1 The Effects of Observation and Intention on Retro

Transcription

1
14402071 TARA KNUDSEN
The Effects of Observation and Intention on Retro-Psychokinesis:
An Examination of the Apparent Contradictions between the Observation Theory
and the Psi-Mediated Instrumental Response Model
Tara P. A. Knudsen
14402071
University of Northampton
2
Declaration
This dissertation is an account of my own work undertaken as a student in
the University of Northampton, Division of Psychology and it includes nothing
which is the outcome of work done in collaboration. No part of this dissertation
has been or is being submitted for any other degree, diploma or other
qualification at this or any other University and specific acknowledgment is made
in
the
text
where
I
have
availed
myself
of
the
work
of
others.
3
Table of Contents
Declaration……………………………………………………………………………………………………
2
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………………
3
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………………..
5
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………….
6
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
7
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………….
8
Early Psi Phenomena…………………………………………………………………………
8
Psi in the Laboratory………………………………………………………………………….
9
Observation Theory……………………………………………………………………………
11
Observation Theory Predictions………………………………………………
12
PMIR Model………………………………………………………………………………………..
13
PMIR Model Predictions…………………………………………………………..
14
OT and PMIR………………………………………………………………………………………
15
Intention………………………………………………………………………………….
15
Observation…………………………………………………………………………….
15
Research Question…………………………………………………………………………….
17
Variables…………………………………………………………………………………………….
17
Hypothesis………………………………………………………………………………………….
17
Methodological Considerations………………………………………………………….
18
Manipulation of Observation…………………………………………………
18
Manipulation of Intention…………………………………………………….…
19
Target Sequences……………………………………………………………………
19
Operator Effects…………………………………………………………………………………
21
Method………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
21
Design………………………………………………………………………………………………..
21
Participants………………………………………………………………………………………..
22
Materials…………………………………………………………………………………………….
22
Programme………………………………………………………………………………
22
Target Sequences……………………………………………………………………
22
Reward Stimuli………………………………………………………………………..
23
Image Ratings…………………………………………………………………………
25
Questionnaires………………………………………………………………………..
25
Procedure…………………………………………………………………………………………..
26
4
Trials………………………………………………………………………………………..
27
Trial Instructions & Trial Order……………………………………………….
27
PK Task……………………………………………………………………………………
28
Contingent Task………………………………………………………………………
28
Questionnaires………………………………………………………………………..
30
Debrief…………………………………………………………………………………….
30
Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………..
30
Ethics………………………………………………………………………………………………….
30
Results………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
32
Observation and Intention Variables…………………………………………………
33
Deviation from TCE……………………………………………………………………………
34
Effects of Observation and Intention………………………………………………..
37
Post-Hoc Pairwise Comparisons………………………………………………………..
38
Independent Variable Combinations…………………………………………………
40
Efficacy of Reward……………………………………………………………………………..
43
Individual Operator Effects……………………………………………………….……….
46
Operator Gender……………………………………………………………………..
46
Belief in Psi………………………………………………………………………………
46
Belief in Psi and Variables……………………………………………………….
47
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………………………
48
Observation Theory……………………………………………………………………………
49
PMIR Model…………………………………………………………………………………………
52
Efficacy of Reward………………………………………………………………………………
53
Psi-Missing………………………………………………………………………………………….
54
Methodological Factors………………………………………………………………………
56
Participant Factors……………………………………………………………………
56
Experimenter Psi………………………………………………………………………
57
Order Effects……………………………………………………………………………
57
Data Source & Target………………………………………………………………
58
Implications & Recommendations……………………………………………………..
59
References…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
60
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
66
List of Appendices………………………………………………………………………………
66
Appendix A. Experiment Programme Screen Captures………….
66
5
Appendix B. Experiment Participant Instructions…………………..
82
Appendix C. IAPS Images……………………………………………………….
90
Appendix D. Questionnaire 1: Sheep-Goat Questionnaire…….
92
Appendix E. Questionnaire 2: Reward-Validity Questionnaire
94
Appendix F. Ethics Approval Cover Letter………………………………
95
Appendix E. Ethics Submission Form………………………………………
97
List of Tables
Table
1
Page
Expected Psi Effect by Observation and Intention According to
17
OT and the PMIR Model…………………………………………………………….
2
Order of Experimental Trials, Variables, and Participant
27
Instructions
3
Changes to Baseline Images in Unconscious and Conscious
31
Intention Conditions
4
Mean (Standard Deviation) [and 95% Confidence Intervals] for
33
Number of Binary Hits by Condition for the Variables
Observation and Intention (N = 39 in all cases)
5
Predictions of the OT and PMIR Model Regarding PK-Score
34
Deviation from TCE
6
Mean PK-Score Deviation from TCE by Condition for the
35
Variables of Observation and Intention (N = 39 in all cases)
7
Skewness and Kurtosis of PK-Score in Observation and
37
Intention Conditions (N = 39 in all cases)
8
Mean [and 95% Confidence Intervals] for PK-Score deviation
38
from TCE according to Intention and Observation (N = 39 in all
cases)
9
Pairwise Comparisons Between Observation and No-observation
39
According to Intention Condition (N = 39 in all cases)
10
Expected PK-Score Deviation from TCE in the Six Experimental
40
Conditions According to OT and the PMIR Model
11
Pairwise comparisons showing PK-Score Deviation from TCE
According to Independent Variable Combinations (N = 39 in all
cases)
41
6
12
Pairwise comparisons showing binary sequence deviation from
43
TCE in control conditions (N = 39 in all cases)
13
Pairwise Comparisons between Neutral, Negative and Positive
44
Image-Ratings (N = 39 in all cases)
14
Pearson’s Correlation Between Enjoyment Ratings, Picture
45
Ratings and Image Ratings (N = 38 in all cases)
15
Pearson’s Correlation Between Measures of Belief in Psi and PK-
48
Score deviation from TCE in Observation and Intention
Conditions
List of Figures
Figure
Page
1
Example Positive IAPS Images
24
2
Example Negative IAPS Images
25
3
Example Neutral IAPS Images
25
4
PK Task-Screen
29
5
Picture-Rating Task Screen
29
6
Cumulative Deviations Showing PK-Score Deviation from TCE
36
Across Trials in Observation and Intention Conditions (N = 39
in all cases)
7
Box Plots Showing Means and 95% Confidence Intervals for
36
PK-Score Deviation from TCE in Observation and Intention
Conditions (N = 39 in all cases)
8
Estimated Marginal Means of PK-Score Deviation from TCE
39
according to Observation and Intention (N = 39 in all cases)
9
Box Plot Showing PK-Score Deviation From TCE According to
42
Order of Trials as Experienced by all Participants (N = 39 in all
cases).
10
Box Plot Showing Means and 95% Confidence Intervals for
45
Negative, Neutral and Positive Image Ratings (N = 39 in all
cases)
11
Distribution of Positive and Negative Images Above Baseline
Across Participants (N = 38)
46
7
Abstract
The Observation Theory (OT) of psi claims that conscious observation and
conscious intention are necessary for psi performance (Walker, 1975).
Meanwhile Stanford’s (1974) PMIR model describes psi as an unconscious
process, claiming that conscious intention and conscious observation are
counterproductive. Experimental evidence has provided support for both theories
(e.g. Schmidt, 1985; Stanford, 1975), however, they give contradictory
predictions regarding the nature of ‘observation’ and ‘intention’ in psi. The
present study used a repeated-measures retro-PK experimental design to test
the predictions of these contradictory theories regarding the effects of
‘observation’ (observation/no-observation) and ‘intention’ (nointention/unconscious-intention/conscious-intention) on PK. 40 participants
completed six PK trials through an automated computer programme. A Factorial
ANOVA showed a significant difference in PK-Score deviation from theoretical
chance expectation (TCE) between observation and no-observation conditions (p
= .001), but no significant difference between intention conditions (p = .300).
Deviation from TCE was significant in the opposite direction to intention in
observation conditions (p = .026) but not in no-observation conditions (p =
.112). The difference between observation and no-observation conditions was
significant in conscious-intention conditions (p = .037) but not in unconsciousintention or no-intention conditions (p > .05).
8
Introduction
The relationship between human consciousness and physical reality has
been a subject of scientific intrigue across multiple genres of investigation
throughout history. “The mystery by which mind can control matter” (Kubrin,
quoted in Jahn & Dunne, 1997, p1) has been debated by countless influential
thinkers from Frances Bacon and Isaac Newton to Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr
(Jahn & Dunne, 1997). This concept may have critical practical implications (e.g.
Braude, 1997; Jahn & Dunne, 1987) and be essential to our understanding of
the nature of reality (e.g. Jahn & Dunne, 1986), and has consequently become
increasingly important in the fields of physics (e.g. Clarke, 2007; Stapp, 2001),
philosophy (e.g. Griffin, 1997), and psychology (e.g. Watt, 2005).
Parapsychology may offer significant theoretical insight in this area through the
investigation of psi phenomena, defined as phenomena not yet explained
according to physical mechanisms. The practical and theoretical implications of
these phenomena lend their investigation potential far-reaching impact.
Early Psi Phenomena
Psi phenomena in the Western world have been labelled according to
distinct categories. These include, but are not limited to: phenomena by which
human consciousness appears to enable the transfer of information non-locally,
non-temporally, and outside of physical1 means (e.g. telepathy; clairvoyance;
precognition); non-physical influence on distant or local physical systems (e.g.
psychokinesis; distance healing); and phenomena in which humanconsciousness appears to exist beyond the physical body (e.g. reincarnation;
near-death experiences; apparitional experiences). Of particular importance in
experimental research have been ‘Extra-sensory perception:’ perception outside
of the senses; ‘precognition:’ perception of future events; ‘telepathy:’ extrasensory perception of another person’s thoughts or mental state; ‘remoteviewing:’ extra-sensory perception of distant targets/places; and psycho-kinesis:
effect of mental intention on physical systems.2
Experiential reports of psi phenomena are found across all cultures
throughout history (e.g. Irwin & Watt, 2007; Heath, 2003; 2011). Historically,
these experiences were often reported through hearsay and written accounts,
1
‘Physical’ is used in this context in the classical physical (as oppose to quantum-‐physical) sense. Descriptions and definitions of these and other psi phenomena may be found in: Irwin & Watt (2007); Rao (2001) 2
9
with events such as hauntings, poltergeists and miraculous healing common in
all parts of society. Despite the universality of such experiences, scientific
scrutiny and empirically testable explanatory models have been historically slow
to emerge (Irwin & Watt, 2007).
Early scientific interest was centred on direct experiences and tended
focus on case reports and surveys. These methods were uncontrolled and open
to fraud and error. In the late 1800s, the Society for Psychical Research (SPR),
began to bring tighter controls and standardisation in the collection and analysis
of case reports. However, conventional explanations continued to explain the
findings in terms of fraud, error, and misperception. Lack of suitable controls in
these methods of investigation made it difficult to support alternative
explanations.
Although attitudes and education have changed greatly since the
hauntings of the ancient séance room, surveys consistently show that
experiences and belief in psi phenomena remain universally high across all
cultures and education levels (e.g. Utts 1991). Although it was difficult for early
methods of investigation such as case reports and surveys to attribute any
validity to these experiences, the movement of this research into the laboratory
in the 20th century enabled significant methodological steps forwards.
Psi in the Laboratory
In the mid-20th century, psi phenomena began to move into experimental
laboratories allowing stricter control over factors such as fraud and error. Psi
phenomena most adaptable to laboratory conditions were favoured, with
research often focusing on ESP, Precognition and PK.
PK in particular, is of direct relevance to the much debated relationship
between consciousness and physical reality; ‘mind’ and ‘matter.’ With its roots in
macro-phenomena such as spoon-bending and levitation (e.g. Heath 2003,
2011), PK is easily adapted on a smaller-scale to controlled experimental
conditions. In the 1940s, the Rhine laboratory began systematic and controlled
laboratory-based testing of PK (Rhine & Rhine, 1943). These early experiments
asked participants to mentally influence the fall of dice from a mechanical diceroller, and appeared to demonstrate human mental influence on the physical
dice (e.g. Rhine 1944; 1945). A meta-analysis of 148 studies with over 2 million
dice throws across the period 1935 to 1987 showed significant results at more
than 19 standard deviations from chance (Radin & Ferrari, 1991). These early
10
experiments appeared to demonstrate a consistent effect non-accountable to
fraud and error.
However, this research was still vulnerable to physical interference and
provided only ‘proof-oriented’ information. In order to develop understanding of
the observed results, ‘process-orientated’ testing of explanatory models was
required via a means with limited opportunity for physical interference. In recent
decades, the introduction of the quantum random number generator (RNG),
pioneered by Helmut Schmidt (1970; 1971) provided the means for fast, reliable
and replicable testing of PK necessary for process-driven research. The work of
Schmidt alongside other researchers began to generate a steady body of
systematic and replicable research in PK (e.g. Schmidt 1971, 1987, 1993). In a
typical RNG experiment, the RNG generates a binary sequence (‘0’s and ‘1s’ at
random). The participant is given instructions to bias the sequence in a
particular direction using their mental intention. The sequence may be presented
to participants as a sequence of ‘0s’ and ‘1s’ or in another manner such as
coloured lights (e.g. Schmidt, 1993a) or a continuous graph (e.g. Jahn & Dunne,
1997). The measured variable is the deviation of the random binary sequence
from theoretical chance expectation (TCE).
RNG-PK experiments allowed a systematic replicable method of testing,
and to date have generated an overall small but significant correlation between
mental intention and RNG deviation from chance. Radin & Nelson’s (1989) metaanalysis of 832 experiments found small deviations from chance (on average
less than 1%), which with consistency across multiple trials gave highly
significant odds against chance of beyond a trillion to one. Perhaps the most
comprehensive RNG-PK database comes from the Princeton Engineering
Anomalies Research (PEAR) Lab, who conducted a twelve-year extensive
programme during which more than 1000 experimental series were carried out
with a range of random devices and protocols (Jahn & Dunne, 1997). Analysis of
the full spectrum of these experimental trials showed a persistent small
deviation from chance (~10–4 bits deviation per bit) which was overall highly
significant at p=3.5 x 10–13.
Laboratory research has delivered similar results in other psi phenomena
such as ESP and precognition (e.g. Honorton, 1985; Honorton & Ferrari, 1989;
Storm, Tressoldi & Di Risio, 2010;). As research progresses it has became
increasingly recognised that the same underlying mechanisms may account for
11
multiple psi phenomena (e.g. Schmidt, 1987; Houtkooper, 2002a) meaning that
investigation of a particular ‘type’ of phenomena has theoretical impact across
the board. PK in particular has been suggested as an underlying mechanism in
multiple psi phenomena (Houtkooper, 2002a), making the understanding of its
mechanisms of broad theoretical significance.
Whilst in early case reports and surveys it was difficult to control for fraud
and error, recent laboratory research has become increasingly controlled and the
anomalous effects, though often challenging to replicate (e.g. Jahn et al., 2000),
continue to persist (e.g. Bosch, Boller & Steinkamp, 2006; Jahn & Dunne, 1987;
1997; Radin 2006a). The persistence of these phenomena under strict
experimental controls suggests the need further investigation. In particular, the
need for explanatory models which can provide insight into the nature of the
observed results.
The establishment and testing of explanatory models requires movement
from proof-orientated to process-orientated research through the experimental
testing of theories which make testable predictions. Two key theories generating
testable hypothesis are the Observational Theory (OT) (Walker, 1975) and PsiMediated Instrumental Response (PMIR) model (Stanford, 1974). These theories
have both received some experimental support (e.g. Stanford & Dwyer, 1975;
Luke, Delanoy & Sherwood, 2008; Schmidt, 1981; 1985), however, there are
direct contradictions in their accounts of psi phenomena. In particular, the
models give contradictory accounts of the variables of ‘intention’ and
‘observation.’ The present study aims to clearly define and directly explore the
contradictions between these two models.
Observation Theory
Walker’s (1975) Observation Theory of psi is built upon the role of
conscious observation in the ‘collapse of the state vector’ in quantum theory.
Quantum theory describes physical reality as a ‘state vector:’ a set of
parameters specifying the state of a physical system (Schmidt, 1984). The state
vector consists of a number of indeterminate superpositioned states. For
example, in the state vector the spin direction of an electron is regarded as a
superposition of both the ‘up’ and ‘down’ state, likewise in an RNG-PK
experiment the outcome of an RNG would be regarded as a superposition of both
the ‘0’ and ‘1’ states. Independent of measurement or observation, the state of a
system cannot be described determinately as existing in one state or the other,
12
but only indeterminately as a superposition of all possible states (Schmidt,
1984).
The world however, is not perceived as indeterminate superpositioned
states, but as singular determinate states. When we observe the output of an
RNG we see a ‘0’ or ‘1:’ the indeterminate superpositioned states have
‘collapsed’ into a single determinate state. This transition, from superpositioned
to singular state, is termed the ‘collapse of the state vector.’ According to the
most prominent Copanhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, this collapse
of the state vector occurs when a system interacts with a conscious observer
(see for example Bierman, 2003; Houtkooper, 2002a; Schmidt, 1982).
In the context of psi, the critical role of observation in the collapse of the
state vector is the crux of OT. Applied to the binary RNG experimental paradigm,
it describes that each binary digit exists in an indeterminate superpositioned
state (both ‘1’ and ‘0’) until it interacts with the observer (for example
participant or experimenter). At the point of observation, the output is collapsed
into one state or another (‘1’ or ‘0’). According to OT, if the observation at this
point is biased, this can affect the probability of the collapse of the state vector
into one state or another. This provides an explanation for the PK mechanism in
that an observer’s biased intentions towards a particular outcome may change
the probability of the state vector collapse in that direction. According to OT, the
two factors of ‘observation’ and ‘bias intention’ are therefore critical in PK.
Observation Theory Predictions
OT provides testable hypothesis as it predicts that previously generated
and recorded events can still be affected by mental intention up until the point of
observation. This can be tested using pre-recorded (as oppose to real-time)
targets in a PK experiment. This experimental paradigm, first adopted by
Schmidt (1976) was termed retro-PK. In Schmidt’s (1976) initial retro-PK
experiments, he pre-recorded sequences from an electronic RNG and played
these sequences to participants as auditory clicks, the rate of which participants
attempted to increase. Schmidt compared pre-recorded with real-time
generation of sequences, and found click rates significantly above chance
expectancy in both conditions, providing support for the OT’s premise that the
point of observation, as oppose to the point of generation, is critical. Additional
support for this premise has been provided by studies which demonstrate that
pre-observation between the point of target generation and the point of mental
13
intention makes events no longer susceptible to mental intention (e.g. Schmidt,
1985). Since Schmidt’s early experiments, a number of retro-PK experiments
have provided a growing body of support. A meta-analysis by Bierman (1998)
analysed 26 retro-PK experiments and found that 18 gave significant results in
the direction of intention, with an overall chance probability of less than 1 in
10,000.
Although OT focuses on the importance of observation, direct comparisons
between ‘observation’ and ‘no-observation’ in PK are rare. Whilst a few
experimenters have found ‘visible’ conditions more conducive to PK than
‘invisible’ conditions (Bierman & Houtkooper, 1975; Houtkooper, 2002b),
research in this direction is sparse. There are similarly few direct comparisons of
‘intention’ with ‘no-intention.’ According to OT, ‘observation’ and ‘intention’ are
critical factors in psi. Both of these factors are described as conscious: the
output must be consciously observed in order to collapse the state vector and
the observer must have conscious intentions in order to bias the probability of
the direction collapse. The nature of these variables of ‘observation’ and
‘intention’ described by OT is in direct contradiction with their description in the
PMIR model.
PMIR Model
Whilst OT emphasises the importance of ‘conscious observation’ and
‘conscious intention’ in psi, the PMIR model (Stanford, 1974) describes psi as an
unconscious and non-intentional process. Stanford’s (1974) PMIR model was
originally derived from anecdotal observations that, most-often, psi experiences
happened non-intentionally and without any conscious form of cognition
(Palmer, 1997). Stanford (1974) noted that psi experiences most often ‘happento’ people, rather than being consciously and intentionally generated.
Stanford (1974) also noted that description of psi experiences often
relates them to the attainment of a positive outcome, or avoidance of a negative
encounter. The PMIR model therefore proposes that psi serves unconsciously as
a goal-oriented or adaptive function for the facilitation of positive or
advantageous outcomes in the environment. This function may serve, for
example, to unconsciously affect behaviour in order to avoid a future threat or
obtain a future reward. In contrast to OT’s emphasis on conscious intention, the
PMIR model not only states that psi is ‘unconscious’ and ‘non-intentional’ but
14
also that conscious intention is counterproductive to psi performance (Stanford,
1974).
PMIR Model Predictions
The PMIR model therefore provides testable predictions in that
participants should perform above chance expectation on an unknown psi task in
order to achieve/avoid an unknown future reward/punishment. Under these
conditions, ‘intention’ is unconscious on all levels: the participant does not know
that the task is a psi task, and the future reward/punishment is also not known
to the participant. There is therefore no conscious intention for the participant to
perform any psi function: any intention must be unconscious. Stanford & Dwyer
(1975) tested this hypothesis using an experiment in which participants
completed a long dull task in one room whilst an RNG was active in a separate
room. Unknown to the participants, bias in the RNG output in a target direction
would release participants early from the dull task. Stanford & Dwyer (1975)
found that 8 participants escaped from the unpleasant task early, as oppose to
the chance expectation of 2.9 (p=0.0069), providing support for the PMIR
model.
A handful of further experiments have adopted a similar paradigm using
unknown future reward/punishments contingent on psi performance to test this
prediction of the PMIR model. Luke et al., (2008) used a forced-choice
precognition experiment which was described to participants as a ‘preparatory’
task in which they did not need to use their psi abilities. Participants were
required to select their preferred image from a group of images, after which the
computer would randomly select one image as the target. Unknown to the
participants, the ‘preparatory’ task was actually a psi task, and their
performance on this task determined whether they received a
reward/punishment in a contingent task. The ‘reward’ was a picture-rating task
with erotic images, whilst the ‘punishment’ was a dull cognitive task. As
predicted by the PMIR model, Luke et al. (2008) found that participants’ hit-rate
in the forced-choice task was significantly above chance.
In support of Stanford’s PMIR model, these experiments seem to suggest
that ‘unconscious intention’ facilitates psi performance, in contradiction with OT’s
emphasis on ‘conscious intention.’ Furthermore, the PMIR model places no
