EXAMINATION OF SIX QUESTIONNAIRES AS PREDICTORS OF PSYCHOKINESIS PERFORMANCE (GISSURARSON, MORRIS)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00792R000400070001-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 10, 2000
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: June 1, 1991
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000400070001-6
Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 55, June 1991
EXAMINATION OF SIX QUESTIONNAIRES
AS PREDICTORS OF PSYCHOKINESIS
PERFORMANCE
BY LOFTUR R. GISSURARSON AND ROBERT L. MORRIS
ABSTRACT: Data from five studies were examined for a possible connection be-
tween scores on a computer PK test and scores on six questionnaires: Vividness of
Visual Imagery Questionnaire, Auditory Imagery Scale, Gordon's Test of Visual
Imagery Control, Greene Luck Questionnaire, Locus of Control Scale, and PK At-
titude and Perceived Experience Questionnaire (PAPEQ). In none of the five stud-
ies was significant psi-scoring encountered. The most promising finding was that
the more subjects reported having "had a psychokinetic experience" on the
PAPEQ the higher their PK scores tended to be in all five studies (weighted com-
posite z = 3.03, p = .001, one-tailed). One study produced a strong positive cor-
relation between PK scores and the sheep-goat factor of PAPEQ, z = 2.90, p <
.005. This finding, however, was not consistent throughout the other studies.
One way of exploring the PK hypothesis is to see whether scores
on PK tests correlate systematically with some measurement of in-
dividual differences, such as that obtained with paper-and-pencil
tests. If a relationship is found, it can then be used to predict PK
test performance, to select subjects, and to construct theories re-
garding the possible processes involved in PK.
The data reported in this article come from five studies carried
out at the University of Edinburgh. In all studies, the subjects com-
pleted a set of psychometric tests and then took a PK computer test
called "Synthia" (Gissurarson & Morris, 1990). Overall, 170 sessions
were conducted in the five studies, and the PK data were compared
with the following six scalar instruments: (1) Vividness of Visual Im-
agery Questionnaire (VVIQ) (Marks, 1973), (2) Auditory Imagery
Scale (AIS) (Gissurarson, 1991a), (3) Gordon's Test of Visual Im-
agery Control (GTVIC) (Gordon, 1949), (4) Greene Luck Question-
naire (Greene, 1960), (5) Locus of Control Scale (I-E Scale) (Nowicki
& Duke, 1974), and (6) PK Attitude and Perceived Experience
Questionnaire (PAPEQ) (Gissurarson, 1989).
The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of John Beloff, Eric Dylan Darley,
and Cynthia Milligan during the preparation of this paper.
Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000400070001-6-
0
CD
0-
0
0
0
0
0
0
03
0
CD
6
0
CD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
120 The Journal of Parapsychology
Imagery and PK
When asked to describe their mental activity (mentations) during
attempts to influence PK targets, subjects often mention engaging in
specific target-related imagery (Gissurarson & Morris, 1991). A few
PK studies have suggested that imagery may be connected with PK
performance in controlled tests. Subjects who attempt to visualize
the feedback they will receive for PK hits tend to obtain more hits
than do subjects attempting other types of imagery or no imagery
(Forwald, 1969; Levi, 1979; Morris & Reilly, 1980; Morris, Nanko,
& Phillips, 1982; Nanko, 1981; Stanford, 1969, 1981; Steilberg,
1975; see also review in Gissurarson, 199 lb). Three studies have at-
tempted to correlate imagery scale scores and PK performance
(Stanford, 1969, 1981; Steilberg, 1975). All three used a free-asso-
ciation test to measure the tendency to organize one's ordinary
thinking around sensory imagery. Only Stanford (1969) found a sig-
nificant relationship suggesting that the more subjects tend to use
sensory imagery in their thoughts the higher their PK scores will be
as long as they use a visual-imagery strategy in attempting to influ-
ence their target. In an attempted replication, Stanford (1981) ob-
tained a correlation of only r = + .03, although it was in the ex-
pected direction. Steilberg reported nonsignificant results but did
not provide any further information.
For present purposes, the Vividness of Visual Imagery Question-
naire (VVIQ) was selected to measure visual imagery rather than..
the more frequently used Betts Questionnaire upon Mental Imagery
(QMI) (Betts, 1909). Honorton (1975) wrote:
While the Betts QMI appears to be satisfactorily reliable, the failure of
the test to relate significantly to a variety of verbal and visual recall tasks
calls into question its construct validity as a measure of individual dif-
ferences in vividness of mental imagery. (p. 330)
Honorton concluded that a better measure of imagery for parapsy-
chology studies was needed. George (1981) urged that future re-
searchers in parapsychology should use "strongly validated mea-
sures such as the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire" to
evaluate vividness of imagery.
