84 r Release 4AW08/15
     Approved Fo
          Unexpect2d Common Patterning of Subject Data. When all 10
     subjects' (exploratory and replication) data were examined, 16 of
     190 possible comparisons (8. 4%) were significant at the .05 level,
     whereas 7/190 comparisons of simulation data were significant at the
     .05 level. A graphical analysis of the data revealed an unexpected
     common patterning in significantly intercorrelated subject data-
     The subjects' intercorrelated data form a pattern that can be
     roughly described as a "U" curve. No pattern is visible in inter-
     correlated simulation data.
            le
     Blind Mat0hin Th ex enters data yielded a rank of 1
              and the second oratory s data yielded a rank of 2.
     0
          0r
     s
     Among the eight pli ation sub ects, 3 yielded ranks of I (exact
     h
             a
             t
             b
                ee
     u
              binomial probabiJy~~ T 3 out of 8 with rank of 1 = 005, where
     0
              t
     0f
     8
             w
     3
             u
     t
     h
     p = .0476, q = .9524 one-taile
            e
     t
     a,
     0
     e
     D scussion
     D
     c
     us
     ts
     7t -~ae
            The first hypothesis, at subjects temporally pattern RNG
     he is at s-bj e~
                    data with which they intera , received weak confirmation. Two of
                                                 'ec i
        _t'r

     eight participants showed si ificant correlation of the temporal
     I ~,.diificant
           patterning of significant ,u s ores between two separate experi-
     cant u.ores b~
           mental replications, and a ,rd ubject showed a marginal correla-
     and 'd b3e.
           tion. Matched simulation ta s wed chance outcomes.
     at t.,
     wed
                    The second hypothelis' that uch patterns would be idiosyn-
     uch
                 b,
     at(
     cratic enough to allow bliqd Fn C..hin by objective means was strong-
     ly supported. Three of fght subjec I data (38%) were correctly
                e\~
     matched from within 20 docov data set
     s
     et
                                            What was most unet~ectred
                                                als. The
            ,
     among individu
     curve. As a group, th
     tern of significant hitti
     by significant missing i
     chance at the game's e d.
          Id
     it would be concluded
     conclusion, if based o
     facto grouping, would
     a periodic hitting/misE
     of the game and the n
     covery to chance leve)
     significant intereorrel)
                                                 was tdhe erning
                                          _Ximilarity of patt
     I te ",Me i be described as a "Utt
     at . fo
           intercorrelated su ject data showed a pat-
     e
     j et d
            g near the beginnin of the game, followed
     of '
               the game's middle, llowed by recovery to
          Had a summary me sure alone been used,
          y me 'u
      \e,
     at "no effect" was pre nt in this analysis:
     pre r
          ting and missing cancel e ch other out. This

     ancel ,
     individual data sets insted
     ,N oftan ex-post-
     dat,
     )e the same: Half of the da . sets showed
     t
     kg pattern, with the hitting the beginning
     ;sing in the game's middle, fo owed by a re-
              fo
     Of the 12 simulation data se that showed
     se
     ors, no pattern-ing can be seen.
          Random fluctuations should statistically average out, and
     there should be no differences between temporal epochs (if there
     is no effect of the subject on the data). The present data indicate
     that, indeed, subjects do influence random data idiosyncratically,
     but the present subject population showed a strong common effect.
     00792ROO0701020004-4
        CIA.Rl?,Pie?~;pers 85
     a n ne <al h
     This pa n is one t t has a long Iiistory in standard psychologi-
     0 t as
     ks is
     h "U
              cal tasks (e. , th "U" curve associated with learning temporal
     t
        sequences of ite and attributed to the motivational effects of
     'ces ite
     . - d attril
        71primacy" and 11 ece "). Replication of the present work is in
     ,cy d
     " ~r'5.e
     progress, a future w k will explore other parameters of random
     ~ss f turew k
        data for e I ence of idi sy ratic patterning.
     or evidence of idios,
     AN EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF A BELIEF IN PSI
                      Kenneth Reed (Dept, of Psychology, University of Edinburgh,
                             7 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, Scotland)
          Belief in psi has been a topic of investigation over recent
     years, especially by skeptics of parapsychology. The results
     achieved, however, have been inconclusive, and many of the stud-
     ies may have been biased. This study was therefore an attempt to
     investigate belief in psi taking account of these biases.
          The subjects involved in this study were second-year psy-
     chology undergraduates at Edinburgh University, a 'Class composed
     of 117 students (83 females and 34 males). They were all initially
     approached during their practical classes and asked to participate
     in the study, when they were told that the purpose of the study
     was to collect data to establish population norms for attitudes about
     unusual phenomena. Each subject was then handed a questionnaire

     which was set up along the following lines.
          Section A: Subjects had to reply yes or no, depending on
     whether they had experienced any of the following: a dream that
     later came true; thought about someone just before they telephoned;
     successfully tried to score in a definite way in a card game; been
     consistently lucky; been consistently unlucky; known that a letter
     was about to arrive. If a "yes" answer was given to any of these
     experiences the subjects had to rate that experience on a five-point
     scale, 1 (definitely psychic) to 5 (definitely coincidence /normal ex-
     planation).
          Section B: Subjects had to rate a list of phenomena, which
     fell into the following groups: "real"--ball lightning, acupuncture,
     dreams, meteorites, hypnosis; "psi"--ESP. psychic healing, telepa-
     thy, mind over matter, clairvoyance, poltergeists; "anomaloustf--
     Bigfoot, Atlantis, UFOs, spontaneous combustion, Abominable Snow-
     man, Loch Ness monster; "false"- -alchemy, phrenology, flat earth,
     astrology. The phenomena were rated on a seven-point scale, 1
     (not real) to 7 (real).
     Section C: Subjects chose a passage which was either for or
     Approved For Release 2000/08/15: CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0701020004-4