importance on observation of the outcome, which OT sees as critical. These
contradictions are discussed below.
15
OT and PMIR
Whilst both the PMIR model and OT have received some empirical
support, they give contradictory accounts of the nature of ‘intention’ and
‘observation’ in psi.
Intention
According to the PMIR model, psi occurs naturally without representation
in awareness, therefore unconscious intention is psi-conducive, whereas
conscious intention is counterproductive to psi (Stanford, 1974). This concept is
fundamental to the PMIR model, meaning that if conscious intention were found
to be more psi-conducive than unconscious intention, the fundamental principles
of the model would be challenged.
In contrast, OT implies that intention in psi is conscious. OT states that it
is the interaction of a system with consciousness that collapses the state vector
into a determinate state, therefore a bias at would need to be present in the
conscious interaction in order to influence the collapse of the state vector. This
implication however is not absolute, and Observation Theorists have recognised
that unconscious intention may also influence the collapse, though to a lesser
extent (Schmidt, 1984). Schmidt (1984) proposes that there may be a linear
scale whereby the greater the conscious awareness, the more influence is
exerted on the collapse of the state vector. Therefore, whilst a superior effect of
conscious over unconscious intention is predicted, an effect of unconscious
intention is also possible.
On the nature of intention, the two models appear to be in direct
contradiction. OT predicts that conscious intention is more psi-conducive than
unconscious intention, though unconscious intention may still contribute to a
lesser extent. In contrast, the PMIR model predicts that unconscious intention is
more psi-conducive than conscious intention, and describes conscious intention
as counterproductive (though does not rule out that conscious intention could
contribute to a lesser extent under some circumstances). Neither model entirely
rules out either form of intention, although both models make contrasting
predictions over which form of intention is most psi-conducive.
Observation
According to OT, observation is critical in psi. A system’s interaction with
conscious observation causes the collapse of the state vector, at precisely which
point observer intention can affect the probability of the direction of collapse.
16
Observation is therefore seen as critical in this process (Schmidt, 1984). It is
also suggested that observation should be ‘conscious,’ although the level of
alertness involved in a ‘conscious observation’ may vary. Schmidt (1984) uses a
mathematical model to propose that the magnitude of psi may be directly
contingent on the level of alertness. This suggests that conscious observation
should elicit greater PK responses than less conscious observation, however, it
does not rule out that levels of alertness which are not consciously detectable
may also collapse the state vector to an extent (which Schmidt (1984) points
out). Nonetheless, according to OT, observation in some form is necessary for
the collapse of the state vector, and without observation there can be no effect
of intention.
The PMIR model does not make specific predictions regarding whether
observation of the outcome is necessary or conducive to PK. A difference should
be noted between observation of the outcome under the knowledge that it is the
outcome of a psi event, and observation of the outcome where its nature is
unknown. The former, according to the PMIR model may be counterproductive to
psi, as conscious knowledge of the psi event would entail some degree of
conscious intention, which is thought to be counterproductive to psi. The latter,
wherein the psi nature of the observation is not known, would not necessarily be
counterproductive to psi according to the PMIR model. It is not clear however
whether this latter form of observation of the outcome is necessary, or
important in psi.
OT and the PMIR model therefore put different emphasis on observation,
but are not in direct contradiction. OT claims that observation is critical for psi
and would be significantly challenged if it were found that observation were not
necessary. On the other hand, the PMIR model places no importance on
observation, although suggests that conscious observation accompanied by
knowledge of the psi nature of the event would be counterproductive.
Table 1 provides an overview of the contradictions in the described models
over the nature of ‘intention’ and ‘observation.’
Clarification of the contributions of ‘intention’ and ‘observation’ to psi will
clarify the contradictions between these models, which is crucial for the
development of more all encompassing explanatory frameworks.
17
Table 1:
Expected Psi Effect by Observation and Intention According to OT and the PMIR
Model
Observation
Observation
Intention
No
Conscious
Unconscious
Observation
Observation Theory
Necessary
Not Possible
Most important
Possible (to a
lesser extent)
PMIR Model
Possible (to
Possible
a lesser
Possible (to a
Most important
lesser extent)
extent)
Research Question
Using a retro-PK experimental paradigm to address the contradictory
descriptions of the nature of ‘intention’ and ‘observation,’ the present research
question is:
What are the exclusive and interactive effects of intention and observation on
PK?
Variables
Independent Variables:
Intention: Three levels: Conscious-Intention/Unconscious-Intention/NoIntention
Observation: Two levels: Observation/No-Observation
Dependent Variable:
PK-Score deviation from TCE.
Hypothesis:
Observation:
Observation Theory:
-‐
Hypothesis A: PK Score will differ from TCE significantly in observation
conditions, but not in no-observation conditions
PMIR Theory:
-‐
Suggestion C: PK score will differ from TCE significantly more in noobservation, than in observation conditions
Null Hypothesis 1:
18
-‐
There will be a no deviation from TCE in either observation or noobservation conditions
Intention:
PMIR Theory
-‐
Hypothesis B: PK Score will differ from TCE significantly more in
unconscious-intention conditions, than in conscious-intention
conditions.
Observation Theory:
-‐
Suggestion D: In observation conditions, PK score will differ from TCE
more significantly in conscious-intention conditions than in
unconscious-intention conditions.
Null Hypothesis 2:
-‐
There will be no deviation from TCE in unconscious-intention, or
conscious-intention conditions.
Methodological Considerations
In order to address the above hypothesis’, effective manipulation of the
variables of observation and intention was necessary. Due to the elusive nature
of PK, careful consideration was also required to maximise PK-Score in order to
enable analysis of the effects of independent variables.
Manipulation of Observation
A scattering of previous studies have manipulated observation in PK trials.
Bierman & Houtkooper (1975) independently programmed observation and noobservation sequences in order that no-observation sequences did not enter the
visual display. In another method, adopted by Radin & Utts (1989), sequences
were displayed but physically removed from sight using a screen-cover. The
former method of independent programming for observation and no-observation
trials presents concerns as it is not clear whether programming differences may
affect sensitive random sequences. On the other hand visibly removing the
display from sight, as in the latter method, may allow the transmission of
information in no-observation trials through minor sensory leakage. The latter
concern however, should not affect the testing of the observation variable
according to OT, which states that information must be absorbed with significant
attention to constitute a conscious observation (Schmidt, 1984), therefore small
amounts of sensory leakage in no-observation conditions should not allow
observation to the same extent as in the observation trials. In the interests of
19
avoiding programming differences, external manipulation of observation was
therefore favoured in the present study, through the use of a blindfold.
Manipulation of Intention
Manipulation of intention has been historically unstandardized and
difficult to control (Hitchman et al., 2012a). Previous research has used
incentives such as the viewing of erotic images (Luke et al., 2008), allowing the
participants to leave the experiment early (Stanford, 1975), and the avoidance
of dull cognitive tasks (Luke et al., 2008). However, Hitchman et al., (2012a),
note that reliable testing of the PMIR model requires a precise and carefully
controlled method of reward, which cannot be achieved through the above ‘allor-nothing’ incentives.
In order to allow standardisation and control in the manipulation of
intention, the present study therefore used a contingent picture-rating task
using images selected from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS)
database. The IAPS images are an extensive set of emotionally-evocative colour
images developed by Lang & Greenwald (1993) which have been normatively
rated by independent judges for their valence and arousal (on a scale of 1 to
10). This provides a controllable, measurable and independently verified means
of manipulating emotion in a controlled and consistent manner (Lang, Bradley &
Cuthbert, 2005). Manipulation of the numbers of positive/negative/neutral
valenced IAPS images in the contingent picture-rating task would therefore allow
a graded ‘reward’ or ‘punishment’ contingent on PK-Score. This directly
addresses the predictions of the PMIR model in that PK performance should
unconsciously serve to obtain future reward (positive images) and avoid future
threat (negative images).
Whereas some studies testing the PMIR model have administered the
‘reward’ at the end of all trials (e.g. Luke et al., 2008), meta-analysis’ of psi
studies have suggested that immediate feedback produces greater effect (e.g.
Honorton & Ferrari, 1989) and immediate feedback is argued to maximise
reinforcement, thus enhancing performance (Tart, 1977; Hitchman et al.,
2012b). The present study was therefore designed to include contingent reward
tasks after each trial.
Target Sequences
It is generally cited that influence of human intention is limited to ‘true
random’ systems, in which random sequences are generated from a physical
20
system rather than a computer algorithm (e.g. Jahn & Dunne, 1997). The
chosen data-source for the present study was therefore a ‘true’ random
generator, which derives random numbers from small variations in the amplitude
of atmospheric noise (Haahr, 2014). In order to prevent any outside influences
such as heat or proximity of the participant interfering with analysis of the
independent variables, a retro-PK experimental paradigm was used, in which all
target sequences were pre-recorded prior to the experiments.
The presentation of the target sequences to participants can be
considered to enhance PK-Score, which was important in the present study in
order to enable the analysis of the effect of the independent variables. It has
been frequently suggested that participants are likely to perform better on tasks
with which they psychologically connect (e.g. Houtkooper, 2006; Jahn & Dunne,
1997). The choice if target presentation in the present study therefore aimed to
maximise psychological validity and personal connection. Description of the
target sequence as ‘human arousal rates’ was deemed to best satisfy these
considerations by attributing psychologically stimulating and human meaning to
the target. In addition, PK has also been shown to improve when the target is
anthropomorphised (Jahn & Dunne, 1985). It was also important that
participants did not have pre-conceived preference for a certain direction of
influence as this may skew their performance in the direction of their personal
favour as oppose to the given direction of intention. Stock-prices, for example,
may create natural tendency towards ‘upwards’ influence, whereas arousal rates
were deemed less susceptible to pre-conceived preference.
Furthermore, the number of binary digits in each trial (Jahn & Dunne,
1997) and the speed of target presentation (Bierman, 2003) have been
suggested as important considerations when aiming to maximise PK-Score.
Following the guidelines of Jahn & Dunne’s (1997) PEAR research, trials in the
present study each trial consisted of 80 data points, with each datapoint
comprising of 100 binary digits (8,000 digits per trial). As testing of the
independent variables required ‘conscious perception’ of the datapoints, it was
important that the speed of their presentation gave sufficient time for conscious
perception (Bierman, 2003). The speed of one data-point per 1000ms was
judged more than sufficient based on Libet’s (Libet et al, 1979) lower bound of
300-500ms for information to enter consciousness (this duration was also
adopted by Bierman (2003) on the same basis).
21
Operator Effects
Alongside the experimental variables, it is acknowledged that particular
personality and demographic factors may influence the dependent variable.
Many PK studies show individual operator effects, with some individuals
contributing more significantly than others. Analysis of the distributions of
individual operator scores is therefore useful to establish whether individual
operators are contributing disproportionately to the results. Demographics such
as age and gender (e.g. Jahn & Dunne, 1987; 1997) may also affect PK
performance. This demographic information was collected from participants in
the present study in order to establish whether results were related to these
factors. ‘Belief-in-psi,’ also appears to be heavily related to PK performance (e.g.
Lawrence, 1993; Schmeidler & McConnell, 1958). A growing body of research
has demonstrated a difference in psi performance between believers (‘sheep’)
and disbelievers (‘goats’) (Schmeidler & McConnell, 1958), in that believers
perform better at psi tasks than disbelievers (e.g. Lawrence, 1993; Walsh &
Moddel, 2007). Furthermore, disbelievers can be prone to achieving the opposite
of the desired effect ‘psi missing,’ (Schmeider, 1952; Varvoglis, 2009),
presenting a potential confound to the independent variable of intention. Due to
the potential impact of belief-in-psi on the relationship between the independent
variables and PK performance, data on participant’s belief-in-psi was collected.
Method
Design:
The study employed an experimental repeated-measures design in which
participants completed six PK trials through an automated computer programme.
The dependent variable was the deviation of the number of binary ‘hits’ achieved
by participants in PK trials (PK-Score) from TCE. Two independent variables of
‘intention’ and ‘observation’ were manipulated in order to observe their effect on
the dependent variable. Intention was manipulated through use of a contingent
reward: participants obtaining PK-Score in the direction of intention viewed
proportionately increasing numbers of positive images in the subsequent picture
rating task, whilst those who scoring against the direction of intention viewed
proportionately increasing numbers of negative images. Observation was
manipulated using a blindfold in ‘no observation’ conditions. Six experimental
trials examined the combinations of three levels of ‘intention’ (no
22
intention/unconscious intention/conscious intention) and two levels of
‘observation’ (observation/no observation).
Information on participants’ belief-in-psi was collected using the SheepGoat Questionnaire (see Thalbourne & Delin, 1993). Demographic information on
age and gender was also recorded. In order to verify the effectiveness of the
contingent reward task, participants’ ratings on the picture-rating task were
recorded and participants also rated their overall enjoyment of the contingent
tasks on a three-point questionnaire (Questionnaire 2) designed for this
purpose.
Participants:
Participants were 21 males and 18 females aged 20 to 81 (mean age
34.4; SD = 14.7) recruited through opportunity sampling from friends, family
and colleagues of the experimenter. As the experiment was a within-groups
design, all participants completed all six experimental conditions. Participants
volunteered following an emailed or verbal introduction to the study and were
not offered any incentives.
Materials:
Programme:
A database program was developed specifically for the study by an
independent programmer. The programme was a fully automated means of
presenting participants with the target sequences, contingent reward tasks, and
questionnaires as detailed below (see also Annex A-B):
Target Sequences:
Target sequences of binary digits were pre-recorded from an online
provider of true random numbers from atmospheric noise (Random.org, 2014).
This random number source is subject to regular randomness tests as
recommended by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and has
been found to pass at the consistency expected from a true random source
(Foley, 2001; Kenny 2005). Control sequences equivalent to the experimental
sequences were recorded and analysed as a control group.
The target sequences consisted of random binary digits ‘0’s and ‘1’s, the
length of which was designed to fit approximately within the parameters used by
the PEAR programme (Jahn & Dunne, 1987; 1997). The smallest units, ‘runs,’
were sequences of 100 binary digits. Each trial consisted of 80 runs. For
presentation in the trial, each run was collapsed into a single data-point: a single
23
number between 0 and 100 giving the number of ‘hits’ in the run. Each trial of
80 runs therefore consisted of 8,000 binary digits collapsed into 80 data-points.
The programme calculated the total trial score as the number of ‘hits’ per trial
out of 8,000 (TCE = 4,000).
As the experiment was a retro-PK design, all sequences were prerecorded before the experimental trials and input directly into the programme
database without observation. It was ensured that no user accessed the
programme database between the time the sequences were generated and the
completion of all experimental trials.
Target sequences were presented by the computer programme as a
moving graph displaying a line moving horizontally from left to right, similar to
the PEAR standard output used in the PEAR lab research (Jahn & Dunne, 1987;
1997). This was described to participants as a graph depicting human arousal
levels. The eighty data-points in each trial were presented in succession at a rate
of one data-point per second moving from left to right across the target graph.
As each data-point consisted of 100 binary digits, the centre line of the graph
was set at 50 (chance), meaning scores exactly on chance would appear on the
midline; scores above chance, above the midline; and scores below chance,
below the midline. The graph line moved smoothly from data-point to datapoint, with the flow of the eighty data-points appearing as a slow continuous
movement (see Figure 4).
Reward stimuli: International Affective Picture System (IAPS):
Three pools of images from the IAPS database (Lang & Greenwald, 1993)
were selected (see Annex C):
Positive Images: 36 positive images were selected based on valence. After
erotic images had been removed for ethical reasons, the 36 highest
valence images were selected. As there was no correlation between
ratings of valence and arousal for the high valence images, arousal was
not considered. Valence ratings for this selection (scored out of 10)
ranged from 8.16 to 8.74, mean 8.34 (SD range 0.75 to 1.60, Mean
1.14). Arousal ratings (scored out of 10) ranged from 3.67 to 7.02 (SD
range 2.02 to 2.97, Mean 2.56). Example positive images included babies
and animals (see Figure 1).
Negative Images: 24 Negative Images were selected based on valence
and arousal. Initially, the lowest 48 valenced images were selected. As
24
there was a correlation between low valence images and arousal, these
images were further ranked by arousal and the highest 24 images for
arousal were selected. For ethical reasons, erotic images and any images
deemed too extreme by the experimenter were removed. Valence ratings
for this section (scored out of 10) ranged from 1.15 to 1.59, Mean 1.35
(SD range 0.44 to 1.07, Mean 0.83). Arousal ratings (scored out of 10)
ranged from 6.76 to 7.77, Mean 7.23 (SD range 1.66 to 2.49, Mean 2.05).
Example negative images included mutilated body parts and dead bodies
(see Figure 2).
Neutral images: 33 neutral images were selected based on arousal and
valence: Initially, the 132 lowest arousal images were selected. These
images were ranked for valence and the middle 33 images were selected.
For consistency, images containing human subjects were removed, as
were erotic images. Arousal ratings for this section (scored out of 10)
ranged from 1.71 to 2.76, Mean 2.48 (SD range 1.23 to 2.20, Mean 1.82).
Valence ratings (scored out of 10) ranged from 4.59 to 5.24, Mean 4.92
(SD range 0.60 to 1.62, Mean 1.03), which was just marginally below the
median valence for the full data set (5.31). Most neutral images were
neutral objects such as umbrellas, cabinets etc (see Figure 3).
Figure 1
Example Positive IAPS Images
25
Figure 2
Example Negative IAPS Images
Figure 3
Example Neutral IAPS Images
Image Ratings:
In the contingent picture-rating task, participant’s liking-ratings of the
IAPs images on a scale of 1 to 7 were recorded.
Questionnaires:
The following questionnaires were administered:
Sheep-Goat Questionnaire: A version of the Australian Sheep-Goat
questionnaire (Thalbourne & Delin, 1993) was used as a measure of
participant’s belief-in-psi. Each item on the 16 item questionnaire was
26
scored either true or false, with an additional scale asking participants to
rate their confidence in their response to each item on a scale of 1 to 5.
Reward Validity Questionnaire: A simple three-item questionnaire was
devised by the experimenter as a means of gathering information on
participants’ enjoyment of the contingent reward tasks. Each item was
measured on a 1 to 5 scale.
Procedure:
One week prior the commencement of the experimental period, 480 trial
sequences each consisting of 8,000 binary digits were recorded from the online
random number portal. 240 of these sequences were used in experimental trials
whilst the remaining 240 sequences formed an equivalent control group. These
random number sequences were input directly into the programme database
upon generation and were at no point observed.
Experimental trials took place in a range of locations at the convenience of
participants, primarily the experimenter’s office and private homes where
necessary. Locations were as private as possible, generally allowing the
participant to be alone in the room during the experiment.
Before the experimental trials, participants were briefed in as much detail
as the design allowed. As the study involved a level of deception, fully informed
consent could not be given at this point. Participants were informed that the
study would measure the effects of observation on PK and the experimental
procedure was described fully as it would be experienced by the participant.
Participants were aware of the ‘no-intention’ and ‘intention’ trials, however the
‘unconscious-intention’ trials were described to participants as ‘no-intention’
trials. This was judged as necessary in order to preserve the validity of the
‘unconscious-intention’ conditions. During the briefing, participants were warned
of the potential disturbance they may encounter through viewing the negative
IAPS images. Before giving consent, participants were informed of their right to
withdraw at any time and encouraged to ask questions.
Following the initial brief, the computer programme began with a short
brief and consent form. After consent had been obtained, participants were
instructed to follow the programme instructions and the experimenter left the
room, but remained available nearby.
27
Trials
The computer programme guided participants through the six
experimental trials. Each trial consisted of a PK-task followed by a reward task.
Trial Instructions & Trial Order
Prior to each trial, participants were given on-screen instructions
describing whether to apply intention, the direction of intention where required,
and whether or not to observe the output. The six trials, testing each
combination of intention and observation, were completed in a set order for all
participants. Table 2 shows the order of trials, the measured variables and the
participant instructions:
Table 2:
Order of Experimental Trials, Variables, and Participant Instructions
Condition
Intention
Observation
Instructions
Reward
Contingent?
Condition A
No Intention
Observation
Do not use Intention
No
(preliminary trial)
Observe the output
Condition B
No Intention
No
Observation
(preliminary trial)
No
Wear blindfold
Condition C
Unconscious
Observation
Intention
Yes
(preliminary trial)
Observe the output
Condition D
Unconscious
No
Intention
Observation
(preliminary trial)
Yes
Wear blindfold
Condition E
Conscious
Observation
Intention
Use Intention
Yes
(experimental trial)
Observe the output
Condition F
Conscious
No
Use Intention
Intention
Observation
(experimental trial)
Wear blindfold
Yes
28
Order of the conditions was not varied as it was necessary to have nonintentional tasks before intentional tasks in order to create a logical progression
from ‘preparatory’ to ‘real’ trials. It was also necessary to reserve the intention
trials for last in order that participants were not aware of the direction of
intention during the no-intention and unconscious-intention trials. In the
interests of consistency and clarity for participants, the order of observation
trials was also not varied.
In ‘observation’ conditions, participants were instructed to observe the
output whilst in ‘no-observation’ conditions, participants wore a blindfold and
closed their eyes, placing their heads in their hands. In order that participants