Marks (1973) introduced the VVIQ, which was simply an expan-
sion of the visual section of the abridged QMI (Sheehan, 1967). The
VVIQ seems to be fairly reliable (Marks, 1973; McKelvie, 1986;
McKelvie & Gingras, 1974; Rossi, 1977) and reasonably valid (Gur
& Hilgard, 1975; Marks, 1973; McKelvie, 1979, 1986; McKelvie &
Questionnaires as Predictors of PK Performance 121
Demers, 1979; McKelvie & Rohrberg, 1978; Rossi & Fingeret,
1977). Additionally, control of visual imagery was measured by Gor-
don's Test of Visual Imagery Control (GTVIC). The GTVIC was
designed primarily to differentiate autonomous from controlled vis-
ual imagery (Gordon, 1949). It could be argued that the abilit.j. to
control one's imagery is every bit as important as the ability topro-
duce vivid imagery when attempting to engage in a specific P re-
lated mentation strategy. The GTVIC seems to have adequate geli-
ability (Juhasz, 1972; McKelvie & Gingras, 1974) and defines a
single dimension in factor analytic studies (Di Vesta, IngersoT &
Sunshine, 19'71; Forisha, 1975).
n
We know of no studies in the parapsychology literature that Rave
explored the possible link between auditory imagery and PK sailing
in those studies where there is an auditory component to thOtker-
formance feedback. To assess the vividness of auditory image', a
short questionnaire was designed, the Auditory Imagery Scale (IS)
(Gissurarson, 1989; 1991a). Modeled after the Betts' QMI foaiat,
the AIS has seven questions about the ability to imagine vaitous
sounds, each of which requires a rating on a four-point scale (elow
rating indicating high clarity and vividness).
0
Self-Perceived Luckiness
0
1:1
The Greene scale. Four studies have examined a possible relSon-
ship between PK performance and self-perception of one's lucki-
ness" as measured by the Greene Luck Questionnaire (Brouiton,
1979; Greene, 1960; Ratte, 1960; Ratte & Greene, 1960). The uues-
dons on the Greene scale are, for instance, whether respondents' ex-
pect to win or lose when it comes to games of chance, or whoth? er
they have ever had the feeling that they cannot lose when plating a
game of chance. The Greene (1960) study found a negatilm but
nonsignificant relationship between self-perceived luck an PK
scores. The Ratte (1960) and Ratte and Greene (1960) studieopro-
duced a significant difference in PK scores in favor of self-perggived
lucky subjects over self-perceived unlucky ones. Stanford (1977)
however, argued that the statistical analyses in these two studieF
were inappropriate. Broughton (1979) found a significant positiv(
correlation between Greene scale scores and PK scores in his pilo
data for subjects tested in a group, a relationship that turned ou
nonsignificant but in the expected direction in the confirmator
data.
9-1?000/00017000t1Z6/00-96dCIU-VI3 : 1.1./80/000z aseeletliOd peAoiddv
122 The Journal of Parapsychology
Locus of Control. To further explore the possible connection be-
tween PK ability and some sort of self-perceived luck, the present
studies use a locus of control scale (Internal-External scale, or just
I-E scale). The I-E scale is a forced-choice self-report inventory,
which first came into prominence with the publication of a mono-
graph by Rotter (1966) (see also Jackson & Paunonen, 1980, pp.
535-537; Lefcourt, 1976; Phares, 1976). Low scores on the I-E scale
are thought to indicate that respondents perceive environmental
events in general as if they are contingent on their own behavior
(internal control). High scores are thought to indicate that the in-
dividual perceives a general environmental event as not being con-
tingent on his own actions but rather being the result of chance,
fate, or luck (external control).
Because external control implies self-perceived dependence on
chance, fate, or luck, it would seem that this dimension could mea-
sure some sort of self-perceived luckiness. The more internally con-
trolled a person was, however, the more he would feel directly re-
sponsible for, and the physical cause of, external events. Thus, there
would be less and less opportunity for hitherto unrecognized means
of interacting with the environment, resulting in no place for PK
with high internally controlled people. We have found only one
study in the literature that has explored whether high-PK-scoring
individuals differed on an I-E scale from low-scoring individuals
(Schmeidler, Gambale, & Mitchell, 1976). Using Rotter's I-E scale,
Schmeidler et al. did not find any significant difference; however,
they did not provide any information about the direction of the re-
lationship, and it may be worth a further investigation.
Nowicki and Duke (1974) attempted to improve the original Rot-
ter scale, which had been criticized for being influenced too much
by social desirability, for confounding different types of locus of
control, and for difficult reading level. They published the Adult
Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External control scale (ANS-IE). We
have selected the ANS-IE for the present experimentation and refer
to it hereafter as, the I-E scale. The expected relationship is that in-
dividuals scoring high on the I-E scale (those who perceive them-
selves as being dependent on luck, fate, and so on) will have more
chance of obtaining a high score on a PK task.
General Attitudes Regarding PK
In an attempt to measure various characteristics of one's under-
lying, general attitude toward PK, we designed a questionnaire, the
Questionnaires as Predictors of PK Priforrnance 123
PK Attitude and Perceived Experience Questionnaire (PAPEQ; see
Appendix A). The following factors were selected and incorporated
into the questionnaire during its construction.
