r r Appj0VFTFpr Release 2000/08 0789R002200460001-7 .U Final Report- March 1989 covering the Me-rW-r-rc*tober 1988 to 15 February 1989 REVIEW OF THE PSYCHOENERGETIC RESEARCH CONDUCTED AT SRI INTERNATIONAL (1973-1988) (U) IL rm !1nt!e1Atjio,na1 d Fo~, Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200460001-7 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA- 0789ROO2200460001-7 U,NCLASSWr?U (U) TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................... iv LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................v I OBJECTIVE .......................................................1 if EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................2 III INTRODUCTION ..................................................3 IV METHOD OF APPROACH ..........................................4 A. Analysis Domain ..............................................4 B. Database Management System ...................................5 C. Statistical Methods ............................................7 V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................... 11 A. Overall Results ............................................... 11 B. Results for Categories Within the Informational Process ............. 12 C. Specific Results for Remote Viewing ............................. 14 REFERENCES .............................................................. 24 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200460001-7 Approved For Release 204JNC4.A&MfiSD0789ROO2200460001-7 (U) LIST OF TABLES 1. Definitions And Meta-analysis Formalism (u) 9 2. Statistical Results For Major Classes (U) .................................... 11 3. Statistical Results For Informational Categories (U) ........................... 13 iv UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200460001-7 Approved For Release 24j#4CAA(S&W*DO0789ROO2200460001-7 (U) LIST OF FIGURES 1. Categories And Number Of Trials (U) ....................................... 5 2 Database Schema Design For Meta-analysis (U) .............................. 7 v UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200460001-7 'A Approved For Release 2dMIUA4610plf)DO789ROO2200460001-7 I OBJECTWE (U) M The objective of Task 6.0.1 of the FY 1989 Statement of work (SOW) is to assess, where possible, the experimental results of the research at SRI International since 1973.* (U) This report constitutes the deliverable for Statement of Work, Task 6.0.1. I UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200460001-7 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP~6-00789ROO2200460001-7 Il EXECUTINT SUMMARY (U) We have conducted a review and analysis of the psychoenergetic research conducted at SRI International from I October 1973 to 30 September 1988. The datibase comprises 117 documents with a total of 5,025 pages. am -A total of 25,449 trials were conducted under a variety of protocols. Analysis indicates that the odds that our results are not due to simple statistical fluctuations alone are better than 2 x 1020 to I (i.e.. 2 followed by 20 zeros). Using accepted criteria set forth in the standard behavioral sciences, we conclude that this constitutes convincing, if not conclusive, evidence for the existence of psychoenergetic functioning. VmThe main results are summarized below: Remote viewing (RV) can provide useful. 1111111110kin forma Lion. Laboratory and operational remote viewing show the greatest potential for practical applications. Experienced viewers are significantly better than the general population. Approximately 1% of the general population possess a natural remote viewing ability. Remote viewing ability does not degrade over time. At this time, there is no quantitative evidence to support a training hypothesis. Natural scenes are significantly better than symbols as targets, for remote -ing. ie" v Remote viewing quality is independent of target distance and/or size. e There is no evidence to support that a psychoenergetic interaction with the physical world exists. e Electromagnetic shielding is not effective against psychoenergetic acquisition of *0 information. o A potential central nervous system correlate to remote viewing has recently been identified. 