could recognise when no-observation trials were completed, an auditory sound
was played at the end of the trial alerting participants to remove their blindfold.
In order to maintain consistency, this sound was played at the end of all trials
(both observation and no-observation).
In the ‘no-intention’ (A & B) and ‘unconscious-intention’ (C & D)
conditions, participants were instructed to concentrate on the output but not to
attempt to influence it. At this point, participants had not been instructed of any
direction of intention. During the ‘conscious intention’ conditions (E & F),
participants were instructed to influence the output in a given direction. Only at
this point was the direction of intention given.
PK Task
Following the trial instructions, participants began the PK trial by clicking
the mouse. Each trial lasted for eighty seconds during which eighty data-points
were displayed appearing one after another, creating continuous moving line
across the graph. Figure 4 shows the participant’s view of the PK trials.
Contingent Task
Following each PK trial, participants completed a contingent picture-rating
task, in which they were instructed to rate twelve images on a scale of 1 to 7.
Participants were presented with instructions, followed by twelve consecutive
images in the format of the example in Figure 5. Participants were allowed to
skip any images they did not wish to rate and were reminded that they were free
to withdraw at any point.
In the no-intention conditions (A & B), the images were not contingent on
the participants’ trial score and participants were informed that the images were
not contingent. In the unconscious-intention conditions, the images were
29
Figure 4:
PK Task-Screen
Figure 5:
Picture-Rating Task Screen
30
contingent on PK-Score, however participants were informed that the images
were not contingent (thus ensuring that the intention was ‘unconscious’). In the
conscious-intention conditions, the images were contingent on PK-Score and the
participants were informed of this contingency, creating conscious intention.
As a baseline, for the no-intention conditions and for PK-Scores at chance,
11 neutral images and 1 negative image were shown. In the unconsciousintention and conscious-intention conditions (C, D, E, F), where the reward task
was contingent on PK performance, deviation of PK-Score from TCE in the
direction of intention was ‘rewarded’ with increasing positive images in-place of
baseline images, whilst deviation opposite to the direction of intention was
‘punished’ with increasing negative images in-place of baseline images. Table 3
shows the number of positive/negative images shown in place of baseline
images.
Questionnaires
At the end of all six experimental trials, participants completed the SheepGoat Questionnaire (Questionnaire 1, Annex D) and Reward Validity
Questionnaire (Questionnaire 2, Annex E). Questionnaires were completed
electronically and participants were reminded that they could omit questions if
uncomfortable and that they were free to withdraw.
Debrief
Following the questionnaires, participants were thanked for their
participation and instructed to alert the experimenter. Participants were then
given a full debrief in which the experiment including all deception was fully
explained.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was carried out using IBM SPSS Statistics 20.0. Each trial
consisted of 8,000 binary digits. For each participant, these binary digits were
collapsed into a single data point giving the number of binary ‘hits’ in the
direction of intention (between 0 and 8,000, TCE = 4,000). Across the 40
participants, 40 data points for each condition were collected for the analysis,
which was conducted as per the results section.
Ethics
The project complied with the British Psychological Society’s Code of
Ethics and Conduct (BPS, 2009). Ethical approval was received from the
31
Table 3:
Changes to Baseline Images in Unconscious and Conscious Intention Conditions
TRIAL SCORE / 8000
CHANGE TO BASELINE IMAGES
≤3559
+ 8 negative
3560-3659
+ 7 negative
3660-3759
+ 6 negative
3760-3809
+ 5 negative
3810-3859
+ 4 negative
3860-3909
+ 3 negative
3910-3939
+ 2 negative
3940-3969
+ 1 negative
3970-4030
Baseline
4040-4069
+ 1 positive
4070-4099
+ 2 positive
4100-4129
+ 3 positive
4130-4159
+ 4 positive
4160-4209
+ 5 positive
4210-4259
+ 6 positive
4260-4309
+ 7 positive
4310-4359
+ 8 positive
4360-4409
+ 9 positive
4410-4509
+ 10 positive
4510-4609
+ 11 positive
4600+
+ 12 positive
*Baseline: 12 Images: 11 Neutral Images & 1 Negative.
**Positive/Negative images will replace baseline images
University of Northampton Psychology Ethics Panel prior to undertaking
the research (see Appendix F-G).
Partially-informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the
study as the experimental design did not allow fully informed consent to be
given at this point. The experimental procedure was described fully as it would
be experienced by the participant, however the participants were not informed of
the nature of the unconscious intention trials, as this would invalidate the
32
measurement of ‘unconscious’ intention. Prior to the experiment, a consent form
was completed and participants were informed of their right to withdraw.
All data was given anonymously and no personal information was stored
with experimental data. Data was kept securely in electronic form and reported
only in aggregate form. Individual feedback was not given.
Following the experiment, participants were fully debriefed, including
information on the deception. The main ethical concerns were possible feelings
of deception and insecurity with nature of the subject matter. A thorough debrief
with opportunity to ask questions was purposed to address these concerns. An
additional concern was possible distress caused by negative IAPs images. To
mitigate this, participants were able to skip any image-ratings and the study
design ensured that overall more neutral than negative images were displayed.
Results
Forty participants each completed all six experimental trials. Data for one
participant was removed after failure to follow instructions3 leaving thirty-nine
sets of six trials for the analysis (21 males, 18 females; age-range: 20-81; mean
age: 34.4). Thirty-nine sets of six pools of equivalent data, recorded alongside
the trial data, were kept unobserved as control data. Participants’ responses to
Questionnaire 1, measuring belief-in-psi, were largely complete (94.4%). Fifteen
of thirty-nine participants omitted one or more questionnaire items. Where
omitted items amounted to 12.5% or less, a mean substitution was applied;
where over 12.5%, the questionnaire responses were removed from the
analysis. Participant responses on Questionnaire 2, measuring enjoyment of the
contingent task, were largely complete (96.6%). Two out of thirty-nine
participants omitted one or more question. Where only one question was
omitted, a mean substitution was applied; where more than one question was
omitted
the
questionnaire
responses
were
removed
from
the
analysis.
Participant’s picture ratings were recorded and were overall largely complete
(99.9%). Sixteen out of thirty-nine participants omitted one or more picture
ratings across the six trials. Where the omitted ratings amounted to less than
10% in a given trial, a mean substitution was applied; where over 10%, the
responses were removed from the analysis.
3
The Participant disclosed after the experiment that she had not worn the blindfold for any trials, nor read the instruction pages, and had ‘guessed’ the direction of intention. 33
There was a significant difference in PK-Score deviation from TCE between
observation and no-observation conditions (p = .001) Observation conditions
deviated significantly from chance in the direction opposite to intention (p =
.026). This deviation was significant in conscious-intention conditions (p = .037),
but not in unconscious-intention or no-intention conditions (p > .05). There was
no significant difference between PK-Score and TCE in no-observation conditions
(p = .112). There was no significant difference in PK-Score deviation from TCE
between intention conditions (p = .300), with no significant difference in PKScore
between
conscious-intention,
unconscious-intention,
no-intention
conditions, and TCE (p > .05).
Observation and Intention Variables
In each of the six experimental conditions, 8,000 binary digits were
recorded per participant giving a total of 312,000 binary digits per condition. A
further six ‘control conditions’ each containing 312,000 binary digits were
recorded as a control group. The number of digits in the direction of intention
(‘hits’) were calculated per condition. The probability of achieving a hit was .5,
therefore the TCE was 4,000. Table 4 shows the breakdown of the Mean results
according to the independent variables of observation and intention.
Table 4:
Mean (Standard Deviation) [and 95% Confidence Intervals] for Number of
Binary Hits by Condition for the Variables Observation and Intention (N = 39 in
all cases)
No Intention
Observation
No
Observation
Intention
Totals
Unconscious
Conscious
Observation
Intention
Intention
Totals
3994
3995
3984
3991
(35.92)
(48.08)
(49.72)
(24.37)
[3982,4005]
[3980,4011]
[3967,4000]
[3983,3999]
4008
4007
4006
4007
(47.03)
(47.60)
(41.75)
(27.44)
[3993,4023]
[3992,4023]
[3993,4022]
[3998,4016]
4001
4001
3995
(29.52)
(34.06)
(32.21)
[3991,4011]
[3990,4012]
[3984,4005]
34
Deviation from TCE
The Observation Theory (OT) and PMIR model made different predictions
over how the variables of observation and intention would contribute to PKScore deviation from TCE, as summarised in Table 5.
Table 5:
Predictions of the OT and PMIR Model Regarding PK-Score Deviation from TCE
Observation
Observation Theory
PMIR Model
Hypothesis A:
Suggestion D:
PK-Score will differ from TCE
In observation conditions, PK-
significantly in observation
score will differ from TCE more
conditions, but not in no-
significantly in conscious-
observation conditions.
intention conditions than in
unconscious-intention
conditions.
Intention
Suggestion C:
Hypothesis B:
significantly more in no-
more significantly in
observation, than in
observation conditions.
conditions, than in consciousintention conditions.
To provisionally examine these predictions, pairwise comparisons were
carried out between each level of observation/intention and TCE. There was a
significant difference between observation conditions and TCE in the direction
opposite to intention (t(38) = -2.324, p = .026), however the effect-size was
small (d = -.372). There was no significant difference between no-observation
conditions and TCE (t(38) = 1.626, p = .112). There was no significant
difference between either the unconscious-intention conditions (t(38) = .235, p
= .815) nor the conscious-intention conditions (t(38) = -.977, p = .325) and
TCE. As predicted by both models, the conditions with no-intention did not
deviate significantly from TCE (t(38) = .206, p = .838). The results provisionally
support Hypothesis A and Null Hypothesis 2. Table 6 shows Mean PK-Score
deviation from TCE in observation and intention conditions.
35
Table 6:
Mean PK-Score Deviation from TCE According to the Variables of Observation
and Intention (N = 39 in all cases)
Condition
Mean
Std.
St Err
Diff
Dev
Mean
CI95
t
TCE
Lower
Observation
Sig. p,
Effect
two-
Size
tailed
(d)
Upper
-9.07
24.37
3.90
-16.97
-1.17
-2.32
.026*
-.372
7.15
27.44
4.39
-1.75
16.04
1.63
.112
.260
No Intention
0.97
29.52
4.73
-8.60
10.54
.206
.838
.033
Unconscious
1.28
34.06
5.45
-9.76
12.32
.235
.815
.376
5.14
32.21
5.16
-15.58
5.30
-.997
.325
-.160
No
Observation
Intention
Conscious
Intention
Notes: CI95 = 95% confidence intervals
*significant at p<.05 level, two-tailed
Cumulative Deviation Graphs were plotted for observation and intention
as a visual representation of the accumulating total deviations from TCE (see
Figure 6). Figure 6 illustrates the above results, showing an apparent visible
deviation between observation and no-observation conditions and no apparent
visible deviation between intention conditions.
Box plots were produced to show the distributions of the observation and
intention conditions (see Figure 7). The box plots show that whilst a significant
difference in the means can be seen between observation and no-observation
conditions, the confidence intervals for these conditions are widely overlapping,
as are all confidence intervals for the intention conditions. This indicates that the
differences may not be generalizable to a wider sample.
Analysis of skewness and kurtosis, as shown in Table 7, shows that the
data was largely normal, with the conscious-intention condition showing the
most prominent positive skew suggesting a slightly asymmetric distribution.
However, with a value less than 1 this is not considered substantial. The kurtosis
36
Figure 6:
Cumulative Deviations Showing PK-Score Deviation from TCE Across Trials in
Cumulative Deviations in Observation
Cumulative Deviations in Intention
Conditions
Conditions
400.00 Cumulative Deviation from TCE (y) across trials (x) Cumulative Deviation from TCE (y) across trials (x) Observation and Intention Conditions (N = 39 in all cases)
200.00 150.00 300.00 100.00 200.00 100.00 0.00 -‐100.00 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 -‐200.00 50.00 0.00 -‐50.00 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 -‐100.00 -‐150.00 -‐300.00 -‐200.00 -‐400.00 -‐250.00 -‐500.00 Observation OBS CUM DIFF No-‐Observation NO OBS CUM DUFF No Intention NO INT CUM DIFF Unconscious ntention UNC INT CUM DIIFF Conscious Intention CONS INT CUM DIFF Figure 7:
Box Plots Showing Means and 95% Confidence Intervals for PK-Score Deviation
from TCE in Observation and Intention Conditions (N = 39 in all cases)
Box Plot showing Mean Deviation from TCE
TCE in Observation Conditions
in Intention Conditions
Mean Deviation from TCE Mean Deviation from TCE Box Plot showing Mean Deviation from
Observation No Observation Note: black lines show 95% confidence intervals
No Intention Unconscious Intention Conscious Intention 37
figures show that the observation condition has the flattest distribution whilst
the conscious-intention condition had the most peaked distribution, although
neither were substantial. The fact that skewness and kurtosis were not
significant suggests that any significant deviations from TCE are likely to be due
to a broad mean shift as opposed to only a few additional hits.
Table 7:
Skewness and Kurtosis of PK-Score in Observation and Intention Conditions (N =
39 in all cases)
Intention Condition
Variance
Skewness
Statistic
Kurtosis
Std. Error
Statistic
Std.
Error
Observation
593
.016
.378
-1.007
.741
No Observation
752
.236
.378
-.243
.741
No Intention
871
.250
.378
-.703
.741
Unconscious
1159
.319
.378
-.237
.741
1037
.999
.378
.873
.741
Intention
Conscious Intention
Effects of Observation and Intention
To investigate the independent and interactive effects of observation and
intention on PK-Score deviation from TCE, a repeated measures ANOVA was
conducted. The analysis showed a significant effect of observation on PK-Score,
F(1, 38) = 13.431, p = .001, in the opposite direction to intention, meaning that
PK-Score was significantly below TCE in observation conditions, but not in noobservation conditions. There was no significant effect of intention on PK-Score,
F(1, 38) = 1.103, p = .300. There was no significant interaction between the
variables of observation and intention, F(1, 38) = .327, p = .571. Table 8 shows
the means of PK-Score deviation from TCE for the variables of observation and
intention.
Figure 8 gives a visual representation of the difference between
observation and intention variables. As shown, there is a negative mean
deviation from TCE in all observation conditions and a positive mean deviation in
38
Table 8:
Mean [and 95% Confidence Intervals] for PK-Score deviation from TCE according
to Intention and Observation (N = 39 in all cases)
Means
Observation
Intention
Observation
No Intention
No Observation
-6.205
8.154
CI95 [-17.849, 5.439]
CI95 [-7.091, 23.399]
-4.513
7.077
CI95 [-20.100, 11.074]
CI95 [-8.354, 22.508]
-16.487
6.205
CI95 [-32.606, -.369]
CI95 [-7.328, 19.738]
Unconscious Intention
Conscious Intention
Note: CI95 = 95% Confidence Intervals
The dependent variable is PK-Score deviation from TCE
all no-observation conditions. These differences are small, but consistent across
all trials, providing support for Hypothesis A. There is no clear difference
between intention conditions, which suggests that Hypothesis B is not supported
whilst Null Hypothesis 2 is supported. There is no apparent interaction between
the variables of intention and observation.
Post-Hoc Pairwise Comparisons
Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were carried out between observation and
no-observation for the three intention conditions. Results of the pairwise
comparisons are shown in Table 9. In the conscious-intention condition, there
was a significant difference in PK-Score deviation from TCE between observation
and no-observation conditions (t(38) = -2.166, p = .037). This provides support
for Suggestion D, however the effect-size was small (d = -.347). There was no
significant difference in PK-Score deviation from TCE between observation and
no-observation conditions in no-intention (t(38) = -1.512, p = .139) nor
unconscious-intention (t(38) = -1.077, p = .288) conditions.
Overall, a significant effect of observation is suggested, localized to
conscious-intention conditions. This provides support for Hypothesis A and
39
Figure 8:
Estimated Marginal Means of PK-Score Deviation from TCE according to
Observation and Intention (N = 39 in all cases)
Observation Conditions Observation Estimated Marginal Means No Observation No Intention Unconscious Intention Conscious Intention Intention Conditions Table 9:
Pairwise Comparisons Between Observation and No-observation According to
Intention Condition (N = 39 in all cases)
Intention
Mean
Std.
Std.
Condition
Diff
Dev
Err
TCE
CI95
t
p
Effect
Size
Mean
diff
TCE
No
-14.36
59.31
9.50
-33.59
4.87
-1.512
.139
-.242
-11.59
67.21
10.76
-33.38
10.20
-1.077
.288
-.172
-22.69
65.43
10.48
-43.90
-1.48
-2.166
.037
-.347
Intention
Unconscious
Intention
Conscious
Intention
Note: CI95 = 95% Confidence Intervals
*significant at p<.05 level, two-tailed
*
40
Suggestion D of OT (see Table 5) and does not provide support for Hypothesis B
and Suggestion C of the PMIR model. It should be noted that no corrections for
multiple analysis have been made at this point.
Independent Variable Combinations
Each of the six conditions comprised a different combination of intention
and observation. OT and the PMIR model make differing suggestions about how
the combination of these variables will affect PK-Score deviation from TCE. Table
10 shows the predictions of OT and PMIR model regarding expected PK-Score
deviation from TCE according to the six variable combinations.
Table 10:
Expected PK-Score Deviation from TCE in the Six Experimental Conditions
According to OT and the PMIR Model
Variables
Deviation from chance according to:
Observation Theory
PMIR Model
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Observation and
Possible
Yes
Unconscious-intention
(less than condition E)
Observation and NoIntention (Condition A)
No-observation and Nointention (Condition B)
(Condition C)
No-observation and
No
Yes
Yes
Possible
Unconscious-intention
(Condition D)
Observation and
Conscious-intention
(less than conditions
(Condition E)
C&D)
No-observation and
No
Possible
conscious-intention
(less than conditions
(Condition F)
C&D)
To examine the above predictions, one-sample comparisons were carried
out between the six experimental conditions and TCE. The results in Table 11
41
show that, before correction for multiple comparisons, the combination of
observation and conscious-intention (Condition E) differed significantly from
TCE, t(38)= -2.071, p = .045, although the effect-size was small (d = -.332). No
significant difference was found between other conditions (A, B, C, D and F) and
TCE (p > .05).
Table 11:
Pairwise comparisons showing PK-Score Deviation from TCE According to
Independent Variable Combinations (N = 39 in all cases)
Condition
N
Mean
Std
SE of
Confidence
Diff
Dev
Mean
Intervals
TCE
t
Diff
P
Effect
two-
Size
tailed
TCE
Condition A
39
-6.21
35.92
5.75
-5.44
17.85
-1.079
.287
-.173
39
8.15
47.03
7.53
-23.40
7.09
1.083
.286
.173
39
-4.51
48.08
7.70
-11.07
20.10
-.586
.561
-.094
39
7.08
47.60
7.62
-22.51
8.35
.928
.359
.149
39
-
49.72
7.96
0.37
32.61
-2.071
.045
-.332
41.75
6.69
19.74
7.33
.928
.359
.149
Obs, No-Int
Condition B
No-Obs,
No-Int
Condition C
Obs, UncInt
Condition D
No-Obs,
Unc-Int
Condition E
Obs, Con-
16.49
Int
*
Condition F
39
6.21
No-Obs,
Con-Int
*significant at P < .05 level (two-tailed)
’Obs’ = Observation, ‘Int’ = Intention, ‘Unc’ = Unconscious, ‘Con’ = Conscious
Table 11 also represents the linear order of trials for all participants (A to
F), which appears to display no pattern of order-effects. A visual representation
42
of the order of trials is shown in Figure 9, which also shows no apparent ordereffects.
Figure 9
Box Plot Showing PK-Score Deviation from TCE According to Order of Trials as
Mean Deviation from TCE Experienced by all Participants (N = 39 in all cases).
Trial A Trial B Trial C Trial D Trial E Trial F Trial by order Note: black lines show 95% confidence intervals
In the interest of caution over the interpretation of non-corrected results,
additional pairwise comparisons were carried out between six control trials of
equivalent data and TCE. As shown in Table 12, one of the control trials, Control
3, showed a significant deviation from TCE (p = .045), suggesting that
interpretation of experimental Condition E as significant should be viewed with
caution. No significant difference was found between Control Trials 1, 2, 4, 5 and
6 and TCE (p > .05).
43
Table 12:
Pairwise Comparisons Showing Binary Sequence Deviation from TCE in Control
Conditions (N = 39 in all cases)
Condition
N
Mean
Std
SE of
Confidence
Diff
Dev
Mean
Intervals
TCE
t
Diff
P
Effect
two-
Size
tailed
TCE
Control 1
39
3.77
39.39
6.31
-16.54
9.00
.598
.554
.096
Control 2
39
-1.21
42.79
6.85
-12.67
15.08
-.176
.861
-.028
Control 3
39
-
32.82
5.53
0.26
21.54
-2.074
.045
10.90*
-.332
Control 4
39
0.26
49.86
7.98
-16.42
15.91
.032
.975
.005
Control 5
39
8.74
54.39
8.71
-26.38
8.89
1.004
.322
.161
Control 6
39
3.13
43.78
7.01
-17.32
11.06
.446
.658
.071
*significant at P < .05 level (two-tailed)
It should be noted that no corrections for multiple comparisons have been
made thus-far. If corrections were made for multiple comparisons, both
Condition E and Control 3 would be non-significant.
Efficacy of Reward
The variable of observation was achieved in a standardized manner
through the wearing of a blindfold or not. The variable of intention was
manipulated through a reward task. During the ‘reward task,’ increasing
numbers of positive images were displayed as a positive reward for deviation
from TCE in the direction of intention, whilst increasing numbers of negative
images were shown as a negative reward for deviation from TCE in the opposite
direction. The baseline images for little-no deviation from TCE were taken from a
neutral pool of images.
In order to validate the efficacy of the reward task, participants’ picture
ratings for neutral, positive and negative images were recorded. A Repeated
Measures ANOVA was carried out to examine the difference in image-ratings
between positive, negative and neutral images. There was a significant
difference between the image-ratings for all three categories of images, F(2, 38)
= 149.89, p < .001. Positive images were rated the highest (N = 21, M = 5.73,
44
SD = 1.04), negative images the lowest (N = 39, M = 1.41, SD = 0.60) and
neutral images between the two (N = 39, M = 3.83, SD = 0.69), suggesting that
manipulation of the images effectively manipulated participant’s liking of the
images. Table 13 shows the pairwise comparisons between the three image
categories.
Table 13:
Pairwise Comparisons between Neutral, Negative and Positive Image-Ratings (N
= 39 in Neutral and Negative cases, N = 21 in Positive Cases)
Image Pool
Image Pool
Mean
Std.
P (two-
95% Confidence
Diff
Error
tailed
Intervals
Lower
Neutral
Negative
Positive
Upper
Negative
2.49
.176
.000
2.13
2.87
Positive
-1.89
.281
.000
-2.48
-1.31
Neutral
-2.50
.176
.000
-2.87
-2.13
Positive
-4.39
.290
.000
-5.00
-3.79
Neutral
1.89
.281
.000
1.31
2.48
Negative
4.39
.290
.000
3.79
5.00
The box plot in Figure 10 shows that the confidence intervals for the
negative image-ratings did not overlap with the neutral or positive ratings,
suggesting a clear and generalisable difference between these categories. Whilst
there was some overlap between the neutral and positive ratings, their means
are visibly separate.
A measure of participant’s enjoyment ratings of the contingent tasks
overall was recorded in Questionnaire 2. Responses to the three questions on
Questionnaire 2 were averaged in order to give an overall ‘enjoyment rating.’
Pearson correlations were calculated between participant’s enjoyment rating,
average image-ratings, and the averaged valence of the images viewed. As
shown in Table 14, there was a non-significant correlation of r = .127 (p = .449)
between enjoyment ratings of the reward task and the valence of images shown.
There was also a negative but non-significant correlation between enjoyment
ratings and average image-ratings (r = -.200 p = .229). Whilst the pairwise
comparisons above showed a significant difference between image-ratings in the
45
Figure 10:
Box Plot Showing Means and 95% Confidence Intervals for Negative, Neutral and
Positive Image Ratings (N = 39 in Neutral and Negative cases, N = 21 in Positive
Cases)
Neutral Images Negative Images Positive Images Image Category Note: black lines show 95% confidence intervals
three categories, the Correlation results suggest that a relationship between