I. Belief in the existence of PK. The first two questions of the
PAPEQ are intended as sheep-goat items. The sheep-goat varOle,
well known in parapsychology, was first introduced by Schmealler
(Schmeidler, 1943; see also Schmeidler & McConnell, 1958)13.3She
and others who followed found that subjects who accepted anyrs-
sibility of ESP under the conditions of the experiment (thesetaub-
jects were called sheep) tended to score above chance in ESP asts
whereas subjects who completely rejected all possibility of"ESP
(termed as goats) tended to score below chance (see review al-
mer, 1978). We have found seven studies that have tested a aela-
tionship between "belief' in PK and performance on a Pit test
(Dale, 1946; Mischo & Weis, 1973; Nash, 1946; Van de Cfutle,
1958; Weiner, 1979, 1982a, 1982b). Only Weiner (1982a) delion-
S
strated a significant effect related to belief. Interestingly, two st1 ies
have reported a positive relation between PK success and su cts'
answers to questions about their belief in ESP (Rubin & Honoton,
1972; Watkins, Watkins, & Wells, 1973), but no mention is matte of
subjects' belief in PK. The sheep-goat classification does not sei to
have been adequately and systematically tested for PK. The r55ults
so far are ambiguous, the reports are sketchy, and the numbar of
subjects participating in these studies is low with the exceptia of
Dale (1946). cr)
O
2. Belief in one's own PK ability. The second intended fact z of
the PAPEQ is the degree of certainty about one's own PK abkh.t) ies.
There are two questions about whether the subject thinks he cpa she
personally can demonstrate PK, in general and in this partgular
o
test. .P.
3. Luckiness. Three questions are on self-perceived luclgness
(e.g., whether the subject has experienced his hopes or wishes 5j3out
the future coming true). Here we attempt to get at a more g.-: eral
self-perceived luckiness, as opposed to Greene (1960) who2on1y
asked about luckiness in terms of betting and playing casino gianes.
4. Fear of PK. Four questions ask subjects about their fears of
PK (e.g., whether the subject will be afraid of possessing PK abili-
ties). This is an attempt to get at fear factors that may possibly block
PK functioning, as suggested by Tart (1986a, 1986b), Batcheldor
(1984), and others.
5. Prior experience of PK. One question asks how often, if at all,
the subject has had a PK experience.
0
(D
0-
11
0
80
0
0
The present five studies were conducted as exploratory and
? ?
O screening experiments at the University of Edinburgh and have not
reported elsewhere. As screening studies, their aim was to se-
? lect subjects for further PK experimentation (see Gissurarson &
co Morris, 1990). As exploratory studies, they were conducted to look
for individual-difference correlates of first-session PK performance
6
and pretest intended experimental conditions, such as the use of
co different random number generators (RNGs).
124 The Journal of Parapsychology
6. Previous involvement in PK-related activities. Four questions are
concerned with activities indicative of a general interest in PK (e.g.,
if the subject reads books about psychic phenomena). Haraldsson
(1981), for instance, used one such question in his ESP sheep-goat
scale.
7. Willpower and success. Two questions ask subjects to evaluate
their own willpower and success in life. No study seems to have
gone on record to state whether it explored a connection between
these variables and PK performance.
We hoped that by asking a range of questions related to attitudes
toward PK and its involvement in daily life, we could begin to ex-
amine more thoroughly how performance in controlled laboratory
situations might relate to perceived real-world PK functioning and
associated mental life.
METHOD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6?
Study I
Subjects. A predetermined number of 10 subjects participated.
They were the research staff at the parapsychology laboratory and
friends of the experimenter.
PK apparatus. A PK computer test called "Synthia," written in
BASIC for an IBM XT 286 16-bit machine, was used to measure
PK. In "Synthia," four green rectangles (windows) appear in a row
in the upper half of the computer screen (CRT). A pseudorandom
number generator (PRNG), designed by Wichmann and Hill (1982,
1984; see also Gissurarson & Morgan, 1988, and Jacobs, 1987) and
embedded in the computer program, produced a random designa-
tion of one of the four windows. The Wichmann-Hill PRNG has a
very large cycle length (6.95 x 1012) and produces numbers rectan-
gularly distributed between 0 and 1. An arrow appeared beneath
the designated window showing that it was the target. The PRNG
Questionnaires as Predictors of PK Performance 125
selected a new target window for every 10 trials of a 30-trial run.
On each trial, subjects were asked to "make the computer" select the
designated window when they pressed the space bar. If the trial-
selected random number matched the target window number, as tal-
lied by the "Synthia" program, the trial was counted as a hit. >
A blue star appeared on the computer screen and abeep
sounded each time a hit was made during the feedback moae. Ir
the nonfeedback mode, no such feedback was provided. All Infor-
mation regarding each run was stored in an outfile (date4ime
whether feedback or nonfeedback mode was being played, till des-
ignated target window numbers, and the numbers generatzl or
each trial).' Gissurarson (1989) provides a detailed discussiongif tin
security measures that the program and laboratory offered ains
possible human fraud or electrical bias.