        86 Approved For Release 200=8/15: 1ClA-RbVft2N792R000701020004-4 87
                                against parapsychology, and said how much they agreed with it on
        r
        a three-point scale, 1 (strong agreement) to 3 (mild a- eement).
             Section D: Subjects had to rate the importance of religion
        and science on a four-point scale, I (major influence) to 4 (no in-
        fluence).
             The subjects were asked to fill out the questionnaire and re-
        turn it the following week. Those subjects who were participating
        in the Differential Psychology course (88 students) were approached
        a few weeks later and handed a questionnaire (Rotter's Locus Of
        Control, labeled III-E Scale"). At a later stage permission was
        granted for other personality data (from an Eysenck Personality
        Questionnaire, or EPQ test) to be made available to the author for
        the purpose of this study. Seventy-six subjects returned the
        original "Attitude Survey" questionnaire, 35 of whom also returned
        EPQ data were available for 37 subjects.
        the Locus of Control scale.
             There are no sex differences in the number of experiences
        reported, although males had a lower (i.e., more psychic) mean
        evaluation for all experiences than females (2.7 to 3.7, p < 0.01).
        There were no personality differences between subjects who rated
        the experiences as coincidental and subjects who rated the experi-
        ences as psychic, although subjects reporting fewer experiences
        were more neurotic than those who reported more experiences than
        average (p < 0.05). Subjects who rated the phenomena highly
        (i.e. , coincidence explanation) did not differ in personality from
        other subjects. Subjects who rated the experiences at the other
        extreme (i.e., psychic explanation) appear to be more introverted
        and neurotic than other subjects (0.1 > p > 0.05). However, due
        to the small number and the level of significance the result should
        only be considered suggestive rather than conclusive. The mean
        scores for each of the groups of phenomena were as expected,
        i.e., real (5.91) > psi (4. 41) > anomalous (3.51) > false (2.52).
             Subjects who had a higher psi rating (i.e. , rated psi as
        valid) were more inclined to believe in the validity of anomalous
        phenomena (p < 0.01). These subjects also had higher ratings for
        the real group of phenomena (p < 0. 0005). Males were also more
        likely to rate the real and anomalous groups higher than did females
        (p < 0,05). Subjects with a high psi rating reported more ex-
        periences than subjects with a low psi rating, although there were
        no significant differences in their evaluations of these experiences.
        There were no personality differences between these two groups,
        or groups with more extreme psi ratings,
        there were no personality differences between those subjects who
        expressed strong agreement and those who didn't. Subjects who
        chose Passage A had a higher rating for the psi group (p < 0.0005),
        the anomalous group (p < 0.001), and also the real group (p < 0.05).
             The mean reported ratings were 2.4 (important /minor influ-
        ence) for science and 3.0 (minor influence) for religion. Those
        subjects who reported science or religion as being very important

        
        in their lives did not differ in personality from those subjects who
        did not report such an importance. There were no differences in
        the passage chosen or the group ratings for those subjects who re-
        ported a strong importance for science or religion compared with
        the rest of the subjects.
             From the first part of the study we can see that a belief in
        psi is not the result of a specific personality pattern or the conse-
        quence of some illogical cognitive process. The idea was therefore
        put forward that the previous studies were actually measuring fac-
        tors relevant to strength rather than content of belief. Consequent-
        ly, the second part of this study was an attempt to measure differ-
        ences due to extreme attitudes. However, the results achieved were
        inconclusive with regard to this specific question, but this may have
        been because of the size of the study rather than for any other
        reason. It therefore seems that the idea that subjects displaying
        strong attitudes have a characteristic personality /cognitive profile
        is worthy of further investigation. Such a study would have to
        take into account the biases that could affect the results, while at
        the same time have a large enough number of subjects to be able to
        measure extremes. Since, in this case, the content of the belief
        may be largely irrelevant, it should be possible to test this notion
        using different contents. We would then be able to determine if the
        personality /cognitive results do actually relate to one's holding an
        extreme attitude or if they are dependent on the particular content
        of that attitude. Either way, the results would shed more light onto
        the debate about the validity of a belief in psi.
             EXPERIMENTAL IN S~IGATION OF BIOLOGICALLY INDUCED
        MAL'
        MAGNETIC A No -
             G. Egely and G. Verte\s(C al Research Institute for Physics,
        H-1525 Budapest 11 e)01x, 49, Hungary)**
             Sixty-five subjects agreed with Passage A (positive to para- While electrical phen m a in biological processes are relatively
        psychology) and 10 agreed with Passage B. Seventeen subjects
                                                                expressed a strong agreement (16 for Passage A and 1 for Passage /enr~, a in
        )o
        'I
        B). There were no personality differences between those subjects *Abstracted from the ful report by Debra H. Weiner.
        who chose Passage A and those who chose Passage B. Similarly, **Presented in absentia y J\ohn eloff.
        Approved For Release 2000/08/15: CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0701020004-4