image-rating and enjoyment should not be assumed.
Table 14:
Pearson’s Correlation Between Enjoyment Ratings, Picture Ratings and Image
Ratings (N = 38 in all cases)
Image Valence
Reward task
Image Rating
Pearson Correlation
.127
-.200
Sig. (2-tailed)
.449
.229
38
38
enjoyment Rating
N
46
Individual Operator Effects
To explore whether individual operators may show superior PK ability (e.g.
Jahn & Dunne, 1997), the distribution of positive and negative images above
baseline viewed by each individual participant was calculated. Figure 11 shows
the number of participants who viewed positive and negative images over
baseline images. The distribution is seen to be normal, with no individual
participants performing excessively in either direction.
Figure 11:
Distribution of Positive and Negative Images Above Baseline Across Participants (N = 38)
30 No. Images 25 20 15 No. Participants Series1 10 5 0 Negative Images above Baseline Positive Images above Baseline Operator Gender
To explore whether operator gender was related to PK-Score (e.g. Jahn &
Dunne, 1997), an independent t- test compared PK-Score deviation from TCE
between male and female participants. No significant difference was found, t(38)
= -.611, p = .545.
Belief in Psi
Exploratory tests were conducted to ascertain whether ‘belief-in-psi’ was
related to PK-Score deviation from TCE. Participants’ belief-in-psi was measured
using a sheep-goat questionnaire (see Thalbourne & Delin, 1993) (Questionnaire
1). Each response on the sixteen-item questionnaire was answered true (scored
+1) or false (scored -1) yielding an average belief-in-psi score between -1 and
+1. 10 participants had a positive average score whilst 26 participants had a
negative average score and 2 participants averaged 0. Each true/false rating
47
was accompanied by a confidence rating of the response on a scale of 1 to 5 (1
being very unconfident, 5 being very confident). The average Mean confidence
rating was high (Mean = 4.02, N = 35) suggesting that participants were
generally confident about their beliefs.
Belief in Psi and Variables
Pearson’s correlations were used to examine whether belief-in-psi and
confidence in belief-in-psi were related to PK-Score deviation from TCE. The
confidence measure for each item was first multiplied by the item response
(positive or negative) in order that the confidence rating reflected the positive or
negative direction of the belief-in-psi. When PK-Score deviation from TCE was
collapsed across all conditions, there was a non-significant correlation between
belief-in-psi and PK-Score deviation from TCE, r(38) = -.051, p = .759 (twotailed). There was also a non-significant correlation between confidence in beliefin-psi and PK-Score deviation from TCE, r(34) = -.034, p = -.849 (two-tailed).
When
correlations
were
calculated
according
to
the
variables
of
observation and intention, a significant negative correlation was observed
between belief-in-psi and PK-Score deviation from TCE in conscious-intention
conditions, r(38) = -.347, p = .033 (two-tailed), suggesting that where
conscious intention is applied, greater belief-in-psi is related to more negative
deviation from TCE. Correlations between belief-in-psi and PK-Score deviation
from TCE in observation, no-observation, unconscious-intention and no-intention
conditions were all non-significant (p > .05). There were no significant
correlations between confidence in belief-in-psi and any intention/observation
variables (p > .05), although the correlation between confidence in belief-in-psi
and PK-Score deviation from TCE in the conscious-intention conditions was
approaching significance in the negative direction, r = -.314, p = .070.
Table 15 details the correlations between the belief-in-psi measures and
observation/intention conditions.
One question included in the belief-in-psi questionnaire directly tested the
content of the present study with the statement:
‘I believe in the existence of psychokinesis (or ‘PK’), that is, the direct influence
of mind on a physical system, without the mediation of any known physical
energy.’
37 participants answered this question with a total of 14 ‘True’ responses and 23
‘False responses.’ There was no difference in PK-Score deviation from
48
Table 15:
Pearson’s Correlation between Measures of Belief-in-Psi and PK-Score deviation
from TCE in Observation and Intention Conditions
Belief in Psi*
Confidence in
Belief in
Psi**
Observation
Pearson’s correlation
-.021
.040
Sig. (p) (two-tailed)
.899
.821
38
34
-.151
-.174
.365
.325
38
34
-.084
-.064
.616
.721
38
34
N
No Observation
N
No Intention
N
Unconscious
.198
.192
Intention
.234
.276
38
34
N
Conscious
-.347
-.314
Intention
.033
.070
38
34
N
* Mean score of responses on Questionnaire 1, where -1 was a negative response and
+1 was a positive response.
**Mean confidence rating on Questionnaire 1 multiplied by the mean belief-in-psi score.
TCE in any observation/intention conditions between those who had answered
‘True’ and those who had answered ‘False.’ F(1) = .008, p = .928, suggesting
that belief in PK itself was not related to PK-Score deviation from TCE.
Discussion
The present study aimed to investigate the effect of ‘intention’, and
‘observation’ on PK in order to examine apparent contradictions between the OT
and the PMIR model’s descriptions of these variables. OT claims that in PK,
observation is essential and conscious intention most conducive, whereas the
PMIR model claims that unconscious intention is most conducive and observation
could be counterproductive.
49
On the back of these contrasting models, two main hypotheses predicted
that (A) PK-Score would differ from TCE significantly in observation conditions,
but not significantly in no-observation conditions (OT) and (B) PK-Score would
differ from TCE significantly more in unconscious-intention conditions than in
conscious-intention conditions (PMIR). Meanwhile two further suggestions of
these models provided contradictory standpoints in that (C) PK-Score would
differ from TCE significantly more in no-observation, than in observation
conditions (PMIR Model) and (D) In observation conditions, PK-Score will differ
from TCE significantly more in conscious-intention than in unconscious-intention
conditions (OT). A retro-PK experimental paradigm was used in which the
dependent variable was the deviation of random number sequences (PK-Score)
from TCE. The effects of two levels of observation (observation/no-observation)
and three levels of intention (no-intention/unconscious-intention/consciousintention) were investigated in a 2x3 repeated-measures design. The results in
relation to OT and the PMIR model are discussed below.
Observation Theory
The results overall provided support for OT. Hypothesis A, predicted by
OT, stated that PK-Score would differ from TCE significantly in observation
conditions, but not significantly in no-observation conditions. The results showed
a significant difference in PK-Score deviation from TCE between observation and
no-observation conditions (p = .001). In observation conditions, PK-Score
deviation from TCE was significant in the opposite direction to intention (p =
.026), whilst PK-Scores in no-observation conditions did not differ significantly
from TCE (p = .112). Hypothesis A was therefore supported. Suggestion D,
made by OT, stated that (in observation conditions) PK-Score would deviate
from TCE significantly more in conscious-intention than in unconscious-intention
conditions. In support of Suggestion D, the results showed a significant
difference In PK-Score deviation from TCE between observation and noobservation in conscious intention conditions (p = .037) but not in no-intention
or unconscious-intention conditions (P > .05).
The results regarding observation were consistent with OT, according to
which observation is necessary for the collapse of the state vector. At the point
of observation, conscious intention may influence the direction of the collapse,
allowing conscious influence (PK). Without observation, there can be no collapse
of the state vector and therefore no conscious influence (Schmidt, 1984). The
50
results are also consistent with a scattering of previous research which, though
not directly purposed to test OT, has showed greater deviation from TCE in
visible (observed) vs. invisible (un-observed) conditions (Bierman & Houtkooper,
1975; Houtkooper 2002b). Furthermore, OT implies a linear relationship
between level of conscious alertness and collapse of the state vector (Schmidt,
1984). It is expected therefore that in the observation conditions, conscious
intention should have a greater effect on the direction of the collapse of the
state vector than unconscious intention. This is also consistent with the observed
results.
OT has significant theoretical implications, as it supports a description of
psi as a fundamentally quantum-mechanical process. The fact that observation
was associated with significant PK-Score is consistent with the OTs premise that
there is no absolute physical reality independent of human observation
(Schmidt, 1981), a concept which has profound philosophical and scientific
ramifications. This concept was supported by present study in that the targets
were pre-recorded, yet still susceptible to the effects of intention. In line with
OT, this suggests that it is the point of observation, rather than generation,
which is critical (Houtkooper, 2002a). Whereas an alternative explanation, that
PK works backwards in time, has been proposed (e.g. Radin, 2006b), this
alternative does not account for the suggested relationship between observation
and PK.
However, it is a significant theoretical leap from the suggested effect of
observation on PK to the physical suggestions of OT. Although the results are
consistent with OT, they do not provide direct support for its theoretical premise
that the difference between observed and un-observed trials is due to the effect
of observation on the collapse of the state vector. It is possible that the effect of
observation can be accounted for on a psychological, as oppose to physical
basis. Houtkooper (2002b) for example, suggests that the difference between
visible and invisible trials may be due to a balancing effect between interspersed
trials, where subjects psychologically compensate in visible trials for perceived
lack of performance in invisible trials. Another suggestion is that cognitive
interference may be greater in no-observation than in observation trials, having
a counterproductive effect on PK (Houtkooper, 2002b). Feedback, which may
facilitate psi by allowing participants to learn and recognize how to be successful
51
(Tart, 1977), may also be a key factor accounting partially, or even entirely, for
the effect of observation.
It is also difficult to specify what constitutes an observation (Houtkooper,
2002a). Observation of the reward task could be classed as indirect observation,
meaning that observation inevitably also occurred in no-observation trials. The
results may therefore suggest a difference between direct and indirect
observation, as oppose to between observation and no-observation. The noobservation trial data was also observed at the point of data-consolidation by the
experimenter. It is therefore also plausible according to OT that the collapse of
the state vector in un-observed trials occurred at the point of data consolidation,
and may have been influenced by experimenter psi. The only conceivable means
of creating true un-observed trials in this design may be for trial data in the noobservation trials to be observed by an independent observer between the trial
and reward task, which according to OT should ‘lock in’ the data, making it
resistant to the effects of future intention (Schmidt, 1981).
Although the results are consistent with OT, caution must be taken in their
interpretation due to the small effect-sizes. Despite the significance of the
deviation of the observation trials from TCE (p = .026), the effect-size (d =
.372) was small in comparison with reported effect-sizes in similar studies (e.g.
Bosch et al., 2006; Radin & Nelson, 1989), therefore although significant, the
observed effect in support of Hypothesis A is very weak. It is noted that in these
circumstances, the p < .05 significance level, which was not introduced to be
used
with
millions
of
data
points,
may
be
misleading
(Caroll,
2013).
Furthermore, the confidence intervals of the observation and no-observation
conditions were greatly overlapping, suggesting that the estimated differences
are unstable and may not be representative in a wider sample.
It is also noted that no corrections for multiple comparisons were carried
out, and it could therefore be expected that one or two comparisons may deviate
from TCE by chance alone. On the other hand, it is noted that the deviations
from TCE appeared to follow a theoretically grounded pattern as oppose to
appearing random. It is suggested that more specific research questions could
be generated in future replications, allowing a more focused set of comparisons.
Overall, the results provide support for OT, but must be judged cautiously
based on the small effect-sizes in the current sample. Future research should
ask more specific questions of observation and attempt to separate the physical
52
act from its psychological correlates in order to create a direct link between the
effect of observation and the theoretical underpinnings of OT.
PMIR Model
Overall, the PMIR model was not supported. Hypothesis B, predicted by
the PMIR model, stated that PK-Score would differ from TCE significantly more in
conditions
than
in
conscious-intention
conditions.
A
repeated measures ANOVA also showed no difference in PK-Score deviation from
TCE between intention conditions (p = .300). Neither conscious-intention
conditions (p = .325), nor unconscious-intention conditions (p = .815), differed
significantly from TCE. Hypothesis B was therefore not supported. Suggestion C
of the PMIR model, suggested that PK-Score deviation from TCE would be more
significant in no-observation, than in observation conditions. This suggestion was
also not supported. Deviation from TCE was significant in observation conditions
(p = .026), but not in no-observation conditions (p = .112). Furthermore, this
difference was significant in conscious-intention conditions (p = .037) but not in
unconscious-intention conditions (p = .288), providing evidence in opposition to
the main prediction.
The PMIR model expects unconscious intention to be psi-conducive and
conscious intention to be counterproductive to psi (Stanford, 1974). The fact
that that the effects of observation on PK were localised to conscious-intention
conditions
suggests
that
conscious
intention
is
more
conducive
to
PK,
contradicting the PMIR model. It could be argued that as the significant deviation
in conscious-intention/observation conditions was in the opposite direction to
intention, conscious intention was actively counterproductive to PK. However,
whatever the direction, PK was more active in conscious-intention than unconscious intention conditions, which is in fundamentally contradiction with the
PMIR model’s main premise.
No PK effect was found in unconscious-intention conditions. Although psi
in unconscious intention conditions has been demonstrated in other research
(e.g. Hitchman, Roe & Sherwood, 2012a; Stanford & Dwyer, 1975) it has also
failed to be replicated (e.g. Hitchman, Roe & Sherwood, 2012b). Failure of the
current research to demonstrate this effect may be due to difficulty in generating
and standardising unconscious intention. It can be questioned as to whether the
unconscious-intention trials were a valid test of the PMIR model due to the fact
that there were constant references within the briefing to the psi nature of the
53
experiment. This may have acted as cognitive priming in the no-intention
conditions, which may have been counterproductive to psi (e.g. Hithcman et al.,
2012b). Hitchman et al. (2012b) conclude that it may be impossible to avoid
cognitive priming, as if ESP is genuine then participants would always have
access to information on the nature of the trials.
Furthermore, it can be critically difficult to control and manipulate
direction of intention. The present study, following previous research by
Hitchman et al., (2012b), used a reward task of IAPS images to manipulate
intention. However, the efficacy and validity of this reward task can be
questioned, having direct impact on interpretation of the intention variable. The
efficacy of the reward task is discussed below.
Efficacy of Reward
The variable of intention, and therefore the testing of the PMIR model,
hinged upon the efficacy of the reward task in creating intention. In the reward
task presented after each trial, participants were asked to rate 12 IAPS images,
the valence of which depended on their PK-Score in the previous trial. With
greater deviation from TCE in the direction of intention, increasing numbers of
positive images replaced neutral baselines images, whilst with deviation opposed
to the direction of intention, increasing numbers of negative images replaced
baseline images. In order to validate the efficacy of this reward task,
participant’s picture ratings in neutral, negative and positive images were
compared. A significant difference was found between image-ratings in these
three categories, with negative images rated lowest (M = 1.41), positive highest
(M = 5.73), and neutral midway (M = 3.83) (p < .001), suggesting that
participant’s liking of the images was successfully manipulated.
However, there was a non-significant correlation between participant’s
image-ratings and ratings of enjoyment of the reward task (p = .229),
suggesting that participants image ‘liking’ did not affect task enjoyment. It is
possible that factors other than ‘liking’ mediated enjoyment and therefore
intention. Arousal, for example, may have been a dominant factor in
manipulating intention. In the present study, negative images had the highest
arousal (Range 6.74 to 7.77; M = 7.00) whereas positive images had lower and
more wide-ranging arousal (Range 3.33 to 7.02; M = 4.73). If participants were
seeking arousal as opposed ‘liking,’ they would be inclined to select more
negative images. Many participants described the reward task as ‘boring,’ which
54
may have made arousal-seeking an attractive incentive. Indeed, escape from a
‘boring’ task has been previously found to be a powerful form of incentive
(Hitchman et al., 2012a; Stanford & Dwyer, 1975). It is therefore possible that
the intention variable was not effectively manipulated as intended. A
consideration for future research may be the matching of arousal between
negative and positive images, for example through use of erotic images (e.g.
Luke, et al., 2008), which were omitted from the present image pools for ethical
reasons.
Differences in intention between participants may also be caused by
individual differences in image preference. Informal comments by participants
showed great variation in their responses to the IAPS images: a surgeon and a
fireman were both interested by negative mutilation images, whilst others found
these disturbing; meanwhile a photographer based his liking on image-quality as
oppose to content. Gathering of information prior to the experiment regarding
participant preferences could be used to tailor images to personal preferences
(e.g. Luke at al., 2008), however this is time-consuming and difficult to
standardise. An alternative may be the use of reward stimuli which are less open
to subjective interpretation, such as abrasive noises (e.g. May & Spottiswoode,
2003).
Based on these results, we cannot be confident that the intention variable
was manipulated as intended, which advises caution in our conclusions regarding
the PMIR model.
Overall, the results, although suggestive, provide support for the OT and
no support for the PMIR model. It is notable that OT was supported in terms of
its predictions for both observation (Hypothesis A) and intention (Suggestion D)
whereas the PMIR model was not supported in its predictions for either
observation (Suggestion C) or intention (Hypothesis B). Caution is advised due
to the small effect-sizes in support of OT and the suggestion that manipulation
of intention was not effective. It is also worth noting that the observed results,
although significant, were in the opposite direction to TCE. This effect, termed
‘psi-missing,’ is discussed below.
Psi-Missing
The significant deviation from TCE in observation conditions was in the
opposite direction to intention. This effect, termed ‘psi-missing,’ has been
frequently cited in psi research (e.g. Steilberg, 1975), with a recent meta-
55
analysis finding that 23 out of 106 significant PK studies were significant in the
opposite direction to intention (Bosch et al., 2006).
Psi-missing is frequently linked to ‘belief-in-psi,’ whereby non-believers
are more likely to display psi-missing than believers (e.g. Schmeider, 1952;
Varvoglis, 2009). Data collected in the present study showed a significant
negative correlation between belief-in-psi and PK-Score deviation from TCE in
conscious-intention conditions (p = .033), though not in other conditions (p >
.05). The results suggest that where conscious intention was applied, greater
belief-in-psi was associated with more psi-missing. This is inconsistent with
previous research in which non-believers have exhibited greater psi-missing
(e.g. Schmeider, 1952; Varvoglis, 2009). However, although belief-in-psi in the
present study was not associated with greater PK-Score in the direction of
intention, it was associated with greater PK-Score in the direction of significance
(psi-missing). It is possible therefore that if participants were ‘arousal-seeking’
as oppose to ‘valence-seeking,’ belief-in-psi could be associated with this
alternative ‘direction of intention.’
Psi-missing may also be related to the intensity of bits in a trial. It has
been suggested that bit intensity in the hundreds yields in the direction of
intention whilst bit intensity in the millions yields in the opposite direction (e.g.
Dobyns, Dunne, Jahn & Nelson, 2004; Ibison, 1998). The 8,000 trial bits in the
present study does not fit into either the categories of ‘hundreds’ or ‘millions’
and is consistent within the range of bits suggested by Jahn & Dunne (1997) as
conducive to PK research. However it could be possible that the overall low
deviation from TCE in the present study was influenced by an inability for
subjects to properly perceive the large number of bits in a small space of time
(Dobyns at al., 2004). Of further possibility, is that the psi-missing was caused
by a genuine dysfunction in the psi process. Dobyns et al (2004) suggest that
this may occur in times of processing overload, which may account for why psimissing was only observed in observation trials.
The fact that deviation from TCE was in the opposite direction to intention
creates the need for caution in interpretation of the intention variable. It is also
recognised that whilst the study attempted to isolate the effects of intention and
observation, a range of other variables may have interacted with these
variables, as discussed below.
56
Methodological Issues
As is characteristic of the sensitive nature of psi research, additional
variables are difficult to control and may have contributed to the small effectsizes and/or interacted with the experimental variables.
Participant Factors
Participants in the present study were not pre-selected and did not claim
any unusual abilities. It has been consistently suggested that pre-selected
participants who may be regularly practised in psi present stronger results (e.g.
Bierman & Houtkooper, 1975). Furthermore, effect-sizes in the present study
may have been weakened by general non-belief-in-psi (Lawrence, 1993) and a
general lack of enthusiasm (Hitchman et al., 2012b). As the present study was
process-oriented, it would have benefitted from stronger overall psi performance
through use of pre-selected participants, which would allow more reliable
assessment of the effects of observation and intention.
Future research would benefit from standardisation of cognitive styles and
psychological conditions across participants and trials. From informal feedback
from participants, cognitive style is suggested to have varied across participants
and across trials in the present study. This may have interacted with the
measured variables, for example, participants may have applied more direct
effort in no-observation trials due to inability to perceive feedback, which has
been shown to reduce psi-performance (Houtkooper, 2006). In a similar
manner, psychological conditions such as feelings of relaxation (Steilberg 1975;
Houtkooper, 2006) stress (Schmidt, 1997) and resonance (Houtkooper, 2006)
may have varied across trials. For example, following their first exposure to
negative images participants’ may have felt distress, which has been associated
with psi-missing Schmidt (1997). Mental fatigue (e.g. Bosch et al., 2006), loss of
enthusiasm (Hitchman, et al., 2012b) and the effect of anticipating future
negative images (Bierman, 2002) may have all caused change to psychological
conditions across the course of the experiment. No linear decline-effects were
noted across trials, however the above factors may have been active non-lineally
in interaction with the measured variables. Key factors, such as enthusiasm
(Hitchman et al., 2012b) and resonance (Houtkooper, 2006), for example, may
have been reduced in no-observation trials, accounting for the lower deviation
from TCE.
57
The assumption in the current research design was that the effects of
observation and intention would be consistent across participants, however this
may not be the case. Significant variation in psi performance of individual
operators has been frequently noted in PK research with individual operators
often shown to produce independent, self-consistent patterns (e.g. Jahn &
Dunne, 1987; 1997). In the present study, although the overall trend showed