Only one fresh seed was selected for the PRNG for a 30-trgl rui
at the moment when the test was initiated and before the fotg-win
dow display came on the screen. After the selection of the8ingt
fresh seed, which was based on the computer clock, the WichSann
Hill PRNG algorithm automatically generated the 30 random-num
bers needed, one by one at each press of the space bar. neve, .
whole run of 30 trials was predetermined once the test was inritated
The experimenter always initiated the program from the keAjoard
Theoretical justification of this PRNG setup can be fold ii
Schmidt's quantum collapse (QC) model (1982, 1984, 1987)rhic:
is a refined version of his earlier model (1975a, 1975b). Cei6ra1 t
the QC model is the assumption that it should be possible fir ht,
man observers to influence the output of a RNG by affectlag th
"collapse of the state vector" of binary probabilities. The QOnodt
can be used to argue that the mechanism behind any RNGSesult
in Study 1 was PK triggered at the moment of observation,lissun
ing that the computer clock was an adequate randomizing stem.
'Two types of control randomness tests were run usually before, dug, ar
after the studies. First, these included tests of the RNG for large series of Elmabex
using the same algorithm (p = .25) as the "Synthia" program. For Studies 2-5,
total of 4, 21/2, 3, and 9 million trials were made, respectively, the overall Gfifferent
between duplets being insignificant for all four studies; x2 = 1.25 (p = .74), x2
6.25 (p = .10), )(2 = 2.75 (p = .43), x2 = 5.00 = .17). The exact results ha
been misplaced for Study 1. According to the log-book, however, the one milli(
numbers run before and after Study 1 also yielded insignificant differences betwee
duplets. Second, Studies 2-5 were simulated via programs, which included a rando
time interval between trials. For Studies 2-5, a total of 5, 17, 21, and 34 studies we
run, respectively, with two significant studies found at the p = .05 level (two-taile
for Study 4, one above chance and one below chance, which is about what one mig
expect by chance. No simulated experiments were run for Study 1.
'The literature on PK research and PRNGs is growing (Braud, 1980; Gissurars,
126 The Journal of Parapsychology
Psychometric material. Three scalar instruments were used: the
VVIQ, the PAPEQ, and the Greene Luck Questionnaire. The
Greene scale was edited for a U.K. sample (e.g., dollars were
> changed into pounds), but all items were retained.
-o Experimental rooms. Two rooms in the parapsychology laboratory
-o
O were used. One room was for filling out questionnaires. An adjacent
partially sound-attenuated room was for doing the computer test.
o. Procedure. The experimenter started by chatting with the sub-
-n j
o ect, then described the experimental session, its purpose, and set-
? up, followed by a description of the questionnaires and a demon-
2. of the PK test. Then the subject was left alone in the "ques-
tionnaire room" to answer the three questionnaires in the following
to
? order: the VVIQ, the PAPEQ, and the Greene scale. After corn-
pleting the three scales, the subject and the experimenter went to
g the sound-attenuated room where the experimenter initiated the
-a computer test. The subject completed 60 trials on the computer test:
Za 30 trials in the feedback mode, and 30 trials in the nonfeedback
" mode. The subject was asked to take a break after the first run of
O 30 trials and call the experimenter. After the break, the experimen-
ter initiated the other mode of the test, producing a "fresh" seed
*I for the next run of 30 trials. Half the subjects started with the feed-
? back mode first, and the other half started with the nonfeedback
-0
cig mode. A flip of a coin by the experimenter decided for the first
6 subject which mode of the computer test he or she would start with.
The second subject got the reverse sequence to that of the first sub-
ject. This alternation continued throughout the series.
g Study 2
A predetermined number of 40 volunteers participated in this
? study: (a) those responding to advertisements put up around the
& Morris, 1990; Jacobs, 1985; Jahn & Dunne, 1987; Katz, 1983; Lowry, 1981; Radin,
1982a, 1982b; Schmidt, 1981; Shafer, 1983; see also Radin, 1985, on the practical
use of pseudo-RNGs in parapsychology). Researchers in parapsychology have re-
peatedly failed to find a significant difference between scores with random and pseu-
dorandom targets (Schmeidler, 1987), suggesting that there may be a similar mech-
anism responsible for the observed effects. Observed bias in PRNGs has been
hypothesized to be the result of one of two functions: (a) PK affecting the system
(computer dock or live RNG) that is used to generate fresh seed numbers that initiate
the PRNG (e.g., Jacobs, 1985; Schmidt, 1981; see also theoretical arguments on this
point in Vassy, 1985; and Walker, 1984), or (b) precognition of favorable moments
for selecting these seed numbers (Radin, 1982a; see also May et al., 1985). At our
current level of understanding, however, the actual cause of those biases we observe
remains unknown.
Questionnaires as Predictors of PK Performance 127
University of Edinburgh; (b) those who had indicated an interest in
parapsychology research to someone at the parapsychology lab; and
(c) those who came via participants already tested (each participant
was given a copy of the advertisement to give to an interested
friend). The procedure and the experimental environment we the
same as those in Study 1. The AIS was brought in at this sa e in
addition to the VVIQ and PAPEQ, and the Greene scale wt re-
placed by the I-E scale (see Discussion). The four questionaaireE
were administered in the following order: VVIQ, AIS, PAPE(gi and
I-E scale. Again the computer test "Synthia" was used, with the-same
set-up of the PRNG as in Study 1. The trials, however, we in-
creased in this and all remaining studies from 30 to 40 per irTun tc
a)
provide more data and to make the statistical analysis more attrac-
m
tive. The experimenter initiated the PRNG as before.
