most basic hypothesis (usually psi versus no psi) was tested. 4. Results for a hypothesis that cannot be reconstructed from the basic units should be coded as a separate "experiment". The Type should be listed as 0: correlation. 5. For an experiment, staple together all Unit Information sheets with the Experiment Information sheet on top. Clip together all experiment packets from the same publication. Number all of the sheets consecu- tively within a publication. General: 1. Circle (or slash) the appropriate choice. 2. Use [ ] around data to indicate a coder guess or calculation. 3. If Other (0:) then specify. Experiment Parameters. Known Target Parameters and Feedback: 1. Use publication date if Experiment date is unknown. 2. Generally, independent variables are those manipulated by the experimenter. However, this space can also be used for variables that differ unintentionally within an experiment, See Rule #4 under "Unit In- formation". 3. Example: LANL experiment is coded as follows: Experiment Type: RV-Lab: Principal Hypothesis: CNS responds to remote, external stimuli; Independent Variable: Timing of remote stimuli. 4. Targeting Method: Prompting means a sound or gesture (e.g., Gina's bell). 5. Shielding is for viewer, target, or both. 6. Most feedback is actually multi-mode. Code the primary mode. Visual Feedback: Photograph (e.g., National Geographic Magazine). Audio Feedback: Just a sound (e.g., Bell from the teaching ma- chine). Verbal Feedback: Verbal debrief (e.g., You did well. The target was ...). Alit Feedback: Physical visit to the target site (e.g., Outbound experiment). Basic Analysis: 1. Rank R = number of choices for ranking, including target and all decoys. 2. Analysis scale, n = maximum. (e.g., 0 -> 4, n = 4). 3. Judgment means a qualitative estimate (e.g., by-gosh-by-golly); 1 = complete miss, 4 = complete hit. 4. Statistic means z-score or F ratio, etc. Unit Information: I. Unit Name is "Session" for a single RV session, but "Trial" for a single forced choice. In forced choice experiments, there are usually several trials in a single session. 2. Unit I.D. is blank most of the time. Use Ops tag when appropriate. 3. Viewer I.D. is according to our most current list. Therefore, if a known viewer was listed under an old 1.D., note the person's name so the current I.D. can be entered in the data base. 4. Parameters that differ should be filled in only for those cases where "differs" was circled on the Experi- ment Sheet. If the variable was intentionally manipulated, circle Y. 5. P-value should be entered as -1 if it is unknown, to avoid confusion with the default missing value code of 0, which could be a legitimate P-value. UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RQP-U-00789R002200470001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08U . f$5d 6#kD200470001-6 Experiment Information n Sub-experiment or Condition? y ^ U Page: Coder I.D: Date: Form I.D: Experiment Parameters Data Type RV-Lab RV-Ops Forced-Choice Screening Training Search 0: Date Pages Within Document Principal Investigator Number of Subjects Principal Hypothesis Independent Variable(s) not included below; list categories or describe in space provided. t 2. a. a, b. b. Differs" Differs" Experiment Task Known Target Parameters Data Target Name Targeting Method Beacon Abstract Coordinates Prompting Self Unknown Differs* 0: Type Ops Real Site Photograph Alpha/Numeric Person Objects Differs* 0: Distance (km) < 1 < 50 < 5000 > 5000 Unknown Differs* 0: Location Inside Outside Both Differs* 0: When Selected Retrocognition Real Time Precognition Differs* 0: Shielding Type Unknown E&M Cage/Room Water SCIF Differs* 0: Feedback Data Type None Visual Audio Verbal Intermediate Site Unknown Differs* O: When Immediate