significant psi-missing in observation conditions, there were individual
participants who did not show this pattern. It is plausible to suggest that the
interaction between observation and intention may show different patterns
across different participants, something which could be investigated by repeating
multiple trials with the same participants. If there was found to be variation in
the effects of observation and intention between participants, then compilation
of data across multiple-operators would be illogical.
Experimenter psi
As the experimenter was aware of the research aims, experimenter effects
may have occurred in terms of psychological influence on participants, or direct
influence on the data through experimenter psi (e.g. Palmer, 1997; Roe, Davey
& Stevens, 2006). A double-blind experiment could be used in future research to
reduce this possibility, although due to the apparent non-local, non-temporal
nature of psi, it is difficult to fully rule out experimenter effects. Experimenter
effects may also be much more complex than a simple increase or decrease in
performance on particular trials. Different experimenters have been shown to
present different patterns when undertaking the same research (Houtkooper,
2006), much in the way that individual participants present signature patterns
(Jahn & Dunne, 1987). Different experimenters undertaking the present
research may therefore observe different patterns of effects regarding intention
and observation.
Order Effects
Whereas in repeated-measures designs, order of the trials should be
counterbalanced to exclude the possibility of order effects (Clark-Carter, 2010,
cited in Hitchman et al., 2012b), counterbalancing was not adopted in the
present study, as it was necessary for participants to undertake non-intentional
trials before intentional trials. Decline effects due to factors such as mental
fatigue (Bosch et al., 2006) or improvement effects due to practice (Tart, 1977)
were not apparent, however order effects may not be linear (e.g. Dunne et al.,
58
1994). As in the present study observation conditions were ordered every other
trial, it cannot be ruled out that there may be unrecognised psychological
reasons for alternating success in PK-performance.
Data Source & Target
As the current study used pre-recorded sequences, it is highly implausible
that environmental factors, such as heat and magnetic fields, could have
affected the random sequences during the experiment. As the data-source was
true-random (atmospheric noise), and undergoes regular randomness tests
(Kenny, 2005) it is also improbable that intrinsic patterns in the datasource
caused the observed effects. It should be acknowledged that although the
datasource was ‘true-random,’ one must be careful when drawing conclusions
based only on the behaviour of random systems, which are themselves little
understood (Haahr, 2014). As Park (2000) suggests, it may be that there is no
such thing as ‘true-randomness,’ infact lack of ‘true’ randomness may only
become apparent after many trials. Some such questions about the nature of
randomness may be contingent on fundamental beliefs about how the universe
works (Haahr, 2014), and whilst are highly relevant to interpretation of this form
of data, are also mathematically beyond the discussions of most research in
parapsychology, which may in future present a serious challenge to the
conclusions drawn.
(Andrews, 2001)
The difficulties related to these variables are symptomatic of the
methodological challenges in psi research, and may contribute towards the
frequently cited lack of reproducibility and small effect-sizes (e.g. Bosch et al.,
59
2006; Jahn & Dunne, 1987). Control of confounding variables and greater
specificity in research questions may lead to the improved effect-sizes required
for productive process-oriented research.
Implications & Recommendations
Although as in the present study, effect-sizes in psi research are often
small, as Bosch et al., (2006) point out, the effect (if genuine), no matter how
small, is of huge fundamental importance. In a practical sense, an alignment of
human intention with random systems has hugely significant implications in
areas such as technology and engineering, such as in micro-electronic
information-processing systems in which random unobserved bits may be
sensitive to human intention (e.g. Jahn & Dunne, 1987). Significant
technological opportunities may be possible if the PK mechanism becomes
reliably demonstrated and fully understood, including advancements in mental
control over computing systems and long-distance communication. It has also
been noted that these effects have important implications for health,
immunology and healing, in which many seed processes are inherently random
and may be sensitive to human intention (e.g. Braude, 2000).
On a theoretical level, the understanding of PK and psi can have
significant implications in fundamental physics (e.g. Clarke, 2010; Stapp, 2001),
with OT, if correct, requiring changes to current models in quantum and classical
physics (Schmidt, 1993b). Future research in this area should address
increasingly specific questions, with the aim of clearly testing explanatory
models and replicating process-oriented results. As process-oriented research
strengthens explanatory models in this area, the age-old mystery of the
relationship between human consciousness and physical reality may become
gradually clearer.
Word Count: 14,999
60
References
Andrews, S. (2001). Dilbert: Tour of accounting [Cartoon]. Retrieved
June 9, 2014, from http://www.random.org/analysis/
Bem, D. J. (2003). Precognitive habituation: Replicable evidence for a
process of anomalous cognition. Proceedings of Presented Papers:
The Parapsychological Association 46th Annual Convention, 6–20.
Bierman, D. J. (1998). Do psi phenomena suggest radical dualism? In R.
Hameroff, A. W. Kaszniak, & A. C. Scott (Eds.), Toward a science of
consciousness II (pp. 709-714). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bierman, D. J. (2002). Anomalous anticipatory activation preceding
exposure of emotional and neutral pictures. Proceedings of
Presented Papers: The Parapsychological Association 45th Annual
Convention, 25-36.
Bierman, D. J. (2003). Does consciousness collapse the wave-packet?
Mind and Matter, 1 (1), 45-57.
Bierman, D. J. & Houtkooper, M. (1975). Exploratory PK tests with a
programmable high speed random number generator. European Journal of
Parapsychology, 1 (1), 3-14.
Bosch, H. Boller, E. & Steinkamp, F. (2006). Examining psychokinesis:
The interaction of human intention with random number generators. A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 497-523.
British Psychological Society. (2009). Code of Ethics and Conduct.
Leicester: British Psychological Society.
Braud, W. (1997). Parapsychology and spirituality: Implications and
intimations. In C. T. Tart (Ed.), Body, mind, spirit (pp. 135-152).
Virginia: Hampton Roads Publishing Company, Inc.
Braude, W. (2000). Wellness implications of retroactive influence:
exploring an outrageous hypothesis. Alternative Therapies in Health
and Medicine, 6 (1), 37-48.
Caroll, D. (2013). The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR).
Retrieved August 28, 2014, from
http://www.skepdic.com/pear.html
Clarke, C. (2007). A new quantum theoretical framework for
Parapsychology. European Journal of Parapsychology, 23 (1), 3–30.
Dobyns, Y. H., Dunne, B. J., Jahn, R. G., & Nelson, R. D. (2004). The
61
megaREG experiment: Replication and interpretation. Journal of
Scientific Exploration, 18 (3), 369-397.
Dunne, B. J., Dobyns, Y. H., Jahn, R. G., & Nelson, R. D. (1994). Series
position effects in random event generator experiments. Journal of
Scientific Exploration, 8 (2), 197.
Foley, L. (2001). Analysis of an on-line random number generator.
Retrieved June 9, 2014, from
http://www.random.org/analysis/Analysis2001.pdf
Griffin, D. (1997). Parapsychology, philosophy and spirituality: A
postmodern exploration. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Haahr, M. (2014). Introduction to randomness. Retrieved June 9, 2014,
from http://www.random.org/randomness/
Heath, P. M. (2003). The PK zone: a cross-cultural review of
psychokinesis (PK). New York: IUniverse.
Health, P.M. (2011). Mind-Matter interaction. North Carolina: MacFarland
& Company, Inc.
Hitchman, G., Roe, C.A., & Sherwood, S. J. (2012a). A Reexamination of
nonintentional precognition with openness to experience, creativity,
psi beliefs, and luck beliefs as predictors of success. The Journal of
Parapsychology, 76, 109-146.
Hitchman, G., Roe, C.A., & Sherwood, S. J. (2012b). The relationship
between lability and performance at intentional and non-intentional
versions of an implicit PMIR-type psi task. (Unpublished Thesis).
University of Northampton, Northampton.
Honorton, C. (1985). Meta-analysis of psi ganzfeld research: A response
to Hyman. Journal of Parapsychology, 49 (1), 51-91.
Honorton, C. & Ferarri, D. C. (1989). “Future telling”: A meta-analysis of
forced-choice precognition experiments, 1935-1987. Journal of
Houtkooper, J. M. (2002a). Arguing for an observational theory of
paranormal phenomena. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 16 (2), 171185.
Houtkooper, J. M. (2002b). A pilot experiment with evokes psychokinetic
62
responses: circumventing cognitive interference. Proceedings of Presented
Papers: The Parapsychological Association 45th Annual Convention, 104115.
Houtkooper, J. M. (2006). Experimenter effects and volitional strategies in
the mind-machine interaction replication. Proceedings of Presented
Papers: The Parapsychological Association 49th Annual Convention, 7184.
Ibison, B. (1998). Evidence that anomalous statistical influence depends
on the details of the random process. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 12,
407-423.
Irwin, H. & Watt, C. (2007). An Introduction to Parapsychology. North
Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.
Jahn, B. J. & Dunne, R. G. (1997). Correlations of random binary
sequences with pre-stated operator intention: A review of a 12-year
program. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 11 (3), 245-253.
Jahn, B. J. & Dunne, R. G. (1987). Margins of reality: The role of
consciousness in the physical world. San Diego, New York, London:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Jahn, R.G. and Dunne, B.J. (1986). On the quantum mechanics of
consciousness with application to anomalous phenomena.
Foundations of Physics, 16 (8), 721-72.
Jahn, R. G., Dunne, B. J., Bradish, G., Dobyns, Y., Lettieri, A., & Nelson,
R. (2000). Mind/machine interaction consortium: PortREG
replication experiments. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 14 (4),
449-555.
Kenny, C. (2005). Random number generators: An evaluation and
comparison of random.org and some commonly used generators.
Retrieved June 9, 2014, from
http://www.random.org/analysis/Analysis2005.pdf
Lawrence, T. (1993). Gathering in the sheep and goats ... A meta-analysis
of forced-choice sheep-goat ESP studies, 1947-1993. Proceedings of
Presented Papers: The Parapsychological Association
36th Annual Convention, 75-86.
Lang, P.J., Bradley, M.M., & Cuthbert, B.N. (2005). International affective
63
picture system (IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual.
Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.
Lang, P. J., & Greenwald, M. K. (1993). International affective picture system
standardisation procedure and results for affective judgement: Technical
reports 1A-1C: Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Centre for Research in
Psychophysiology.
Libet B., Wright E. jr., Feinstein B., & Pearl, D.K. (1979). Subjective
referral of the timing for a conscious sensory experience. Brain, 194, 191–
222.
Luke, D. P., Delanoy, D., & Sherwood, S. J. (2008). Psi may look like luck:
Perceived luckiness and beliefs about luck in relation to
precognition. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 72,
193–207.
May, E. C., & Spottiswoode, S. J. P. (2003). Skin conductance prestimulus
response to future audio startle stimuli. Proceedings of the
Parapsychological Association 46th Annual Convention, 98-115.
Palmer, J. (1997). The challenge of experimenter psi. European Journal of
Park, R. L. (2000). Voodoo science: The road from foolishness to fraud.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Radin, D. I. & Ferrari, D. C. (1991). Effects of consciousness on the fall of
dice: A meta-analysis. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 5, 61-83.
Radin, D. I, & Nelson, R. (1989). Evidence for consciousness-related
anomalies in random physical systems. Foundations of Physics, 19, 14991514.
Radin, D. & Utts, J. (1989). Experiments investigating the influence of
intention on random and pseudorandom events. Journal of Scientific
Exploration, 3 (1), 65-79.
Radin, D. (2006a). Reexamining psychokinesis: Comment on Bo¨sch,
Steinkamp, and Boller. Psychological Bulletin, 132 (4), 529-532.
Radin, D. (2006b). Experiments testing models of mind-matter
interaction. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 20 (3), 375-401.
Random.org True Random Number Service (2014). Accessed June 2014, from
http://www.random.org
Rao, K. (2001). Basic research in parapsychology, 2nd Ed. Macfarland &
64
Company Inc.
Rhine, L. E. & Rhine, J. B. (1943). The psychokinetic effect. Journal of
Rhine, J. B., Gibson, E. P. & Gibson, L. H. (1944). The PK effect:
mechanical throwing of three dice. Journal of Parapsychology, 8, 95-109.
Rhine, J. B. & Humphrey, B. M. (1945). The PK effect with sixty dice per
throw. Journal of Parapsychology, 9, 203-218.
Roe, C. A., Davey, R., & Stevens, P. (2009). Experimenter effects in
laboratory tests of ESP and PK using a common protocol. Journal of
Schmeidler, G. R., & McConnell, R. A. (1958). ESP and Personality
Patterns. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Schmidt, H. (1970). Quantum mechanical random number
generator. Journal of Applied Physics, 41, 462-468.
Schmidt, H. (1971). Mental influence on random events. New Scientist
and Science Journal, 757-758.
Schmidt, H. (1976). PK effect on prerecorded targets. Journal of the
American Society for Psychical Research, 70, 267-291.
Schmidt, H. (1978). Can an effect precede its cause? Foundations of
Physics, 8, 463-480.
Schmidt, H. (1981). PK effects with prerecorded and pre-inspected seed
numbers. Journal of Parapsychology, 45, 87-98.
Schmidt, H. (1982). Collapse of the state vector and psychokinetic
effect. Foundations of Physics, 12, 565-581.
Schmidt, H. (1984). Comparison of a teleological model with a quantum
collapse model of psi. Journal of Parapsychology, 48, 261-276.
Schmidt, H. (1985). Additional effect for PK on prerecorded targets.
Journal of Parapsychology, 49, 229-244.
Schmidt, H. (1987). The strange properties of psychokinesis. Journal of
Scientific Exploration, 1, 103-118.
Schmidt, H. (1993a). Observation of a psychokinetic effect under highly
controlled conditions. Journal of Parapsychology, 57, 351.
Schmidt, H. (1993b). Non-causality as the earmark of psi. Journal of
Schmidt, H. (1997). Random generators and living systems as targets in
65
retro-PK experiments. Journal of the American Society for Psychical
Research, 91, 1-13.
Stanford, R. G. (1974). An experimentally testable model for spontaneous
psi events I: Extrasensory events. Journal of the American Society for
Psychical Research, 68, 34–57.
Stanford, R. G., Zenhausern, T. A., & Dwyer, M. A. (1975). Psychokinesis
as psi-mediated instrumental response. Journal of the American Society
for Psychical Research, 69, 127-133.
Stapp, H. P. (2001). Quantum Theory and the role of mind in nature.
Foundations of Physics, 31 (10), 1465-1499.
Steilberg, B. J. (1975). “Conscious concentration” versus “visualization” in
PK tests. Journal of Parapsychology, 39, 12-20.
Storm, L. Tressoldi, P. E., Di Risio, L. (2010). Meta-analysis of freeresponse studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the noise reduction model in
parapsychology. Psychological Bulletin, 136 (4), 471-485.
Tart, C. T. (1977). Toward conscious control of psi through immediate
feedback training: Some considerations for internal processes. Journal of
American Society for Psychical Research, 71, 375-407.
Thalbourne, M.A., Delin, P.S. (1993). A new instrument for measuring the
sheep-goat variable: Its psychometric properties and factor
structure. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 59, 172–
86. Questionnaire retrieved April 17, 2014, from
https://www.wlv.ac.uk/PDF/sas_ASGS.pdf
Utts, J. (1991). Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology.
Statistical Science, 6 (4), 363-403.
Varvoglis, M. (2009). The Sheep-Goat Effect. Retrieved 24th September,
2014, from http://archived.parapsych.org/sheep_goat_effect.htm
Walker, E. H. (1975). Foundations of paraphysical and parapsychological
phenomena. In Oteri, L. (Ed.), Quantum physics and parapsychology (pp.
1–44). New York: Parapsychology Foundation.
Walsh, K. & Moddel, G. (2007). Effect of belief on psi performance in
a card guessing task. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 21 (3), 501-510.
Watt, C. (2005). Parapsychology’s contribution to psychology:
A view from the front line. Journal of Parapsychology, 69, 215-232.
66
Appendices
List of Appendices
Appendix
Page
A.
Experiment Programme Screen Captures
66
B.
Experiment Participant Instructions
82
C.
IAPS Images
90
D.
Questionnaire 1: Sheep-Goat Questionnaire
92
E.
Questionnaire 2: Reward-Validity Questionnaire
94
F.
Ethics Approval Cover Letter
95
G.
Ethics Submission Form
97
Appendix A.
Experiment Programme Screen Captures
1. BRIEFING
67
2. CONSENT FORM
3. TRIAL 1 – PK INSTRUCTIONS
68
4. TRIAL 1 – PK TASK
5. TRIAL 1 – PICTURE RATING INSTRUCTIONS
69
6. TRIAL 1 – PICTURE RATING TASK
(12 images shown as per the below screen)
7. TRIAL 2 – PK TASK INSTRUCTIONS
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
27. QUESTIONNAIRES - INSTRUCTIONS
80
28. QUESTIONNAIRE 1 – SHEEP-GOAT QUESTIONNAIRE
81
29. QUESTIONNAIRE 2 – REWARD VALIDITY
30. END SCREEN
82
Appendix B.
Experiment Participant Instructions
1. BRIEFING
The Effects of Observation on Retro-Psycho-kinesis
The present study focuses on the effects of observation on Psychokinesis
(PK). The study will take no more than 30 minutes of your time. You will be free
to withdraw from the experiment at any time, without giving reason for your
withdrawal.
You will undergo six trials. In each trial, you will be shown an 80 second run
of the arousal levels of another person. This will appear as a moving graph on
the computer screen. You will only need to use your mental intention in the last
two trials (you will be instructed when it is time to do so). The first four trials will
be preparatory trials, as it is important in a PK task to get used to the
appearance of the target before attempting to influence it. Before each trial you
will receive some written instructions on-screen. In some trials, you will be
instructed to observe the target graph, whereas in other trials you will be
instructed to wear the blindfold so that you will not be able to see the target
graph. You will know when the blindfolded trials have ended as there will be a
sound to alert you to remove the blindfold.
83
After each trial, there will be a short reward task. In the reward task, you
will be asked to rate pictures for your liking of them on a 1 to 5 scale (you can
leave out any pictures you do not wish to rate). In the trials where you are
attempting to mentally influence the arousal levels (the final two trials), this
reward task will be contingent on how much you are able to mentally influence
the arousal levels. The more you are able to mentally influence the arousal
levels, the more the ‘positive’ images as oppose to ‘negative’ images you will be
shown. In first four preparatory trials, the reward task will not be contingent on
how you influence the arousal levels.
After the experiment, you will be asked to complete two questionnaires:
Questionnaire 1: Examines your beliefs about Psi Phenomena
Questionnaire 2: Is about your experience of the experiment You are free to
omit any questions with which you do not feel comfortable.
All of your data in the trials and the questionnaires will be confidential. You will
be free to withdraw from the experiment at any time, and to request that your
records are removed from the experimental database for up to two weeks
following the experiment. A full debrief will be given at the end of the
experiment, in which we will answer any questions you may have. You may call
the experimenter at any time during the trials.
If you feel that you do not understand the procedure of the study or certain
information presented in the questionnaire please do not hesitate to ask.
Thank you for your participation Contact Information If you wish to gain
additional information about this research project, either before or after your
participation, please contact the principal investigator.
Researcher: Tara Knudsen
This Project is Supervised by: Prof. Chris Roe
The University of Northampton Park Campus Broughton Green Road
Northampton NN2 7AL
Prof Chris Roe: [email protected]
Tara Knudsen: [email protected]
Tel: +44(0)7800 982518
2. CONSENT FORM
The Effects of Observation on Retro-Psycho-kinesis
Participant Consent Form
Saturday 27th September 2014
84
By answering yes to the following questions you agree to take part in the study.
If you answer no to any of the questions, please summon the experimenter.
1. I have read the information sheet about this study.
2. I have had an opportunity to ask questions and discuss this
study.
3. I have received satisfactory answers to all my questions.
4. I have received enough information about this study.
5. I understand that I am free to withdraw from this study:
• at any time
• without giving a reason for withdrawing
• without affecting any medical or nursing care I may be
• receiving
Your Participant No# :
Gender? :
Age :
I agree to take part in this study
Yes / No
3. TRIAL 1 – PK INSTRUCTIONS
Instructions
Please observe the following target graph which shows the pre-recorded arousal
levels of a person.
You do not need to use your mental influence to affect the arousal levels at this
point, but please observe carefully to get used to the way the arousal levels are
presented.
After this trial, you will complete a ‘reward task.’ As this is a preparatory trial,
the images you view in the reward task are not dependent on the arousal levels
you view in this task.
This trial will last for approximately 80 seconds. You are free to withdraw at
any time.
When you are ready to begin, please press Continue.
[n/a]
Picture Rating
Please rate your liking of the below images on a scale of 1-5 where ‘1’ is ‘very
much dislike’ and ‘5’ is ‘very much like.’ A total of 12 images are shown. You
are free to omit any images you do not wish to rate and are free to withdraw at
any time.
85
(You are free to continue if you do not wish to rate and are free to withdraw at
any time.)
Trial 2 Instructions
The following target graph which shows the pre-recorded arousal levels of a
person.
point.
This is a ‘no-observation’ trial, therefore please put on your blindfold after
reading these instructions. In the trial, you should try to concentrate on being
aware of the arousal levels even though you cannot see the target graph.
any time.
Please now put on your blindfold. You will need to move the mouse to over the
‘continue’ button first so that when your blindfold is in place you can simply click
the mouse to proceed with the trial. At the end of the trial, a sound will alert you
to remove your blindfold.
[n/a]
Picture Rating
any time.
any time.)
86
levels of a person.
point, but please observe carefully to get used to the way the arousal levels are
presented.
any time.
[n/a]
Picture Rating
any time.
any time.)
levels of a person.
point.
reading these instructions. In the trial, you should try to concentrate on being
87
aware of the arousal levels even though you cannot see the target graph.
any time.
[n/a]
Picture Rating
any time.
any time.)
levels of a person.
This is an experimental trial, so you will now need to use your mental influence
to affect the arousal levels. Please keep your attention focused on the graph as
you attempt to influence the arousal levels. The direction of influence you should
aim for is:
“Positive: please attempt to increase the arousal levels.”
After this trial, you will complete a ‘reward task.’ As this is an experimental trial,
the images you view in the reward task are dependent on your mental influence
of the arousal levels. The more the arousal levels increase, the more positive, as
oppose to negative pictures you will view.
any time.
88
[n/a]
Picture Rating
any time.
any time.)
The following target graph which shows the pre-recorded arousal levels of a
person.
This is an experimental trial, so you will now need to use your mental influence
to affect the arousal levels. The direction of influence you should aim for is:
“Positive: please attempt to increase the arousal levels.”
After this trial, you will complete a ‘reward task.’ As this is an experimental trial,
the images you view in the reward task are dependent on your mental influence
of the arousal levels. The more the arousal levels increase, the more positive, as
oppose to negative pictures you will view.
reading these instructions. In the trial, you should try to concentrate on mentally
influencing the arousal levels even though you cannot see the target graph.
any time.
[n/a]
89
Picture Rating
any time.
any time.)
27. QUESTIONNAIRES - INSTRUCTIONS
Questionnaires
Please complete the two following questionnaires: Questionnaire 1: Examines
your beliefs about Psi Phenomena Questionnaire 2: Is about your experience of
the experiment You are free to omit any questions with which you do not feel
comfortable with.
All of your data in the trials and the questionnaires will be confidential. You will