Study 3
n.)
o
o
o
o
co
A predetermined number of 10 subjects participated, wher'werc
staff and visitors at the parapsychology laboratory and friends -of th(
experimenter. Eight of the 10 subjects had taken part in Stiidy 1
five months earlier. The procedure and experimental envirokmen
was the same as before. Three questionnaires were administead it
the following order: VVIQ, AIS, and PAPEQ. The selection y th(
initial "fresh" seeds was changed such that for every trial r nev
fresh seed was automatically generated by the "Synthia" praran
based on the computer clock. These seeds were then procesad 13,,
1
the Wichmann-Hill PRNG algorithm to produce the trial de ions
one per trial. New initial fresh seeds via the computer doc wen
also selected (before each 10-trial block) to determine which ithdov
was to be the target for each of the four 10-trial sequences Thi
meant that the subject's exact timing when pressing the spqe-ba,
for the next trial was the key event in what random numbgr wa:
generated. To distinguish between the two different set-ups y th(
PRNG, we called the former version (used in Studies 1 *Acl 2
PRNG1 and the one used in Study 3 PRNG2.
Study 4
Twenty volunteers participated, mainly people responding to ad
vertisements about the study around the University of Edinburgl
campus. The procedure and the environment were the same a
those in previous studies. Four scalar instruments were adminis
130 The Journal of Parapsychology
TABLE 2
PK SCORES FOR STUDY 5 BROKEN DOWN
INTO THEIR VARIOUS R_NG COMPONENTS
Live
PRNG
PRNG1
PRNG2
PRNG1-E
PRNGI-S
Feedback
Hits 430
443
241
202
118
123
Trials 1840
1760
880
880
440
440
MCE 460
440
220
220
110
110
46
44
44
44
22
22
-1.62
0.17
1.63
1.40
0.88
1.43
Nonfeedback
Hits 455
470
242
228
115
127
Trials 1760
1840
920
920
440
480
MCE 440
460
230
230
110
120
44
46
46
46
22
24
0.83
0.54
0.91
- 0.15
0.55
0.74
Combined
Hits 885
913
483
430
233
250
Trials 3600
3600
1800
1800
880
920
MCE 900
900
450
450
220
230
90
90
90
90
44
46
-0.58
0.50
1.80
- 1.09
1.01
1.52
Note: PRNG1-E denotes PRNG1 when the experimenter initiated it; PRNG1-S de-
notes PRNG1 when the subject initiated it.
the studies yielded overall feedback z -0.27, overall nonfeedback
z = 1.34, and combined total score z = 0.76.4 No significant PK
scoring was found on any of the various RNGs used in Study 5 (see
Table 2). Among the RNGs for all studies combined, scoring on
PRNG1 when the experimenter initiated was the highest. Combin-
ing z scores from PRNG1 (when the experimenter initiated it) for
all four studies where it was used yielded an overall feedback z =
1.68, an overall nonfeedback z = 1.02, and a combined total score
z = 1.88. No other RNG condition approached overall significance.
'The method is that of combining z scores weighted by some reasonable criterion
related to the studies in question. Following the method of Mosteller and Bush as
described in Rosenthal (1984), we weighted z = (Wizi + Wszs) / V W1' + W,, using
the z scores associated with a given result. Each z was weighted by sample size.
Questionnaires as Predictors of PK Performance 131
TABLE 3
SPEARMAN RHO (7''S) CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PK HITS
AND SCORES ON SCALAR INSTRUMENTS
Study
VVIQ-PK,
AIS-PK,
Greene-PK
I/E-PK
GTVIC-W4
1 (n = 10)
rs
-.003
-.18
0
0.009
0.50
CD
0-
2 (n = 40)
0
rs
-.15
-.06
.20
0.96
0.36
1.23
3 (n = 10)
TS
- .41
- .41
to
1.24
1.22
4 (n = 20)
rs
- .21
- .03
.35
0.93
0.14
1.53
5 (n = 90)
rs
- .02
- .07
- .06
.15 0
0.18
0.63
0.60
1.37 r,"
Note: For VVIQ, AIS, and GTVIC, Spearman r is correlated with feedback SPK
scores only. Greene refers to the Greene Luck Questionnaire. IIE refers to thZ3I-E
scale.
Imagery, Luck, and PK
6
c.o
The Greene Luck Questionnaire was used only in Study 1gee
Table 3). Greene scale scores produced a nonsignificant neggive
correlation, rs(8) = - .18 (z = 0.50), with the total PK score (raore
self-perceived luck relating to lower PK scoring instead of the *er
way around as was the case with Ratte, 1960, and Ratte and Greene,
1960). Some subjects voiced reservations about it, for example,Eitat
people did not tend to patronize casinos in Edinburgh and there-
fore the questions were irrelevant. Thus, it was decided to elimPlate
this questionnaire from later studies. External locus of control was
suggestively but not significantly correlated with PK scores in Stud-
ies 2 and 4, rs(39) = .20 and rs(19) = .35, respectively, which was
the expected direction. In Study 5, one question (Question 22) was
eliminated from the I-E scale. It was the only question that showed
a negative correlation with PK scores in Studies 2 and 4. Unfortu-
nately, the correlation for Study 5 was slightly in the negative direc-
128 The Journal of Parapsychology
tered in the following order: VVIQ, AIS, PAPEQ, and I-E scale.