2 Approved For Release 2000 OL--- J~96 00789ROO22004600,pl-7 Approved For Release 20lyffeL.AlSIFFfEfp789ROO2200460001-7 III INTRODUCTION (U) (U) Until recently, the task of assessing any general body of published knowledge was formidable. Most of the attempts included review articles that were based primarily upon the informed opinions of the reviewers. It was recognized, however, that in the behavioral sciences specific problems arose that were unique to those disciplines. For example, many of the behavioral results are based on a statistical rejection of a null hypothesis, and, using accepted practices," a successful outcome is declared if the odds that the result is not due to a chance statistical fluctuation are better than 20 to 1. A major problem for reviewers is created when the behavioral sciences' technical journals refuse to publish results that fail to meet this statistical criterion. For example, if only one-in-20 studies is published, then the literature may appear to provide evidence for a phenomenon, but taken with the 19 unpublished studies for every published one, there is no evidence for a phenomenon. This particular difficulty is called "the file drawer problem." (U) This and other problems resulting from the diversity and difficulty of the behavioral sciences have been addressed in a new review technique known as meta-analysis .2-4 Meta-analytical procedures are most useful when a large number of diverse studies is under consideration. Meta-analysis provides techniques to clarify the impact of the file drawer problem and to enable us to combine diverse experiments in a meaningful manner. (U) The results of SRI's psychoenergetic research encompass a wide variety of experiments and thus can be addressed with these techniques. The analysis of the SRI data, however, is simplified because there is no file drawer problem. All experiments that were conducted have been reported, and thus are included in the analysis. (U) This report describes the database, the analysis techniques, and the results of 16 years of psychoenergetic research conducted at SRI International. (U) References may be found at the end of this report. 3 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200460001-7 Approved For Release WWCaJoA-.%SjF KOO -00789 R002200460001-7 2. (U) Database Design (U) The database schema that was used consists of four basic tables (people, documents, experiments, and units), and two basic relationships (author and parameter). See Figure 2 for an illustration of this schema. The units-table contains information about the lowest level of statistical analysis in a given experiment. For example, if 6 viewers participated in 20 trials each, the database would contain 6 unit entries-one for the overall result for each viewer. (U) Although our database management system is a relational database, our requirements were inherently hierarchical. That is, each of the documents contains several experiments, and each of our experiments contain several trials. In order to minimize the redundancy within the database, we attempted to include all pertinent information as high in the hierarchy as possible. That is, if a parameter or condition applied to an entire experiment, we would record that data at the experiment level. If, on the other hand, the parameter varied across units within a given experiment, we made provision to record those data as a function of unit instead. (U) The analyses of most of our experiments contain both individual and group statistics. In order to prevent any trial from being "counted" multiple times, we required that all experiments be broken up into the "units" which represent the basic grouping of trials upon which a hypothesis was being tested. Thus, any given trial appears only once in the database yet we can reconstitute the group statistics at a later time. (U) This approach offers two advantages. First, any arbitrary parameter which does not have an explicit slot in the database can be stored, thus providing flexibility. Second, we can distinguish between "independent variables" and "incidental variables *" The former are variables which are intentionally manipulated by the experimenter, and the latter are actually parameters which the experimenter either could not control or treated as insignificant. (U) Some of the documents detail multiple analyses for a given experiment in order to compare and evaluate standard and new analytic techniques. For this effort, however, we required that only one analysis be recorded for each experiment, since our primary focus was to evaluate the parameters that effect psychoenergetic functioning and not to compare different evaluation techniques. In determining which analysis to enter into the database, we always chose a blind method over a post hoc method. If a choice still remained, we then always chose the technique that had been developed first. 6 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200460001-7 Approved For ReleaseJMdGtASSIFiED-00789ROO2200460001-7 Document 1 .4 Author I up Person Experiment 1-4 Principal investigator Unit Subject ID Monitor ID Parameters --)0- One-to-Many Relationship Entity C:::= Relationship UNCLASSIFIED FIGURE 2 (U) DATABASE SCHEMA DESIGN FOR META-ANALYSIS (U) The Appendix contains examples of the DBMS input sheets that were used to encode psychoenergetic data for the database, and the instructions that were given to analysts. They are included in the Appendix for completeness; there is no further discussion about them in this report. C. (U) Statistical Methods 1. (U) Effect Size Calculations (U) Effect sizes were calculated for each experiment or