be free to withdraw from the experiment at any time, and to request that your
records are removed from the experimental database for up to two weeks
following the experiment. You may call the experimenter at any time.
28. QUESTIONNAIRE 1 – SHEEP-GOAT QUESTIONNAIRE
See Annex D – Questionnaire 1
29. QUESTIONNAIRE 2 – REWARD VALIDITY
See Annex E – Questionnaire 2
30. END SCREEN
Debriefing.
The experiment is now complete. Please alert the experimenter who will give you
a full debrief
Thank you for taking the time to participate in the study, your participation is
much appreciated.
Please now summon the experimenter
Contact Information
This Project is Supervised by: Prof. Chris Roe
90
The University of Northampton Park Campus Broughton Green Road
Northampton NN2 7AL Prof Chris Roe: [email protected] Tara
Knudsen: [email protected] Tel: +44(0)7800 982518
Appendix C.
IAPS Images
List of Neutral
Images (N = 33)
2880
5731
5740
7000
7004
7006
7009
7010
7020
7025
7030
7031
7035
7040
7041
7050
7052
7059
7060
7080
7090
7100
7110
7150
7175
7185
7187
7217
7233
7235
7491
7705
7950
List of Positive
Images (N = 24)
1440
1610
91
1710
1750
2040
2050
2057
2058
2070
2071
2080
2091
2150
2165
2260
2340
2360
2395
2530
2660
4250
5760
5830
5833
Negative Images (N
= 24)
3000
3010
3030
3053
3063
3064
3068
3069
3080
3100
3102
3110
3120
3130
3140
3170
3266
3530
6350
9252
9405
9410
9921
92
9635.1
Appendix D.
Questionnaire 1: Sheep-Goat Questionnaire
If you do not feel comfortable completing the questionnaire, you can withdraw without
having to give any explanation. If you do not wish to complete the questionnaire, click the
NEXT button at the bottom of the page.
You may leave out any questions which you do not feel comfortable answering.
Your responses to the questionnaires will remain confidential. Only your participant number
will be included on the questionnaire.
Firstly, please read each statement and respond with either true or false. Also please give a
rating as to how confident you are in your response.
1)
I believe in the existence of ESP
True False
2)
I believe I have had a personal
experience of ESP
I believe I am psychic
I believe that it is possible to gain
information about the future before it
happens, in ways that do not depend on
rational prediction or normal sensory
channels.
I have had at least one hunch that
turned out to be correct and which (I
believe) was not just a coincidence
I have had at least one premonition
about the future that came true and
which (I believe) was not just a
coincidence
I have had at least one dream that came
true and which (I believe) was not just a
coincidence.
I have had at least one vision that was
not an hallucination and from which I
received information that I could not
have otherwise gained at that time and
place.
I believe that it is possible to gain
information about the thoughts, feelings
or circumstances of another person, in a
way that does not depend on rational
prediction or normal sensory channels.
True False
Not
Very
Confident Confident
1
2
3
4
5
True False
True False
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
True False
1
2
3
4
5
True False
1
2
3
4
5
True False
1
2
3
4
5
True False
1
2
3
4
5
True False
1
2
3
4
5
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
93
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
I believe that it is possible to send a
‘mental message’ to another person, or
in some way influence them at a
distance, by means other than the
normal channels of communication.
I have had at least one experience of
telepathy between myself and another
person.
I believe in the existence of
psychokinesis (or ‘PK’), that is, the
direct influence of mind on a physical
system, without the mediation of any
known physical energy.
I believe I have personally exerted PK
on at least one occasion.
I believe I have marked psychokinetic
ability.
I believe that, on at least one occasion,
an inexplicable (but non-recurrent)
physical event of an apparently
psychokinetic origin has occurred in my
presence.
I believe that inexplicable physical
disturbances, of an apparently
psychokinetic origin, have occurred in
my presence at some time in the past
(as for example, a poltergeist).
True False
1
2
3
4
5
True False
1
2
3
4
5
True False
1
2
3
4
5
True False
1
2
3
4
5
True False
1
2
3
4
5
True False
1
2
3
4
5
True False
1
2
3
4
5
Appendix E.
Questionnaire 2: Reward-Validity Questionnaire
If you do not feel comfortable completing the questionnaire, you can withdraw
without having to give any explanation. I fyou do not wish to complete the
questionnaire, click the NEXT button at the bottom of the page.
You may leave our any questions which you do not feel comfortable answering.
Your responses to the questionnaire will remain confidential. Only you
participant number will be included on the questionnaire.
On a scale of 1 to 5 where one is ‘not at all enjoyable’ and five is ‘extremely enjoyable’ how enjoyable did
you find the reward (picture rating) task (please circle):
94
1
2
3
4
5
On a scale of 1 to 5 where one is ‘not at all pleasant’ and five is ‘extremely pleasant’ how pleasant did you
find the reward (picture rating) task (please circle):
1
2
3
4
5
On a scale of 1 to 5 where one is ‘not at all disturbing’ and five is ‘extremely disturbing’ how disturbing did
1
2
3
4
5
On a scale of 1 to 5 where one is ‘not at all happy’ and five is ‘very happy’ how happy would you be to do
this reward (picture rating) task again (please circle):
1
2
3
4
5
95
Appendix F.
Ethics Approval Cover Letter
Division of Psychology
Dr Roz Collings
Chair of Psychology Ethics Committee
University of Northampton
Boughton Green Road
Northampton
NN2 7AL
10th July 2014
cc: Chris Roe
REF: Tara Knudsen
Dear Colleagues
The Effects of Intention and Observation on Retro-Psychokinesis
Your research proposal has been considered by the Division of Psychology Ethics
Review Committee and they are satisfied that the research proposal accord with the relevant
ethical guidelines.
Your Ethics application has been approved with minor corrections and comments have
been supplied by the reviewer. Please review the comments supplied by the committee and meet
with your supervisor in order to assess any changes required.
If you wish to make any additional modifications to the research project, you must
speak to your supervisor about it. If your supervisor thinks that the modifications are at all
96
important you must inform the committee in writing before proceeding. Please also inform
the committee as soon as possible if participants experience any unanticipated harm as a
result of taking part in your research.
Good luck with your research.
Chair Psychology Ethics Committee.
REVIEWERS COMMENTS:
Overall a very well written ethics application.
There is only one stipulation. Previous research within the department using the IAPS images
has restricted the negative images to those that are less distressing. Please speak with Drew and
other members of the team that have used IAPS to see how this works.
I am also a little confused at where the research will take place. Please note that if research is
taking place in private residences that safety guarding mechanisms are in place and this is
discussed in full with the supervisor.
I do think aspects of success/failure should be more comprehensively covered in the debrief
sheet.
97
Appendix G.
Ethics Submission Form
Psychology Ethics Application Form
Before completing this ethics application you are strongly advised to consult the
guidelines and documentation on ethics applications.
You must meet and discuss ethical considerations relating to your study with your
supervisor before submitting your application to them.
You will find a full list of Ethics Committee deadlines and meeting dates on NILE. You
must submit your ethics application by the deadline for your application to be considered
within that time period. Please familiarise yourself with the date of the final deadline and
do not leave discussions with supervisors until the last minute.
Please read through the following checklists and tick the most appropriate answer. To “check” a box double click on the box and select “checked” in the Default Value section. 1
2
3a
3b
4
5
6
RISK ASSESSMENT
Does the Study Involve any of the following?
The study involves participants who are under the age of 16
The study involves participants who are particularly vulnerable or unable to
give informed consent or in a dependent position (e.g. vulnerable children,
people with learning difficulties, over-researched groups or people in care
facilities).
Participants will be taking part in the study without their consent or knowledge
at the time and no deception of any sort will be used (this might for example
be the covert observation of people in non-public places).
The study involves a level of deception
There is a risk that the nature of the research topic might lead to disclosures
from the participant concerning their own involvement in illegal activities or
other activities that represent a risk to themselves or others (e.g. sexual
activity, drug use or professional misconduct).
The study has a significant risk of inducing psychological stress or anxiety, lead
to humiliation, cause harm or any negative consequences beyond the risks
encountered in the participants normal lives
Drugs, placebos or other non-food substances will be administered as part of
this study and/or invasive, intrusive or potentially harmful procedures of any
kind will be used
YES
NO
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
98
If you have ticked Yes to Q1 or 2 of the risk assessment please indicate who you are
doing research with in Question 7 and 8. If you have ticked NO to Q 1 or 2 please leave
Q 7 and 8 blank.
7
8
If you ticked Yes to Q1 or 2 please complete the following:
Does your project involve work with animals?
Do participants fall into any of
the following special groups?
If they do, please refer to the
university and BPS ethical
guidelines and outline how you
will deal with this on page 2.
N.B. Any research involving the
NHS MUST gain appropriate
LREC ethical clearance
Note that you may also need
to obtain satisfactory
Criminal Records Bureau
(CRB) clearance
Yes
No
√
Schoolchildren
(under 18 years of age)
√
People with learning or
communication difficulties
√
Patients
√
People in custody
√
People engaged in illegal
activities (e.g. drug-taking)
√
OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO RISK
Will the study place the researcher at any risk greater than that encountered in
his/her daily life? (e.g. interviewing alone or in dangerous circumstances, or data
collection outside the UK).
Yes
No √
Supervisors – please note that by meeting and advising your students about ethical
concerns and considerations as well as checking the ethics documents this will aid a
smooth process through the ethics application process. By supporting your students you,
as a supervisor, are indicating that you are familiar with the University of Northampton
and the BPS guidelines for ethical practices in psychological research and approve this
project
99
DIVISION OF PSYCHOLOGY DISSERTATION ETHICS FORM
Tick one box:
Title of
project:
Name of
researcher(s):
Researchers
Email:
Name of
supervisor:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Undergraduate
√ Postgraduate
project
project
The Effects of Intention and Observation on Retro-Psychokinesis
Tara Knudsen
[email protected]
Chris Roe
Will you describe the main research procedure to participants in
advance, so that they are informed what to expect?
Will you tell participants that their participation is voluntary?
Will you obtain written consent from participants? (please include
the consent form with your ethics submission)
If the research is observational, will you ask participants for their
consent to being observed?
Will you tell participants that they may withdraw from the
research at any time without needing to provide a reason?
With questionnaires/interviews, will you give participants the
option of omitting questions they do not want to answer?
Will you tell participants that their data will be treated with full
confidentiality and that, if published, it should not be identifiable
as theirs?
Will you debrief participants at the end of their participation (i.e.
give them a brief explanation of the study)?
Yes
√
No
N/A
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
If you have ticked NO to any question from 1- 8 you must provide a full explanation for
the ethics panel for your decision within the following sections of the ethics application
Please provide full details of your project below
(if insufficient detail is provided and the precise nature of the study is unclear then the
Ethics panel will not be able to approve the project and your form will be returned)
NB. The Psychology Division does NOT permit the use of NILE to send out unsolicited
requests for participants or to distribute questionnaires
SECTION 1: AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND NATURE OF STUDY
Provide the academic/scientific justification of the study as well as detailing
and explaining the principal research question, objectives and hypotheses to be
tested. This should be in no more than 500 words and include at least 2 references.
The
present
study
aims
to
investigate
the
effects
of
‘intention’
and
‘observation’ on retro-psychokinesis.
Psychokinesis (PK) is mental influence on physical systems. The accumulation of
supportive proof-oriented data makes it increasingly important to conduct processoriented research in order to work towards an explanatory framework for this
phenomenon. The present study will test two theories which point to apparently
100
contradictory factors in the nature of PK: the PMIR theory and Observational Theory put
different emphasis on the factors of ‘intention’ and ‘observation’ in the context of PK.
These differences have contradictory empirical implications, however, the interaction of
these factors has not been investigated.
PMIR Model:
Stanford’s Psi-Mediated Instrumental Response (PMIR) model predicts that PK
functions through unconscious intention, in order to serve a goal-oriented or adaptive
function by mediating pre-existing behaviours in response to the environment (Stanford,
1974). The PMIR model therefore predicts that the ‘intention’ in psi is unconscious, and
even that conscious intention may be detrimental to psi performance. Experimental
paradigms involving unconscious intention have been used to investigate whether psi/PK
functions unconsciously, as predicted by the PMIR model. In such experiments,
participants carry out psi/PK trials unaware of their nature and receive future reward
('reward' can be either positive or negative in this context) based on their performance
(e.g. Luke, Delanoy & Sherwood, 2008). As participants are unaware that they need to
use their psi abilities or that the reward is based on their performance, any intention
held by the participant is outside of their conscious awareness (unconscious). According
to the PMIR model, more participants than expected by chance would receive positive
rewards in these circumstances. Some support in this direction has been provided in
Extra-Sensory Perception (Hichman, Roe & Sherwood, 2012) and PK (Stanford et al.,
1975).
With regard to the factors of ‘intention’ and ‘observation’ the PMIR model therefore
supposes:
-‐
-‐
Intention as important, but chiefly unconscious attention.
Observation is not necessary for PK performance.
Observation Theory:
The Observational theory claims that the act of ‘observation’ is critical for PK
performance
(Houtkooper,
2002).
This
observation
should
be
‘intentional,’
and
‘conscious intention’ as opposed to ‘unconscious attention’ is generally focused upon.
Laboratory tests in retro-PK provide some support for the observational theory (Schmidt,
1985). In retro-PK, the output on which the mental intention will act, such as a binary
sequence recorded from a random number generator, is recorded in advance. The
participant therefore attempts to influence the output after it has been recorded. The
effect of observation has been explored in this paradigm by exposing the pre-recorded
sequences to a non-intentional observer before they are viewed by the second
101
intentional observer. Studies in this area have found that pre-observation by a nonintentional observer removes the PK effect, suggesting that the point of observation and
its coupling with conscious intention is critical (Schmidt, 1985). With regard to the
factors of ‘intention’ and ‘observation’ the Observational theory therefore suggests:
-‐
Observation is necessary for PK performance
-‐
‘conscious intention’ is necessary for PK performance (although unconscious
intention is not necessarily ruled out).
Contradiction between PMIR Intention & Observation:
While support has been provided for both the PMIR model (e.g., Hichman et al., 2012),
and for the Observation theory (e.g., Schmidt, 1985), the two theories hold seemingly
contradictory viewpoints in terms of the roles of intention and observation in PK:
-‐
The PMIR Model claims that intention should be unconscious and observation is
not necessary.
-‐
The observational theory claims that observation is critical and intention should
be conscious.
The present study therefore aims to isolate the effects of intention (both conscious and
unconscious) and observation, in order to investigate their individual and interactive
effects on PK. Retro-PK will be investigated in order to allow the tightest possible
controls.
The research question is therefore:
What are the exclusive and interactive effects of intention and observation on retro-PK?
References
Hitchman, G., Roe, C.A., & Sherwood, S. J. (2012). A Reexamination of Nonintentional
Precognition with Openness to Experience, Creativity, Psi Beliefs, and Luck Beliefs as
Predictors of Success. The Journal of Parapsychology, 76, 109-146
Houtkooper, J. M. (2002). Arguing for an Observational Theory of Paranormal
Phenomena. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 16 (2), 171-185
Luke, D. P., Delanoy, D., & Sherwood, S. J. (2008). Psi may look like luck: Perceived
luckiness and beliefs about luck in relation to precognition. Journal of the Society for
Psychical Research, 72, 193–207
Schmidt, H. (1985). Additional Effect for PK on Prerecorded Targets. Journal of
Parapsychology, 49, 229-244
Stanford, R. G. (1974). An experimentally testable model for spontaneous psi events I:
Extrasensory events. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 68, 34–57.
Stanford, R. G., Zenhausern, Taylor A., Dwyer, M. A. (1975). Psychokinesis as psi-
102
mediated instrumental response. JASPR, 69, 127-133.
SECTION 2. STUDY DESIGN/METHODOLOGY, DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS
Provide a brief outline of the step-by-step procedure of your proposed study in
lay language, in no more than 500 words where possible. Extensive research
protocols that have been prepared for funding bodies or similar organisations
are likely to be of too technical a nature, or will provide more information than
is necessary for ethical review/approval. Please ensure you focus on using nontechnical lay language throughout, outlining clearly and simply the
methodology to be used in your study.
The present study will be will be a controlled experiment using a repeated
measures design. The study will test Retro-Psychokinesis (PK) performance using target
sequences recorded by a random number generator (RNG). Random number sequences
comprised of binary digits (‘0’s and ‘1’s) will be pre-recorded. During the study,
participants will attempt to mentally influence the random number sequences in a given
direction. The dependent variable measured will be the deviation from chance of these
random number sequences. In the present study I am interested in the effects of two
independent variables on this dependent variable:
1) IV1: Intention: Three Levels: Conscious Intention/Unconscious Intention/No
Intention.
2) IV2: Observation: Two Levels: Observation/No Observation
To investigate the effects of the above IVs on the DV, each participant will participate in
six experimental conditions:
1) Condition A: No Intention, Observation
2) Condition B: No Intention, No Observation
3) Condition C: Unconscious Intention, Observation
4) Condition D: Unconscious Intention, No Observation
5) Condition E: Conscious Intention, Observation
6) Condition F: Conscious Intention, No Observation
IV1 INTENTION
In the ‘conscious intention’ conditions and the ‘unconscious intention’ conditions, a future
reward will be contingent on PK performance. The contingent reward will create the
‘intention.’
There
will
be
three
levels
of
the
intention
variable:
Conscious
Intention/Unconscious Intention/No Intention. The difference between the conscious and
unconscious intention will be that in the ‘conscious intention’ conditions, the participant
will be asked to influence the random number sequence and will be aware that the future
reward is based on their PK performance. This means that they will have conscious
intent to perform well at the PK task. In the ‘unconscious intention’ conditions, the
participant will be informed that the task is a trial task and that they do not need to
103
influence the random number sequence. Although the future reward will be based on
their PK performance, they will not be aware of this. This means that there will be no
conscious intention to mentally influence the target sequence, however contingency of
the future reward may create unconscious (pre-cognitive) intention. In the ‘No Intention’
conditions the future reward will be neutral and not based on PK performance.
IV2 OBSERVATION
In the ‘observation’ conditions the participant will observe the output of the RNG. In the
‘no-observation’ conditions the participant will not observe the output of the RNG.
Prior to the study, partially informed consent will be obtained from participants. The
study therefore includes an aspect of deception. Participants will be informed about all
aspects of the study apart from the fact that conditions C & D are ‘unconscious intention’
conditions. They will therefore not be aware that the reward in conditions C & D will be
contingent on their PK performance. They will be informed that in conditions E and F the
reward in contingent on their PK performance, however they will be told that in all other
conditions (A, B, C & D) the reward is not contingent on their PK performance. This is
necessary in order to ensure that the intention in conditions C & D is ‘unconscious’, and
therefore different from the ‘conscious intention’ in conditions E and F. In order to test
the predictions of the PMIR model it is necessary to separate ‘unconscious’ and
‘conscious’ intention, as the PMIR model predicts that ‘unconscious’ intention should
have a stronger link with PK. Participants will be thoroughly debriefed after the session
to explain the need for this manipulation and it will be stressed that they can withdraw
from the study without penalty should they wish.
The experiment will be run through a fully automated software programme. The
participant will be briefed and given instructions by the experimenter and will then go
through the trials on the computer programme alone. They will be free to leave at any
time and can alert the experimenter at any time.
The experiment will take place in the below stages:
1) CONSENT: The participant will be briefed and will complete the consent form
electronically.
2) INSTRUCTIONS: The participant will be given instructions on the computer
screen. These instructions will include:
a. IV1: Either ‘apply intention’ or ‘do not apply intention’
b. IV2: Either ‘wear blindfold’ or ‘do not wear blindfold
These instructions will be different in each of the six trials according to the six
104
experimental conditions.
3) TRIAL: The random number sequence will be played to the participant. The
random number sequence will be shown in the visual form of a graph (see
document: software programme. The graph shows a moving line which will
deflect ‘up’ or ‘down’ depending on the proportion of ‘0s’ and ‘1’s in the random
number sequence. The appearance is similar to a graph showing price changes in
stocks and shares. The graph will be described to participants as showing arousal
levels of a person. The participant will be asked to influence the arousal levels in
a given direction. Each trial will last for 80 seconds. The data recorded in each
trial will consist of 80 data points (each consisting of 10 binary digits).
4) REWARD TASK: Each of the six trial sequences will be followed by a reward
task. The reward task is a picture rating task in which the participant will be
shown 12 pictures and asked to rate their liking of these pictures on a scale of 1
to 5. The pictures will be taken from the International Affective Picture System
(IAPS). The IAPS database provides colour pictures which have been normatively
rated for their emotional effect. For the present experiment, images will be
selected for use according to their ratings as:
a. Neutral: images which have been judged to be neutral in terms of their
positive of negative emotional effect.
b. Positive: images which have received a high rating for Valence (liking).
c. Negative: images which have received a low rating for Valence (liking).
In conditions A & B, all 12 images displayed in the reward task will be neutral. In
conditions C, D, E & F, as a baseline, of the 12 images shown 11 will be ‘Neutral’
and 1 will be ‘negative’. According to PK performance, some of the baseline
images may be replaced with either positive or negative images. The number of
positive or negative images shown in place of baseline images will be based on
the participant’s performance on the PK task. The more the ‘arousal level’ (RNG
output) moves in the direction of intention, the more positive images will be
shown. The more the ‘arousal level’ (RNG output)’ falls, the more negative
images will be shown. The maximum number of positive images that can be
shown in place of baseline images is: 9. The maximum number of negative