The computer test "Synthia" was used with the same arrangement
of the PRNG as that used in Studies 1 and 2 (i.e., only PRNG1),
initiated by the experimenter.
Study 5
Ninety subjects participated, selected from the same three
sources used in Study 2. One question was deleted from the I-E
scale (Question 22; see Discussion) prior to its administration. The
Gordon's Test of Visual Imagery Control (GTVIC) was brought in
at this stage. The following scales were administered in the follow-
ing order: the VVIQ, the AIS, the GTVIC, the PAPEQ, and the
I-E scale. The following revision of the procedure was made: The
description of "Synthia" and the demonstration game were provided
not at the beginning of the session as were done in Studies 1-4 but
after the subject had answered the questionnaires. Thus, any effect
on questionnaire responses related to the subject's attitude toward
the computer test was minimized.
While preparing Study 5, we obtained a live-source RNG called
RBG 04CA-S, which is based on an analog noise generator and pro-
duces wide-band noise (reversed biased PN-junction noise, recom-
bination noise, often called Zener noise). The RBG 04CA-S is made
by the Synchronicity Research Unit in the Netherlands (for details,
see Gissurarson & Morris, 1990, and User's Guide Random Bit Gener-
ator RBG 04CA-S, 1988).3 Two versions were made of the "Synthia"
program, a live RNG version and a PRNG version. Each version had
40 trials, and the trials could be run in either the feedback mode or
the nonfeedback mode. The PRNG version included both PRNG1
and PRNG2. In the PRNG version, if the subject started doing the
40 trials with PRNG1, the program automatically changed over to
PRNG2 after 20 trials, and if the subject started doing the 40 trials
with PRNG2 the program automatically changed over to PRNG1
after 20 trials. Before the test was run, the program prompted for
whether the experimenter or the subject would initiate the test.
When the return key was pressed after this prompt, the test was run
and initial "fresh" seeds were selected for PRNG1. For half of the
runs, the experimenter initiated the test; for the other half, the sub-
Because the random bit output is slightly biased, p(i) = p (0) = .5 ? .02, the
User's Guide recommends performing a debiasing in software. After adding the rec-
ommended debiasing procedure to the RBG, we tested it for over a million trials and
no significant deviations from chance were found.
Questionnaires as Predictors of PK Performance
TABLE 1
OVERALL PK SCORES OF THE FIVE STUDIES
12!
Study
Feedback
mode
Nonfeedback
mode
Both
mode>
1 (n = 10)
Hits
Trials
2 (n = 40)
Hits
Trials
3 (n = 10)
Hits
Trials
4 (n = 20)
Hits
Trials
5 (n = 90)
Hits
Trials
77
0.27
300
426
1.50
1,600
100
0
400
202
0.16
800
873
1.04
3,600
77
0.27
300
409
0.52
1,600
108
0.92
400
210
0.82
800
925
0.96
3,600
-o
-on
154 2
0.38 a
600,,
835 a)
1.43 (sr:
3,200
02. 60 58 sas
800 oa
412
0
0.69
1,600
-0
1,798 ce,
0.056
7,200.9
ject initiated the test. The initial seed numbers for PRNGIgver?
stored in an outfile. After the study, these were checked fk8 di(
highest scoring subjects to make sure that the seeds recordetwert
consistent with the random numbers generated.
The necessary counterbalancing of the four conditions (feegback
vs. nonfeedback; PRNG vs. live RNG; PRNG1 vs. PRNG2; tperi-
menter-initiated vs. subject-initiated) was obtained by four cothflipt
using procedures analogous to the one described earlier.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Overall, 170 sessions were conducted in the five studies. In nom
of the five studies was significant psi-hitting encountered (see Tabk
1). In general, scoring tended to be slightly higher in the nonfeed-
back mode than in the feedback mode. Combining the z scores frorr
9-1?000/00017000t1Z6/00-96dati-VIO : l? 1?/90/000Z aseeieu JOd 130A0iddV
132 The Journal of Parapsychology
don, rs(89) = - .06 (see Table 3). Weighted composite z score for
the I-E/PK correlations yielded z = 0.26.
The VVIQ score (lower score indicating better vividness) was
negatively but nonsignificantly correlated with PK performance in
the feedback mode in all five studies (see Table 3) as expected. An
analysis combining z scores yielded z = 0.84. The GTVIC was only
used in Study 5 where it also correlated in the expected direction
with feedback PK scores, albeit nonsignificantly (higher score on the
GTVIC indicating better imagery control). Finally, the AIS score
(lower score indicating better vividness) was negatively but nonsig-
nificantly correlated, as expected, with feedback PK scores for all
four studies where it was used. Combining the z scores yielded z =
0.85. Of the 14 analyses in Table 3, none were close to significance,
but 12 were in the expected direction, including the 10 related to
imagery.
