THE EFFECTS OF HYPNOSIS ON REMOTE VIEWING QUALITY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00789R002200310001-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 14, 1998
• Sequence Number: 1
• Content Type: REPORT

oved For Release 20
D
Final Report-
Covering the Period 1 October I d87 to 30 September 1988
THE EFFECTS OF HYPNOSIS ON REMOTE VIEWING
QUALITY (U)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-00789R00220031000
 Approved For Release 2000/Q8/ 9q-00789R002200310001-3
ABSTRACT (U)
a- Two remote viewers participated in an experiment to determine whether the
overall quality of remote viewing (RV) would be enhanced by a hypnotic trance. Each viewer
participated in 16 RV sessions while in trance. No significant evidence of psychoenergetic
functioning was obtained, and comparisons with previous work by the same viewers were
therefore rendered moot. Implications of these results for further research are discussed.
ii
Approved For Release 20 0/ 6-00789ROO2200310001-3
 Approved For Release 200 C 6-00789R002200310001-3
r
I
aw
III RESULTS (U)
A. (U) Hypnotizability scales
(U) Our experienced viewer (No. 372) produced a score of 10 on the 12-point
hypnotizability scales, a 92 centile equivalent. Though he was unable to inhibit hand movement
on suggestion, failed to respond to a hallucinated voice item, and experienced conflict during
value and meaning alterations, he produced a deep state of relaxation, became absorbed in
imagery processes, was able to regress, performed posthypnotic suggestions, and showed amnesia
and hypermnesia, trance logic, cognitive and role distortion. Imaginal ability was highly rated
with the ability to create, manipulate, and experience imagery in all sensory fields especially
when the image was positive and productive.
(U) The novice viewer (No. 137) scored a 7 on the hypnotizability scales, a 71 centile
equivalent. She produced a deep state of relaxation, showed ability to regress and to be
absorbed in imagery, performed posthypnotic suggestions, and showed amnesia. She showed
difficulty altering sensory phenomena, did not demonstrate hypermnesia, trance logic, or the
ability for cognitive and role distortion. Again, for this viewer imaginal ability was highly rated
with the ability to create, manipulate, and experience imagery in all sensory fields.
B. (U) RV results
The results of the independent judge's rank order for each RV are shown in
(U) RANK BY SESSION NUMBER FOR 16 TRIALS
Session No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Viewer 372
2
1
1
4
5
3
2
3
2
4
5
2
2
4
5
5
Viewer 137
3
5
3
2
2
4
1
2_ 1
5
4
5
4
4
2
5
S
Approved For Release 20
6-00789R002200310001-3
 Approved For Release 200 P9 -00789R002200310001-3
The sum of ranks for Viewer No. 372 is 50, with an associated p-value of 0.67.
For Viewer No. 137, the sum is 56, with a p-value of 0.93. Since neither of these p-values is
significant, it appears that there has been no information transfer in this experiment.
Comparisons with previous work by these viewer's would be superfluous, since there is no
significant evidence of RV.
Approved For Release 200p/ P9p-00789R002200310001-3
 r
Approved For Release 2000/ -00789ROO2200310001-3
IV DISCUSSION (U)
RV has been demonstrated to be a weak phenomenon such that success on any
given nnot be expected 100 percent of the time. The following discussion focuses on
three other possibilities for failure to achieve positive results in this study.
IM .The first possibility is that the hypnotic trance was disruptive to the usual RV
processes. Since each of the viewers had participated in well over 100 previous RV trials, their
particular methods of producing an RV response were relatively habituated. The viewers
received no particular training on how to perform under trance, how the RV experience would
differ while in trance, or extensive practice with hypnosis RV sessions. It seems reasonable to
conclude that the addition of a training period prior to the taking of experimental data may have
produced more positive results.
Conversely it may be that the demands of the RV production process are such
that the trance state is not at all conducive to producing high-quality RV. If this is so, then a
decrease in performance over time might be expected as the viewers become accomplished at
trance induction and deepening. Both viewers showed a tendency in the direction of decreasing
performance as the study progressed (r = 0.510 with 15 df for viewer # 372, r = 0.348 with 15 df
for viewer # 137). In the pilot work mentioned above the viewer produced his responses while in
the waking state using a stimulus word that served as a post-hypnotic suggestion. Further
experimentation may show this to be the more efficient protocol, since it dovetails nicely with our
standard stimulus-response method of conducting an RV session.
MA second possibility is that the viewers chosen for this study were not the optimal
individuals for this work. While ranking relatively high on the scale of hypnotizibility, these
particular viewers were not hypnotic virtuosos. Demonstration of an effect using hypnosis may
require the most highly susceptible subjects, corresponding to a score of 12 on the Stanford
Hypnotizability Scales.
A third potential source of interference in the hypnosis task could have been
what is known in the parapsychology literature7 as "displacement." In this instance the term
refers to the inability of the viewer to distinguish accurately between elements of the target and
elements of its decoys in the target packet. The division of the target pool into 20 packets of five
was done arbitrarily for simplicity of judging in another experiment. In prior years a given target
Approved For Release 2000/ 9 -00789R002200310001-3
 Approved For Release 2000/D8(Q8 : CIA-RDP 6-00789R00220fl3'#.'.
was randomized with decoys from orthogonal target clusters for judging purposes after the RV
session was concluded instead of before the session. Displacement into the other targets in the
packet may have occurred, such that the viewer was confused about exactly what constituted the
target. To.check this possibility, a new set of decoys for each target was randomly chosen from
orthogonal target clusters and a second judging was performed by a different judge. The second
judging produced marked variability in the ranks assigned and a decline in the sum-of-ranks,
with a p-value for the difference in means between the two judgings of 0.08. While this result
does not achieve significance at the usual 0.05 level and may be due to judging differences, it
could also suggest displacement effects.
In order to address these issues, future experiments should be designed to
eliminate these potential difficulties. Specifically, an attempt seems warranted to replicate the
results of the successful pilot work mentioned above, where hypnosis was used as a memory aid
and targets were randomized with decoys after the viewing.
Approved For Release 200016-00789R002200310001-3
9