images that can be shown in place of baseline images is: 6. For full details of how
this will be calculated, please see document: software programme. The length of
the reward task will be approximately 90 seconds.
5) REPEAT: The trial and reward stages (stages 2-4) will be carried out a total of 6
times by each participant, with different instructions according to the six
experimental conditions. The experimental conditions will take place in the same
order for each participant:
105
a. A: Participant will be instructed: No Intention, No blindfold
b. B: Participant will be instructed: No Intention, Wear blindfold
c. C: Participant will be instructed: No Intention (intention will be
unconscious), No blindfold
d. D: Participant will be instructed: No Intention (intention will be
unconscious), Wear blindfold
e. E: Participant will be instructed: Intention, No blindfold
f.
F: Participant will be instructed: Intention, Wear blindfold
6) QUESTIONNAIRES: Participants will be asked to complete the following
questionnaires electronically (Participants will be informed that they do not have
to answer any questions with which they are not comfortable):
a. Sheep-Goat questionnaire (Belief in Psi & Paranormal Phenomena)
b. Reward/Punishment Validity Questionnaire (Participants will rate their
enjoyment of the contingent task on a 1 to 10 scale).
7) DEBRIEF: The participant will be fully debriefed including information on the
deception as below.
There are two primary ethical concerns arising from this procedure:
1) DECEPTION: Participants may feel that they have been deceived by the
experimenter. The deception involved is that in conditions C and D, participants
are informed that the reward pictures will not be contingent on their PK
performance, however the reward pictures will be contingent on their PK
performance. This deception is necessary in order to ensure that the intention in
conditions C & D is ‘unconscious’, and therefore different from the ‘conscious
intention’ in conditions E and F. In order to test the predictions of the PMIR model
it is necessary to separate ‘unconscious’ and ‘conscious’ intention, as the PMIR
model predicts that ‘unconscious’ intention should have a stronger link with PK. In
order to reduce any negative effects of this deception, a full debrief will explain
the rationale behind the deception, and why this was absolutely necessary to
preserve the integrity of the research. During this debrief, the procedure
including the deception will be described in detail and participants will have the
opportunity to ask questions. The experimenter will ensure that participants leave
the experiment feeling fully informed about the procedure.
a. DECEPTION B: a second form of deception in the study is that
participants will be informed that the graph they are viewing is the arousal
levels of a person. In fact, the graph is the pre-recorded output of a
random
number
generator
(RNG).
It
is
necessary
to
inform
the
participants that this graph represents arousal, as it is important that the
106
participants can engage with the output. Participants will engage more
with human arousal levels than random numbers which will be more
conducive
to
PK
performance.
This
is
particularly
important
when
measuring PK, which can be elusive in the laboratory. Full details of this
deception will be explained during the debrief as above.
1) IAPS IMAGES: Some participants may find some of the negative IAPS images
uncomfortable to view. Negative IAPS images are images which have been rated
as having a negative emotional effect according to the IAPS system. This may
include some potentially distressing images such as images of persons in distress
or unpleasant events. The IAPS images are highly beneficial for use as a reward
task as their positive/negative/neutral effect on participants can be manipulated
in a controlled and consistent manner. As the present study examines the effect
of different types of intention, a controlled and consistent reward is crucial in
order to standardise the manipulation of the intention variable. The IAPS pictures
have been used extensively in many areas of research within psychology and
have previously received ethical approval to be used at the University of
Northampton for other studies (e.g. Hitchman, Roe & Sherwood, 2012; full
reference in Section 1). We therefore have confidence that the ethical concern
arising from these images does not outweigh the benefits of their use. The
following steps will be taken in order to minimise any adverse reaction to
negative IAPS images:
a. Participants will be informed prior to consent that the study may contain
negative images, and advised that they should consider carefully whether
they feel that this will be uncomfortable to them and whether they wish to
take part in the study. No pressure will be put on participants to give
consent.
b. Participants will be assured that they are free to withdraw at any time. If
they feel uncomfortable with the pictures at any time, participants may
leave the room, look away from the screen, or summon the experimenter
as they wish. Participants will be assured of their right to withdraw both
during the brief, in the consent form, and in the participant instructions at
the beginning of the software programme.
c. The possible number of negative pictures shown in any one trial is limited
to eight out of twelve images in order that it is not possible for more than
two-thirds of the pictures to be negative. For all eight images to be shown
would be very rare. Based on an overview of sample random number
sequences, it would be unusual for more than four additional negative
images to be shown any one trial. In this way, the uncomfortable effects
107
of the negative images will be largely counterbalanced by the neutral
emotional effects of the neutral images and the positive emotional effects
of the positive images.
d. Participants will be fully debriefed after the study, during which the
necessity of using negative images will be explained in detail. If
participants experience any further distress, the experimenter will be able
to recommend further support services.
A further risk to participants is uncomfortable reactions to the experiment’s subjectmatter, as this may be outside of the participant’s normal world-view. In order to
minimise any distress which may arise, participants will be fully briefed during
recruitment and debriefed after the experiment. The experimenter will be able to
recommend further support services if appropriate.
Prior to the study, consent will be obtained from all participants and right-to-withdraw
will be explained. A consent form will be completed electronically and participants will be
able to ask questions prior to the session.
The project will comply with the British Psychological Society’s Code of Ethics and
Conduct (BPS, 2009). Ethical approval will be received from the University of
Northampton Psychology Ethics Panel prior to undertaking the research.
SECTION 3 PARTICIPANTS
3.1 Projected number of participants
40 participants will take part in the study. Each participant will take part in all six
experimental conditions. This is based on studies in the same area where a similar
number of participants have been used.
3.2 Selection Criteria
Opportunity sampling will be used. Participants must be above the age of eighteen and
be freely willing to participate. Other than age, there is no selection criteria.
3.3 Recruitment
Participants will be recruited as an opportunity sample of friends, family and colleagues.
An email requesting participants will be sent to friends, family and colleagues, giving
some brief details of the study and the experimenter’s contact details should they wish
to consider participating. On contacting the experimenter they will be given further
information about the study. To avoid coercion, emails will not be followed-up.
108
Where will the research take place?
The research locations will be chosen on an individual opportunity basis dependent on
convenience for each participant. This will be preferable in the present study, as the
benefits of having comfortable and willing participants outweighs the benefits of
standardised location in a studies in this area. Comfortable and willing participants will
be found more easily amongst a broader opportunity sample than would be found within
the University alone.
The research will always take place in a safe environment indoors. During the
experimental trials, the participant will be seated alone in a room. A research location
will be chosen which allows the participant to be seated comfortably in one room whilst
the experimenter can wait outside the room in earshot in-case the participant wishes to
alert them. The experimenter will ensure that the research location is private in order
that the participant can be briefed and debriefed thoroughly and without interruption.
This will ensure that if the participant has any concerns or questions, they can be
answered fully without distraction. In order to ensure that the participant is comfortable
in the location, as part of the brief the experimenter will ask the participant whether they
are comfortable in the location, and whether there is anything that can be done make
the location more comfortable. If the participant is not comfortable, an alternative
location will be arranged. Example locations will be the University of Northampton
department experimental rooms, or a spare office at a business park convenient to the
participant.
SECTION 4. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 INFORMED CONSENT
Describe the process you will use to ensure your participants are freely giving fully
informed consent to participate. This will always include the provision of an information
sheet and will normally require a consent form unless it is a purely self-completion
questionnaire based study or there is a justification for not doing so (this must be clearly
stated). Templates for Information Sheets and consent forms are available [give NILE
site]
An information sheet will be provided to all participants. This information sheet will
provide information about the study in order to inform participants about the nature of
the study and what they will be required to do. The information sheet will cover:
-‐
What will the study investigate
-‐
Why have I been asked to participate
-‐
If I agree to take part, what will it involve
-‐
What do I need to know (voluntary, right to withdraw etc.)
-‐
How will my data be handled
The participants will be given the opportunity to ask any questions they have about the
109
study before continuing with their participation. They will be informed that they do not
have to agree to consent, and do not need to give any reason for not consenting.
Prior to taking part in the study, a consent form will completed by the participants. The
consent form will be computerised. Participants will be reminded that they do not have
to complete the consent form if they do not wish to do so.
As described in Section 2, some deception will be involved in this study. This is
necessary in order to preserve the integrity of the research. Participants will undergo six
trials, each followed by a reward task. In four of the trials, the reward task will be
contingent on their trial performance, however the participant will be informed that this
is the case in only two of the trials. This means that in two of the trials, the participant
will not be aware that the reward is contingent on their performance (please see section
2 for a full description in the context of the procedure). It is necessary that the
participant is not aware of this as the variable to be examined in these trials is
‘unconscious intention.’ It is therefore necessary that the participants are not aware that
the reward is contingent on their performance, as if they were aware then the intention
would be ‘conscious intention’ as oppose to ‘unconscious intention.’ This deception is
therefore absolutely necessary in order to investigate this variable.
After completion of the experiment, a full debrief will explain the rationale behind the
deception, and why this was absolutely necessary to preserve the integrity of the
research. Participants will have the opportunity to ask any questions they have about
this deception. The researcher will ensure that the debrief is open and thorough in order
that all participants leave the experiment fully informed.
4.2 RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL
Participants should be able to withdraw from the research process at any time and also
should be able to withdraw their data if it is identifiable as theirs and should be told
when this will no longer be possible (e.g. once it has been included in the final report).
Please describe the exact arrangements for withdrawal from participation and withdrawal
of data depending on your study design.
Participants will have the right to withdraw at any time before, during, or up to two
weeks following their participation in the experiment. This right to withdraw will be
explained to participants in the participant information sheet, consent form, debrief, and
verbally by the experimenter before and after the experiment.
During the experiment, the participant can withdraw at any time by informing the
experimenter. During the trials, the participant will be alone inside a room, and the
experimenter will outside the room within earshot. The participant can withdraw at any
time simply by leaving the room, or can alert the experimenter by calling.
110
After the experiment, the participant may withdraw their data at any time up to two
weeks after the experiment by informing the experimenter either in person, by email or
by phone. The participant need not give any reason for their withdrawal.
Once a participant has requested withdrawal of their data, the experimenter will remove
their data from the dataset. Data will be held in two separate datasets. One dataset (1)
will include the participant number and experimental data. A separate dataset (2) will
include the participant number and ID information. Participant ID information will be the
student number for students or the last six numbers of a phone number for other
participants (participants may discuss providing a different type of ID information of they
do not feel comfortable with these formats). The ID information is necessary in-case the
participant wishes to withdraw their data after the experiment. The ID information will
never be in the same dataset as the experimental data. When the participant wishes to
withdraw, they will inform the experimenter of their ID information. The experimenter
will use database (2) to check which participant number is matched with the participant’s
ID information. The experimenter will remove all the data from the experimental
database (1) which is associated with this participant number. None of this data will be
kept. The participant will be informed when their data has been removed from the
dataset.
SECTION 5. DATA PROTECTION, CONFIDENTIALITY, DATA AND RECORDS
MANAGEMENT, DISSEMINATION
5.1. Confirm that all processing of personal information related to the study will
be in full compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 including the Data
Protection Principles.
YES √ NO
5.2. What steps will be taken to ensure the confidentiality of personal
information? Give details of procedures to maintain the anonymity of data and
of physical and technical security measures. Please note: to make data truly
anonymous all information that could potentially identify a participant needs to
be removed in addition to names. NB: Personally identifiable data held on
mobile devices must be encrypted
No experimental data will bear the participant’s name or ID information (student number
for students, or last six digits of phone number for other participants). Before beginning
the study, the participant will be given a participant number which will be input on a
database against their ID information (database 2). No experimental data will be
included on this database, but will all be kept separately (database 1) so it is never
associated directly with the ID information. All experimental data and questionnaires will
be completed through the automatic software designed for the experiment. No ID
information will be input into this software or included with the experimental data or
111
questionnaires. The consent form will also use the participant number and not include
any ID information. As the consent form is automated, there will be no need for any
participant name or signature on this form.
The experimental data will include:
-‐
-‐
-‐
‘scores’ on PK trials
Ratings of IAPS images
Questionnaire responses.
This data will be stored in a password protected SPSS file. The individual data will be
destroyed following examination of the thesis, and will only be kept in aggregate form.
As the computer system is automated, there is no need for any hard copies of consent
forms, questionnaires, nor any other experimental data.
5.3. Who will have access to personal information relating to this study?
Confirm that any necessary wider disclosures of personal information (for
instance to colleagues beyond the study team, translators, transcribers,
auditors etc) have been properly explained to study participants.
Personal information will be seen only by the experimenter and supervisor listed on the
present application form.
5.4. Data management responsibilities after the study.
State how long study information (including research data, consent forms and
administrative records) will be retained for:
State in what format(s) the information will be retained (for example, as
physical and/or electronic copies):
NB: Any personally identifiable data that is held on any mobile device should be
encrypted. This includes data stored on USB keys, laptop/netbooks, desktop
computers, smart phones, workgroup servers and relevant emails
As data will be collected using automated software, there will be no need for physical
copies of any data. Electronic data will be destroyed following examination of the thesis
(approximately nine months), and will only be kept in aggregate form.
Section 6: Other Ethical Issues
Please consider what other ethical issues there are that have not already been addressed
elsewhere in the form. Please note that all research projects have some ethical
considerations, even if this only relates to how confidentiality will be maintained. DO
NOT LEAVE THIS SECTION BLANK
Some options you may consider: dealing with potential distress, fatigue of participant in
experimental design, use of direct quotes in qualitative designs.
There are two main ethical issues arising from this study:
1) Feelings of Deception: This has been covered in full in Sections 2 and 4.1.
There is a risk that participants may feel that they have been deceived by the
112
experimenter. In order to reduce this as far as possible, a full debrief will explain
the rationale behind the deception, and why this was absolutely necessary to
preserve the integrity of the research. Participants will have the opportunity to
ask questions and the researcher will explain the experiment fully to ensure that
all participants leave the experiment fully informed. Please see sections 2 and 4.1
for full discussion.
2) IAPS Images: Some participants may find some of the negative IAPS images
uncomfortable to view. The steps to be taken to reduce any discomfort or distress
as far as possible are covered in full in Section 2.
SUBJECT MATTER
A further ethical issue which may arise is discomfort with the subject matter. As the
subject matter of this study is psychokinesis (PK), many participants may not have come
across this concept previously. They may feel uncomfortable with this concept as it may
be outside of their usual world-views. This may be experienced by the participant as a
feeling of conflict or discomfort. It is important therefore that the experimenter is well
informed to answer participant’s questions about the subject matter. Participants should
be encouraged to ask questions, particularly at the stage of the debrief, in order that
they do not leave the study feeling confused. If participants struggle further with this
issue, they will be advised to speak with their personal tutor or with the university
counselling service if they are a student, or with external counselling and listening
services if they are not a student. These details will be given to them as part of the
debrief. The researcher will be fully available for nine months following the study should
participants have further questions.
FAILURE/SUCCESS
If participants have seen negative images in the reward tasks, they may feel that they
have performed poorly on the PK tasks. It is important that all scores be normalised for
the participant in order to avoid any feelings of failure or disappointment. It is important
that a non-significant score is not communicated to the participants as a ‘poor’ or ‘failed’
score, but that participants are fully aware of the very small size of the PK effect and
informed that it is normal in most studies for participants to achieve non-significant
results. This is not a failure of any sort but is very normal and should not be of concern.
On the other hand, if participants have seen a lot of positive images and therefore feel
that they have been ‘successful,’ this may result in feelings of confusion and conflict if
psychokinesis is a subject which falls outside of their world-views. It is therefore
important that the experimenter is able to answer any questions the participants may
have, and to recommend further support where necessary. In both cases, participants
113
should be informed that their scores are normal, and encouraged to ask any questions.
QUESTIONNAIRES
Due to the nature of the subject matter, participants may feel uncomfortable answering
some
of
the
questions
on
questionnaire
1,
which
examines
their
belief
in
parapsychological phenomena. Participants will be informed that they do not have to
answer any questions with which they do not feel comfortable, and will be able to ask
questions
about
the
questionnaire.
Participants
will
be
able
to
withdraw
their
questionnaire responses up to two weeks following their participation, as described in
Section 4.2.
Student checklist
Yes
Have you checked the ethics form and materials for typos and spelling?
√
Have you included a copy of all of the materials (e.g. recruitment
advertisement and participant information sheet, consent form,
questionnaires (as they will appear to the participant), interview
schedule) with your ethics submission?
Are you conducting this research during a university placement?
√
No
N/A
√
Does this research involve any kind of external organisation (e.g. a
school, business, charity etc.)?
Does the external organisation require that you have a CRB check (or
equivalent for overseas students)?
√
√
I am familiar with the University of Northampton and the BPS guidelines for ethical
practices in psychological research (and have discussed them with my supervisor)
Signed (student):
Date:
24/05/2014
Statement of Ethical Approval
Note: No legal liability or responsibility can be attached to the Ethics panel for advice
given
Full Approval
Approval in
principle
Project can begin.
Committee are awaiting documentation as follows:
Approval with
minor
corrections
Once these materials are received, the project can begin.
This outcome typically requires small input from the
supervisor or a few minor aspects that need changing. These
are:
Approval with
major
This outcome typically requires more significant changes to
be made. Students must meet with their supervisor to
114
corrections
discuss the changes.
You will need to resubmit the following aspect(s) of the
application:
Resubmission
This outcome requires a full resubmission to the ethics email
account, following the published deadlines.
This outcome is rarely used and is when the project is
considered unethical and not doable.
You must meet with your supervisor and rethink your
dissertation plans in light of the comments provided.
Date:
Not approved
Signed (Chair,
Psychology Ethics
panel
APPENDICES MUST BE ATTACHED HERE
Please include all your supporting documents here (with the exception of letters of
consent from external organisations if required)
You should include:
Information Sheet
Consent form
Interview schedule/ questionnaires (as presented to participants)/ experimental
images/ videos/ instructions
Debrief (if required)
Any other necessary documents
115
Appendix: Information sheet
Division of
Psychology
Participant Information The Effects of Observation on Retro-Psycho-kinesis
[email protected]
+44(0)7800 982518
Supervisor: Chris Roe
[email protected]
The present study focuses on the effects of observation on retro-psychokinesis. Further
details on the nature of the study are presented below.
The following information is provided to help you decide whether or not you would like to
take part in the study. Please take the time to read through this information and feel free to
ask any questions you may have regarding it.
What will the study investigate?
The present study focuses on the effects of observation on Psychokinesis.
Psychokinesis is the influence of mental intention on a physical system or a biological
system. In this study, as a participant you will attempt to use your mental intention to
influence the arousal levels of another subject. These arousal levels have been pre-recorded
and will be shown to you on a computer in the form of a moving graph. You will be asked to
attempt to either increase or decrease the arousal levels using your mental intention.
We will be measuring how much participants are able to mentally influence these arousal
levels. In particular, we are interested in the degree to which participants are able to influence
the arousal levels is affected by observation (whether or not the participant observes the
output).
We will therefore carry out some trials in which you will attempt to mentally influence the