PK Attitude and Perceived Experience Questionnaire
Prima facie, the PAPEQ was intended to measure seven com-
ponents that might be involved in an overall attitude germane to
PK. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted, based on the
pooled data, to verify that logic. (For those who filled PAPEQ out
twice, which was done in Studies 1 and 3, only the second occasion
was included in the analysis because on the first occasion the
PAPEQ was still in its pilot form.)
A principal components factor analysis of the PAPEQ showed
that all the questions loaded positively on a single dimension (see
factor loadings, means, and standard deviations in Appendix B).
The variance in response to individual PAPEQ items overall was
low, the standard deviation for only two questions exceeding 1.00.
If we look at individual studies, the total PAPEQ score correlated
nonsignificantly and inconsistently with the total PK score through-
out Studies 1-5 (see Table 4). The total PAPEQ score without Ques-
dons 5, 7, 16, and 17, which had the poorest loadings on the single
component, yielded no improvement in correlations with the total
PK score. It may be noted, however, that a homogeneous sample,
such as the present one and as indicated by the low response vari-
ance, produces a restriction of range for correlation coefficients,
thereby reducing their power. Future researchers may want to use
an unselected pool of subjects to ensure more variability in re-
sponses.
Questionnaires as Predictors of PK Performance 133
TABLE 4
SPEARMAN RHO (rs) CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PK HITS
AND THE SEVEN FACTORS AND QUESTION 15 ON PAPEQ
Study 1 Study 2
(n = 10) (n = 40)
Study 3
(n = 10)
Study 4
(n = 20)
Stud5
(n =10)
F1-PK (Belief in PK)'
rs .16 .46
0.46 2.90**
F2-PK (Fear of PK)
rs .65 - .23
1.84 1.44
F3-PK (PK interest activities)
rs .34 - .24
1.03 1.48
F4-PK (Luckiness)
rs .14 - .02
0.43 0.11
F5-PK (Mindpower training)
rs .57 - .17
1.50 1.05
F6-PK (Success on tasks)
rs .12 .24
0.33 1.50
F7-PK (Wishing/willing)
rs .15 - .09
0.46 0.55
Q15-PK (PK experience)"
rs .37 .36
0.83 2.24*
PAPEQ total`
rs .25 -.04
0.74 0.27
PAPEQ without Questions 5, 7, 16,
rs .33 - .07
0.92 0.42
.47
1.42
.09
0.27
- .03
0.09
.49
1.46
- .09
0.26
.34
1.01
.25
0.74
.41
1.24
.12
0.35
17
- .09
0.27
- .04
0.18
- .15
0.67
- .17
0.73
- .09
0.37
.14-
0.60
.03
0.12
.08
0.34
.32
1.40
-.19
0.77
- .04
0.17
0
<
m
- .030.
0.32m0
n
X
- .01M
0.04
U)
a)
.11
0.998
0
oa
-
0.777%
0
.01:
0.05,
1:1
to
co
- .016
0.130
-4
CD
n.)
.0g
0.8?
0
0
.200
1.887j
0
0
-.0
0.67
- .05
0.48
'For Fl, Questions 1, 2, and 3 make up the sheep-goat scale.
'Question 15 had five possible answers (the range being 0-4).
PAPEQ total refers to the connection between total scores on PAPEQ and PK.
* p < .05, two-tailed.
** p < .005, two-tailed.
134 The Journal of Parapsychology
The 18 PAPEQ items (see Appendix A) were rotated, using a
simple structure orthogonal rotation, with factor loadings greater
than or equal to .60, and the Kaiser criterion. Seven factors were
extracted: Belief in PK (F1 = Questions 1-3), fear of PK (F2 =
Questions 8, 12-14), PK interest-related activities (F3 = Questions
9, 10), luckiness (F4 = Questions 5, 7), experience of "mind power"
training (F5 = Questions 6, 11), success on tasks (F6 = Questions
16, 18), and wishing-willing (F7 = Questions 4, 17). By and large,
these factors are similar to those we had in mind when making the
PAPEQ. One question, Question 15 (Have you had a psychokinetic
experience?), did not relate to any of the separate factors, although
it did load reasonably well (.58) on the single dimension. Looking at
individual studies (see Table 4), F2, F3, F4, F5, and F7 correlated
somewhat inconsistently with PK scores. However, Fl, F6, and
Question 15 would appear to merit further discussion.
Fl: Belief in PK. Three questions (1, 2, and 3) loaded greater
than or equal to .60 on Fl. Question 3 had a factor loading of .606,
which is marginally above the criterion level that was chosen,
whereas Questions 1 and 2 loaded .87 and .86, respectively. Typical
sheep-goat questions have been about overall belief in the existence
of ESP/PK. Too specific questions (such as ones about personal abil-
ity to demonstrate psi, as in Question 3) may perhaps be demanding
different responses than do questions about overall belief in psi. Al-
though it is debatable whether to include Question 3 in the sheep-
goat scale, we decided to do so. (For comparison, Fl with only the
first two questions included yielded: for Study 1, rs = .14, z = 0.40;
for Study 2, rs = .57, z = 3.58; for Study 3, rs = .37, z = 1.11;
for Study 4, rs = .01, z = 0.06; for Study 5, rs = ? .01, z = 0.07.).