condition using the formula given by Rosenthal:2 Z d=- Fn where n is the number of trials and z is the usual normalized output score. If no z score was given for an experiment, but a p value was, the z that would have given that p value was computed and used in the formula. The exception to this procedure was for experiments based on a s6m-of-rank statistic. For those, a more appropriate effect size formula was used and is given by 7 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200460001-7 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200460001-7 M S_ (R + 1) R2 1 _E L12 V where S is the average rank and R is the number of choices for each rank. 2. (U) Comparisons Across Classes (U) Experiments can be categorized in accordance with a number of specific variables (e.g., type of feedback, type of target, distance between the viewer and the target). Effect sizes can be examined within a given category and compared across categories. For each categorization, the following questions are of interest: (1) Question 1: Is there any evidence of psychoenergetic functioning within each of the individual categories? (2) Question 2: Is the level of psychoenergetic functioning constant across all experiments within a category? (3) Question 3: Is the level of psychoenergetic functioning constant across categories? (4) Question 4: If there are differences across categories, what is the relative size of the effect in each category? (U) Table 1 shows the notation that is used in the formalism that answers these questions. (U) To answer question 1, compare the average z score in each category with the standard normal tables. (U) To answer question 2, compute k Mi QW nij(dij - di.)'. i-1J.1 If effect sizes are homogeneous within categories, the distribution of Qw will be approximately X2 with v = (Tmi - k) degrees of freedom. The hypothesis of homogeneity is rejected if Qw is large compared to the chi-square table entry with v degrees of freedom. To test for homogeneity within a single category, i, compute Mi QWi Z nij(dij - di.)' . j=J 8 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200460001-7 Approved For Release 2LDMASIgif4E%00789ROO2200460001-7 (U) Similarly, the distribution of Qwi will be approximately X2 with v = (mi k) degrees of freedom, and can be examined as above. Table I (U) DEFINITIONS AND META- ANALYSIS FORMALISM Basic Definitions k = number of categories mi = number of experiments in category i; 1 k dij = effect size for experiment j in category i; i = 1, k; j 1, mi nij = number of trials in experiment j in category i zij = z score for experiment j in category i Computed Quantities ni. nij = number of trials n1jdij Within Category i di. n = average effect size ~n_ij zij Z1. = di. Fn-i. = average z score ni. n.. ni. = total number of trials nijdij Across Categories d.. j overall average effect size n.. z.. Tn-d.. = overall average z score UNCLASSIFIED (U) To answer question 3, compute k QB ni. (di. - d..)'. If effect sizes are homogeneous across categories, the distribution Of QB will be approximately X2 with v = k-1 degrees of freedom. Therefore, the hypothesis of homogeneity across categories is rejected if QB is large compared to the appropriate entry in the chi-square table with v degrees of freedom. 9 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200460001-7 elease 24MQ U 1)00789ROO2200460001-7 Approved For R A (U) Finally, to answer question 4, approximate 95% confidence intervals may be computed for the average effect size within a category using di. ± 1.96 -77 10 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200460001-7 Approved For Release 2UNC64&SMED00789R'002200460001-7 Appendix CODING SHEETS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE META-ANALYSIS alis Appendix is UNCLASSIFIED) 25 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200460001-7 Approved For Release 2UNCiASISMED00789ROO2200460001-7 Page: Unit information Coder I.D: Date: Form LID: Data Unit Name Session Viewer Viewer within condition Trial Experiment 0: unit I. D. Viewer I. D. 1. D. Experienced Novice Monitor 1. D. Start Date Date Duration Start Time Time Duration Viewer Location SRI Home: Client: Field:- 0: Inten- Parameters That Differ Circle or write in all appropriate conditions tional'; Y N Target Name Y N Targeting Method Beacon Abstract Coordinates Prompting self unknown 0: YN Target Type Ops Real Site Photograph Alpha/Nurneric . P.erson Objects 0: Y N Target Distance (km) < 1 < 50 < 5000 > 5000 Unknown 0: Y N Target Location Inside Outside Both 0: Y N Target: When Selected Retrocognition Real Time Precognition 0: lelding Type Unknown E&M Cage/Room Water SCIF 0: No Y N Feedback Type None Visual Audio Verbal Intermediate Site Unknown 0: Y N Feedback: When Immediate <5 min 1 day Unknown 0:- IYN Independent Variable #1 Condition: Y N Independent Variable #2 Condition: Data of Trials Raw Score Judgement Score 1 1 2 3 4 Z-Score P-Value Effect SIze Comments: UNCLASSIFIED CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200460001-7 Approved For Release 2000/08/08A-: Approved For ReleaseU#*Cd~ASSif-NBD6-00789ROO2200460001-7 Publication Information Page: Coder I.D: Date: Form I.D: I Data 7 r Title Titl e Authors SRI Project Number Document Number Classification Total Number of Pages Type of ReDort 11 Final id-year interim Quarterly Progress Monthly Progress ot- I Date of Eublication11 Rules for Meta-analysis Coding Organizatioll 1. Use one Publication Information sheet for each publication. 