arousal levels whilst observing the output, and some trials where you will attempt to
influence arousal levels whilst not observing the output.
Why have I been asked to participate?
We are asking any persons to participate in the study. Previous research has indicated that
any person may be able to use mental intention to influence a physical or biological system,
so there is no experience required.
While many studies have looked at mental influence affecting physical and biological
systems, few have looked at the effects of observation on this this influence. Some theories
have suggested that whether or not the output is observed will have an important effect on
ability to mentally influence a system. This has significant implications for the understanding
the underlying mechanisms of psychokinesis.
If I agree to take part, what will it involve?
116
The study will take around 30 minutes of your time. You will be free to withdraw from the
experiment at any time, without giving reason for your withdrawal.
The study will all take place on a computer using our automated software. You first be asked
to complete a consent form on the computer. The experimenter will be on hand if you have
any questions and you do not have to give consent if you do not wish. The experimenter will
then leave the room for the experimental trials.
You will undergo six trials. In each trial, you will be shown an 80 second run of the arousal
levels of another person. This will appear as a moving graph on the computer screen.
You will only need to use your mental intention in the last two trials (you will be instructed
when it is time to do so). The first four trials will be preparatory trials, as it is important in a
PK task to get used to the appearance of the target before attempting to influence it.
Before each trial you will receive some written instructions on-screen. In some trials, you will
be instructed to observe the target graph, whereas in other trials you will be instructed to wear
the blindfold so that you will not be able to see the target graph. You will know when the
blindfolded trials have ended as there will be a sound to alert you to remove the blindfold.
After each trial, there will be a short reward task. In the reward task, you will be asked to rate
pictures for your liking of them on a 1 to 5 scale (you can leave out any pictures you do not
wish to rate). In the trials where you are attempting to mentally influence the arousal levels
(the final two trials), this reward task will be contingent on how much you are able to
mentally influence the arousal levels. The more you are able to mentally influence the arousal
levels, the more the ‘positive’ images as oppose to ‘negative’ images you will be shown. In
first four preparatory trials, the reward task will not be contingent on how you influence the
arousal levels.
As part of the experiment, you will be asked to complete two questionnaires:
Questionnaire 1: Examines your beliefs about Psi Phenomena
Questionnaire 2: Is about your experience of the experiment
You are free to omit any questions with which you do not feel comfortable.
All of your data in the trials and the questionnaires will be confidential. You will be given a
participant number which will be used on all the experimental data. Incase you wish to
withdraw your data after the experiment, you will be asked to give your student number, or if
you are not a student, the last six digits of your phone number (ID information). The
experimental data and your ID information will be stored on a separate databases. In this
way, your ID information is not directly linked with the experimental data. We keep your ID
information only in-case you wish to withdraw your participation after the experiment. There
is no need to include your name anywhere.
You will be free to withdraw from the experiment at any time, and to request that your
records are removed from the experimental database for up to two weeks following the
experiment. A full debrief will be given at the end of the experiment, in which we will
answer any questions you may have.
What do I need to know about contributing to this research?
• Participation in this study is completely voluntary.
• You may withdraw from the research at any time and for any reason, without having
to give an explanation up to two weeks after your participation. If you withdraw, your
117
•
•
•
data will be removed. If you would like to withdraw please contact the researcher:
Tara
Knudsen
([email protected]:[email protected]) and quote
your ID information (student number or last six digits of phone number).
You may omit any questions within the questionnaires that you do not feel
comfortable answering.
You may choose to pause or skip any trials if you are feeling uncomfortable, and to
withdraw at any point during the experiment.
There are no right or wrong answers to these questions, data are completely
anonymised. Data will be reported in aggregate form.
How will my data be handled?
• The trial data and questionnaire data (raw) will only be seen by the researchers.
• Neither your trial data nor your questionnaire data contains any personal
information and will not be identifiable. ID information will be on a separate secured
data base.
• This research will be carried out in accordance with the British Psychological
Society’s Code of Ethics and Conduct (2009) and in compliance with the Data
Protection Act (1998). If you would like further information about this please contact
[email protected]:[email protected]
• Confidentiality will be maintained for respondents and we request that you be as
honest as possible in your answers.
If you have any further questions regarding this study please ask the researchers present or
email the contact researcher ([email protected]).
If this study raises any questions or concerns for which you would like to speak with
somebody other than the researcher, the researcher is able to confidentially provide details
for support services.
If you are a student at the University of Northampton, you are also encouraged to speak to
your personal tutor or university counsellor:
Phone: 01604 892833;
Email: [email protected];
Web: http://www.northampton.ac.uk/info/20344/student-support/395/counselling-service).
118
Appendix: Consent form
Division of
Psychology
Participant Consent Form The Effects of Observation on Retro-Psycho-kinesis
[email protected]
982518
[email protected]
PARTICIPANT NUMBER:
PARTICIPANT GENDER:
+44(0)7800
M/F
Please initial box
I confirm that I have read and understand the information sheet for the above
study and have had the opportunity to ask questions. My questions about the
study have been answered satisfactorily.
I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at
any time, without giving reason.
I agree that my data gathered in this study will be kept
securely by the researchers and agree to aggregated
analysis of this data to be published.
I agree to take part in the above study.
(No signature as consent form will be computerised)
119
Appendix: Sheep-goat scale
Questionnaire (1) The Effects of Observation on Retro-Psycho-kinesis
[email protected]
+44(0)7800 982518
[email protected]
Please complete the below questionnaire by circling the answer ‘True’ or ‘False’ against each
statement.
having to give any explanation. If you do not wish to complete the questionnaire, please leave
the questions blank.
Your responses to the questionnaire will remain confidential. Only your participant number
will be included on the questionnaire. Your student number will be kept in a separate
database so that it is not associated directly with the questionnaire data.
Should you wish to withdraw your responses to the questionnaire, you may do so at any time
up to two weeks after today by contacting the researcher: [email protected]. You
do not have to give any explanation for withdrawing your responses.
If you have any questions about the questionnaire before or after the study, the researcher will
be happy to answer them in person, or by email ([email protected])
120
Participant No.
Sex: M__ F__
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
I believe in the existence of ESP
I believe I have had a personal experience of ESP
I believe I am psychic
I believe that it is possible to gain information about the
future before it happens, in ways that do not depend on
rational prediction or normal sensory channels.
I have had at least one hunch that turned out to be
correct and which (I believe) was not just a coincidence
I have had at least one premonition about the future that
came true and which (I believe) was not just a
coincidence
I have had at least one dream that came true and which
(I believe) was not just a coincidence.
I have had at least one vision that was not an
hallucination and from which I received information
that I could not have otherwise gained at that time and
place.
I believe that it is possible to gain information about the
thoughts, feelings or circumstances of another person, in
a way that does not depend on rational prediction or
normal sensory channels.
I believe that it is possible to send a ‘mental message’ to
another person, or in some way influence them at a
distance, by means other than the normal channels of
communication.
I have had at least one experience of telepathy between
myself and another person.
I believe in the existence of psychokinesis (or ‘PK’),
that is, the direct influence of mind on a physical
system, without the mediation of any known physical
energy.
I believe I have personally exerted PK on at least one
occasion.
I believe I have marked psychokinetic ability.
I believe that, on at least one occasion, an inexplicable
(but non-recurrent) physical event of an apparently
psychokinetic origin has occurred in my presence.
I believe that inexplicable physical disturbances, of an
apparently psychokinetic origin, have occurred in my
presence at some time in the past (as for example, a
poltergeist).
Thank you for your participation.
True
True
True
True
False
False
False
False
True
False
True
False
True
False
True
False
True
False
True
False
True
False
True
False
True
False
True
True
False
False
True
False
121
Appendix: Reward manipulation check
Questionnaire (2) The Effects of Intention and Observation on Retro-Psycho-kinesis
[email protected]
+44(0)7800 982518
[email protected]
Please complete the below questionnaire by circling your responses on a scale of 1 to 5.
having to give any explanation. If you do not wish to complete the questionnaire, please leave
the questions blank.
Your responses to the questionnaire will remain confidential. Only your participant number
will be included on the questionnaire. Your student number will be kept in a separate
database so that it is not associated directly with the questionnaire data.
Should you wish to withdraw your responses to the questionnaire, you may do so at any time
up to two weeks after today by contacting the researcher: [email protected]. You
do not have to give any explanation for withdrawing your responses.
If you have any questions about the questionnaire before or after the study, the researcher will
be happy to answer them in person, or by email ([email protected])
122
Sex: M__ F__
Participant No.
On a scale of 1 to 5 where one is ‘not at all enjoyable’ and five is ‘extremely enjoyable’ how enjoyable did
1
2
3
4
5
On a scale of 1 to 5 where one is ‘not at all pleasant’ and five is ‘extremely pleasant’ how pleasant did you
find the reward (picture rating) task (please circle):
1
2
3
4
5
On a scale of 1 to 5 where one is ‘not at all disturbing’ and five is ‘extremely disturbing’ how disturbing did
1
2
3
4
5
On a scale of 1 to 5 where one is ‘not at all happy’ and five is ‘very happy’ how happy would you be to do
this reward (picture rating) task again (please circle):
1
2
Thank you for your participation.
3
4
5
123
Appendix: Computer task walk-through
SOFTWARE PROGRAMME The Effects of Intention and Observation on Retro-Psycho-kinesis
[email protected]
+44(0)7800 982518
[email protected]
The experiment will be conducted using an automated software programme designed
specifically for the present study. The below is an outline of the software programme as it
will be presented to participants.
Before the software programme is started, participants will be briefed and right to withdraw
will be explained.
TABLE 1: SOFTWARE OVERVIEW:
VIEWED BY PARTICIPANT
DESCRIPTION
1. CONSENT FORM
Consent Form
Please see attached consent form for
details of full text.
2. PARTICIPANT INSTRUCTIONS
Participant Instructions:
Please observe the following output.
This is a trial session. You do not have to
attempt to influence the output at this point.
This is an observation condition. You do not
need to wear the blindfold.
Please be reminded that you are free to withdraw
at any time.
3. Psychokinesis (PK) TRIAL
Blank screen with text giving
participant instructions. The
instructions will vary according to the
experimental condition.
124
One of the pre-recorded random
number sequences is played to the
participant in the format of a moving
graph, as depicted on the left. In the
conscious intention conditions,
participants will be instructed to
mentally influence the progression of
this graph. In other conditions, they
will be asked to only observe it. In the
observation condition, participants
will observe the output normally,
whereas in the no-observation
conditions, they will be asked to wear
a blindfold.
See section below for full explanation.
4. INSTRUCTIONS FOR REWARD TASK
Instructions given for the reward task.
Participant Instructions:
(In the conditions where participants
have been blindfolded for the previous
Please observe the following images and rate
trial, these instructions will be
your liking of these images on a scale of 1 to 5.
preceded by a sound which will alert
participants to remove the blindfold).
A total of 12 images will be shown.
Please be reminded that you are free to withdraw
at any time.
5. REWARD TASK: IAPS IMAGES
Participants will view 12 IAPS
images. Participants will be asked to
rate the images on a scale of 1 to 5
Please rate your liking of this picture on a scale
of 1 to five, where 1 is ‘greatly dislike’ and 5 is
‘greatly like.’ (example text)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) please select
6. SHEEP GOAT QUESTIONNAIRE
In conditions A & B, all images will
be neutral. In conditions C, D, E & F,
as a baseline 11 images will be neutral
and 1 will be negative. Depending on
the participant’s score in the above
trials, positive/negative images may be
shown in place of some baseline
images: Please see the section below
to show how the number of
positive/negative images will be
calculated.
125
The Sheep-Goat questionnaire
examines the participants’ attitude to
psi phenomena. For full text, please
see the attached questionnaire.
Questionnaire (1)
Please complete the below questions.
Please feel free to omit any questions which you
do not wish to answer.
7. REWARD VALIDITY QUESTIONNAIRE
The Reward Validity questionnaire
Questionnaire (2)
examines the participants’ enjoyment
of the reward task, which can be used
Please complete the below questions.
to test the validity of this task. For full
text, please see the attached
Please feel free to omit any questions which you questionnaire.
do not wish to answer.
INSTRUCTIONS ACCORDING TO TRIAL
Each participant will undergo sections 2 to 5 a total of six times (six experimental trials), with
differing instructions according to the experimental condition:
CONDITION
No Intention
You do not need to use your mental intention
A
Observation
You do not need to wear the blindfold
CONDITION
B
No Intention
No Observation
Please wear the blindfold
CONDITION
C
Observation
CONDITION
D
No Observation
Conscious Intention
Please use your mental intention to influence
the arousal level in direction (X)
CONDITION
E
Observation
CONDITION F Conscious Intention
No Observation
Please use your mental intention to influence
the arousal level in direction (X)
TABLE 2: CALCULATIONS FOR STAGE 5: REWARD TASK
126
In Section 5 of each trial, participants will be shown 12 IAPS images as a reward task. In
conditions where the reward task is contingent on their PK performance (conditions C, D, E,
F,) their scores on the PK trials will be used to calculate how many positive/negative images
are shown.
In each PK trial, the random number sequence will be comprised of 80 data points, each
containing 10 binary digits. These 80 data points will be scored as:
-‐ ‘positive’ if 7+/10 binary digits are in the direction of intention
-‐ ‘negative’ if 3-/10 binary digits are in the direction of intention, or
-‐ ‘neutral’ if 4-6/10 binary digits are in the direction of intention
The IAPS images a participant is shown will be based on their 80 trial scores as below.
As a baseline, the participant will be shown 11 neutral pictures and one negative picture.
However, where positive / negative success scores are achieved, some of these baseline
pictures will be replaced with positive / negative pictures as below:
TABLE 2:
TRIAL SCORE / 800
CHANGE TO BASELINE
IMAGES
≤355
+ 8 negative
356-365
+ 7 negative
366-375
+ 6 negative
376-380
+ 5 negative
381-385
+ 4 negative
386-390
+ 3 negative
391-393
+ 2 negative
394-396
+ 1 negative
397-403
Baseline
404-406
+ 1 positive
407-409
+ 2 positive
410-412
+ 3 positive
413-415
+ 4 positive
416-420
+ 5 positive
421-425
+ 6 positive
426-430
+ 7 positive
431-435
+ 8 positive
436-440
+ 9 positive
441-450
+ 10 positive
451-460
+ 11 positive
461+
+ 12 positive
TOTAL NUMBER OF PICTURES SHOWN: 12
127
Appendix: Debrief
Participant Debrief The Effects of Observation on Retro-Psycho-kinesis
[email protected]
+44(0)7800 982518
[email protected]
Thankyou for participating in this study.
The main aim of this study was to look at the effects of intention and observation on retropsychokinesis.
PSYCHOKINESIS
Psychokinesis (PK) is mental influence on physical systems (including biological
systems). Retro-psychokinesis is mental influence on physical systems which have been
previously generated/recorded. It is important to conduct research which will help us to work towards an explanatory model of this phenomena, if it does occur! This study looked in detail at the effects that different kinds of ‘intention’ and ‘observation’ have on PK performance. The reason we were interested in ‘intention’ and ‘observation’ is because two key theories of PK, the Psi Mediated Instrumental Response (PMIR) model and the Observational Theory, both put different emphasis on the factors of ‘intention’ and ‘observation’ in the context of PK. Looking in detail at these factors will therefore help us to understand the relationship between the above models as well as the mechanisms which may underlie PK. AROUSAL LEVELS/RANDOM NUMBER SEQUENCES:
In this study, you were instructed to observe a graph showing pre-recorded arousal
levels. Infact, the graph you were observing was not generated by recording arousal levels,
but was a random number sequence generated by a random number generator.
A random number generator generates random binary sequences (0s and 1s). The
chance score in each direction (0/1) is 50/50. It is therefore easy to statistically calculate any
deviations from chance in the random number sequences.
We were interested in testing the effect your mental influence had on these random
number sequences. We chose to use random number sequences as these are very easy to
standardise and compare, and this will enable us to be as accurate as possible in our
interpretation of the results.
128
By asking you to affect the random number sequences as though they were arousal
rates, we aimed to get you more engaged with the output, rather than just showing you binary
digits. In the latter case, attention span would have been shorter and therefore the PK effect
would have been reduced.
MEASUREMENTS:
We were measuring how much the random number sequences deviated from chance
when you applied your mental intention.
We were looking at the effects of two variables on this deviation from chance:
-‐ Variable 1: Intention: Conscious Intention / Unconscious Intention / No Intention
-‐ Variable 2: Observation: Observation / No Observation
The reason we are interested in these variables is, as mentioned above, because two of
the main theories in PK (PMIR theory and Observation theory) disagree about the relevance
of these two factors to PK.
In order for us to look at the effects of these variables, you completed six trials as part
of the experiment as below.
EXPERIMENTAL TRIALS
Below is an overview of the six trials you completed and how they investigated the effects of
‘intention’ and ‘observation.’
TRIAL 1:
CONDITION A
TRIAL 2:
CONDITION B
TRIAL 3:
CONDITION C
TRIAL 4:
CONDITION D
TRIAL 5:
CONDITION E
TRIAL 6:
CONDITION F
No Intention
Observation
No Intention
No Observation
Observation
No Observation
Conscious Intention
Observation
Conscious Intention
No Observation
INTENTION
You will see that we investigated three types of intention:
-‐ Conscious Intention
-‐ Unconscious Intention
-‐ No Intention
The PMIR model of PK claims that PK functions through unconscious intention. On the other
hand, the Observation Theory puts importance on conscious intention. We therefore wanted
129
to look at the difference between ‘unconscious intention’ and ‘conscious intention’ and also a
control of ‘no intention.’
The first two trials you completed were ‘no intention’ trials. In these trials, you were
informed that you did not need to influence the arousal rates. The reward task was not
contingent on your performance in these trials.
The second two trials were ‘unconscious intention’ trials. In these trials, you were informed
that you did not need to influence the arousal rates. However, in these trials the reward task
was contingent on your performance. You were not aware at the time that the reward task
would be contingent on your performance. This is because the intention needed to be
‘unconscious’ as oppose to ‘conscious.’ If you had been aware that the reward task was based
on your performance, this would have created conscious intention. Because you were not
aware, if any intention was created it had to be unconscious. This distinction between
conscious and unconscious intention is very important to this research, as the PMIR and
Observational theories of PK disagree over which type of intention (conscious/unconscious)
is critical in PK.
The last two trials were conscious intention trials. You were informed to use your intention
and that the reward task was contingent on PK performance.
We were interested in how these three different types of intention influenced PK, and also
how they interacted with the second variable: observation.
OBSERVATION
According to the Observational Theory, observation of the output is critical for PK.
According to the PMIR theory however, observation is not an important factor. We therefore
aimed to investigate the effects of ‘observation’ and ‘no observation’ on PK.
Observation is simply whether you observed the ‘arousal levels’ or not. There were
three observation conditions and three non-observation conditions (one for each intention
condition). In the observation conditions you observed the screen, whereas in the no
observation conditions you wore a blindfold and could not see the output on the screen.
Some support has been previously provided for both the PMIR Model (e.g. Hichman, Roe &
Sherwood, 2012) and the Observational Theory (e.g. Schmidt, 1985). However, as above,
both models put different and apparently contradictory emphasis on the variables of
‘intention’ and ‘observation.’ It is therefore important to tease out the different aspects of
these two variables and examine their independent and combined effect on PK.
Your participation is therefore very valuable in helping us to better understand how these
models may contribute towards a theory of PK.
If you would like to read more about the subject, below are some recommendations:
130
-‐
-‐
-‐
Hichman, G., Roe, C.A., & Sherwood, S. J. (2012). A Reexamination of
Nonintentional Precognition with Openness to Experience, Creativity, Psi Beliefs, and
Luck Beliefs as Predictors of Success. The Journal of Parapsychology, 76, 109-146
Stanford, R. G. (1974). An experimentally testable model for spontaneous psi events
I: Extrasensory events. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 68,
34–57.
Schmidt, H. (1985). Additional Effect for PK on Prerecorded Targets. Journal of
Parapsychology, 49, 229-244
All data collected in this study will be analysed in an aggregated form – your responses will
not be singled out; only averaged results will be reported in any future publications. You will
remain anonymous.
If, for whatever reason, you later decide that you no longer want your responses to be part of this study, you may withdraw your responses for up to two weeks after the experiment. To do so, please contact the researcher: Tara Knudsen (see details below), to have your data removed from the study and destroyed. You will not have to give any reason for your withdrawal. Thank you again for participating in this study. Please do not show this debriefing sheet or discuss any aspect of the study with other participants. In order for this study to work, it is important that future participants do not have this information or any particular expectations. If you would like more information, or have any further questions about any aspect of this study, then please feel free to contact the researcher: Tara Knudsen. Researcher: Tara Knudsen [email protected] +44(0)7800982518 131

1 The Effects of Observation and Intention on Retro

Transcription

Similar documents

Om Tare Tuttare Ture Soha

Wednesday February 4 2009

everyone - Tara Fingold

LAUNCHING OF OCEANIC PLANKTON, CLIMATE AND

June 10, 2016 - St. Margaret Mary Catholic Church

Saint Margaret Mary Catholic Church … Thank you for worshipping

Title II. Of Domicile and the Manner of Changing the Same (Art. 38

THE BEST - Safavieh Dream Mattress

Jan-Mar 2014

among the - Tara Dennis