2. Use as few Experiment Information sheets as necessary. 3. A Unit is the smallest level at which the most basic hypothesis (usually psi versus no psi) was tested. 4. Results for a hypothesis that cannot be reconstructed from the basic units should be coded as a separate "experiment". The Type should be listed as 0: correlation. 5. For an experiment, staple together all Unit Information sheets with the Experiment Information sheet on top. Clip together all experiment packets from the same publication. Number all of the sheets consecu- lively within a publication. General: 1 . Circle (or slash) the appropriate choice. 2. Use [ ] around data to Indicate a coder guess or calculation. 3. If Other (0:) then specify. Experiment Parameters. Known Target Parameters and Feedback: 1 . Use publication date if Experiment date is unknown. 2. Generally, Independent variables are those manipulated by the experimenter. However, this space can also be used for variables that differ unintentionally within an experiment. See Rule #4 under "Unit In- formation". 3. Example: LANL experiment is coded as follows: Experiment Tym RV-Lab: Principal Hypothesis: CNS responds to remote, external stimuli; Independent Variable: Timing of remote stimuli. 4. Targeting Method: Prompting means a sound or gesture (e.g., Gina's bell). 5. Shielding is for viewer, target, or both. 6. Most feedback is actually multi-mode. Code the primary mode. Visual Feedback: Photograph (e.g., National Geographic Magazine). Audio Feedback: Just a sound (e.g., Bell from the teaching rna- chine). Verbal Feedback- Verbal debrief (e.g., You did well. The target was ... ). Silt Feedback: Physical visit to the target site (e.g., Outbound experiment). Basic Analysis: 1. Rank R = number of choices for ranking, Including target and all decoys. 2. Analysis scale, n = maximum. (e.g., 0 -> 4, n = 4). 3. Judgment means a qualitative estimate (e.g., by-gosh-by-golly); 1 = complete miss, 4 = complete hit. 4. Statistic means z-score or F ratio, etc. Unit Information: 1. Unit Name is "Session" for a single RV session, but "Trial" for a single forced choice. In forced choice experiments, there are usually several trials in a single session. 2. Unit I.D. is blank most of the time. Use Ops tag when appropriate. 3. Viewer I.D. is according to our most current list. Therefore, if a known viewer was listed under an old I.D., note the person's name so the current I.D. can be entered in the data base. 4. Parameters that differ should be filled in only for those cases where "differs" was circled on the Experi- ment Sheet. If the variable was Intentionally manipulated, circle Y. 5. P-value should be entered as -1 if it is unknown, to avoid confusion with the default missing value code of 0, which could be a legitimate P-value. UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/OX~CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200460001-7 1-7 Approved For Release 2dMQtAC%lItPW()D0789R00220046000 Experiment Information y n Sub-experiment or Concition-e Page: Coder I.D- Date: Form I.D: Data Type RV-Lab RV-Ops Forced-Choice Screening Training Search 0: Date Pages Within Document Principal investigator Number of Subjects Principal Hypothesis Independent Variable(s) a. not included b. below; list Differs* b. categories Differs- or describe in space provided. Experiment Task Known Target Parameters Data Target Name Targeting Beacon Abstract Coordinates Prompting Self Method Unknown Differs- 0: Type Ops Real Site Photograph Alpha/Numeric Person Objects Differs- 0; Distance < I < so < 5000 > 5000 Unknown Differs* 0: (km) Location Inside Outside Both Differs* 0: When Selected Retrocognition Real Time Precognition Differs* 0: Shielding Unknown E&M Cage/Room Water SCIF Differs* Type 0: 11111111117 Data "M "REW Type None Visual Audio Verbal Intermediate Site Unknown Differs* O:_ When Immediate <5 rnin <1 hr <1 day >1 day Unknown Differs* 0: Basic AnalysisData How Blind Post Hoc of choices Depndt. VariableRating Rank R_ Fuzzy Bit Discr. Bit Concept Hits__ Scale n_ Judgment Match 0:_ Method Scott's #rows FM Sum-of-Ranks Statistic 0: By Whom SRI Client 0; Purpo e RV PK Utility Demonstration O:_ When "Differs" is circled, information must be entered at the unit level. UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/0~-13CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200460001-7