Only in Study 2 was there a significant relationship between the
sheep-goat scale and total PK scores, rs(39) = .46, z = 2.90, p =
.0037, two-tailed (see Table 4), although Study 3 is also encourag-
ing. Combining z scores for the F1-PK correlations across studies
yielded z = 1.01. The 90 subjects in Study 5 did the computer test
with a complicated combination of RNGs. One may wonder whether
there was any special RNG condition that correlated higher with the
sheep-goat scale for the subjects in Study 5. As can be seen in Table
5, such was not the case. For instance, the PRNG1 condition (when
the experimenter initiated the computer test), which is the same
RNG condition as that used in Studies 1, 2, and 4, correlated non-
significantly and in a negative direction with the sheep-goat scale,
rs(43) = ? .18, z = 1.18, p = .24, two-tailed.
There seem to be three elements that were different between
Study 5 and the previous four studies: (1) The subjects in Study 5
Questionnaires as Predictors of PK Performance
TABLE 5
SPEARMAN RHO (rs) CORRELATIONS FOR STUDY 5
BETWEEN SELECTED PAPEQ FACTORS AND PK SCORES,
BROKEN DOWN INTO THEIR VARIOUS RNG COMPONENTS
135
Live-RNG
(n = 90)
PRNG2
(n = 90)
PRNG1-E
(n = 44)
Sheep-goat scale (F1)
rs
?.08
?.002
?.18
0.74
0.02
1.18
.47
.93
.24
Success on tasks (F6)
rs
?.04
.04
?.11
z
0.41
0.39
0.71
P
.68
.70
.49
PK experience (Q15)
rs
.12
.24
.31
1.11
2.23
1.98
.27
.02
.04
PRNOV-S
(n =46)
m
Note: All p values are reported as two-tailed. 0
were shown the PK computer test and had it described for Oiem
after they completed the scales, whereas subjects in the otheiCfour
studies had a demonstration of the test before they went thilugh
the questionnaires. (2) The subjects in Study 5 had to conglete
more questionnaires than subjects in the other studies did. (3The
experimenter spent less time on subjects in Study 5 in compigison
to the time he spent on subjects in the other studies. Study XI was
conducted under time pressure, and the experimenter tend to
run subjects quickly through the procedure. Future researcE will
have to decide the significance, if any, these changes had mg sub-
jects' responses and scoring on the PK test.
F6: Success on tasks. The more subjects perceived themse1s as
successful and able to influence the PK test on PAPEQ (F6; ues-
tions 16 and 18), the higher PK scoring they tended to get incgtud-
ies 1-3. As with Fl, the reason why this relationship disappeared in
the remaining two studies is not clear and may simply reflect statis-
tical regression. Combining z scores for the F6-PK correlations
across studies yielded z = 0.63. The PRNG1 (when the experimen-
ter initiated the computer test) condition in Study 5, which is the
same RNG condition as that used in Studies 1, 2, and 4, correlated
nonsignificantly and in the opposite direction with the F6 dimen-
sion, rs(41) = ?.11, z = 0.71, p = .49, two-tailed (see Table 5).
136 The Journal of Parapsychology
Question 15: Prior PK experience. The positive relationship be-
tween Question 15 (whether people report having had a psychoki-
netic experience in everyday life) and total PK scores was the only
relationship that was consistent in all the studies. The weighted,
combined composite z scores for this trend yielded z = 3.03, p =
.001, one-tailed; and the weighted, combined estimate of the size of
the effect yielded an overall r of .27, which is a decent correlation
coefficient although not very high. As can be seen in Table 5, this
relationship is also consistent across RNGs for Study 5, with the low-
est correlation observed on the live-RNG. The PRNG1 (when the
experimenter initiated the computer test) condition, which is the
same RNG condition as that used in Studies 1, 2, and 4, correlated
significantly and in the positive direction with Question 15, rs(41) =
.31, z = 1.98, p < .05, two-tailed. This is perhaps the most prom-
ising finding from all the studies, especially since it seems suffi-
ciently robust to survive the diversity of conditions presented
throughout the studies, including Study 5.
Concluding Remarks
Perhaps the most interesting and promising finding from the
five studies reported here was that the more subjects reported hav-
ing "had a psychokinetic experience" the higher their PK scores
tended to be on "Synthia." It would be interesting if other research-
ers attempted to replicate this finding. In the future, researchers
could also follow this question through by developing other ques-
tionnaire items in order to inquire more about these PK experi-
ences, and perhaps gradually build up an effective self-report in-
ventory in predicting PK performance. The apparent consistency of
the relationship between prior PK experience and experimental PK
success across a variety of RNG conditions suggests that there may
not be radical differences in the psi process from condition to con-
dition. It should be noted, however, that although this finding is
encouraging, no correction has been made for selection, and the
fact remains that it could be a statistical fluke. In the absence of any
clear-cut findings, the implications of this for the different theoret-
ical approaches to RNG-PK will remain unclear for the present.
Questionnaires as Predictors of PK Performance 137
APPENDIX A
PK ATTITUDE AND PERCEIVED EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PAPEQ)
The proportion of subjects responding to each item is given in rounded
percentages after rating categories.
0
Rating 0: g%
1: 24-%
2. Do you think that some people may be able to affect physical (7
conditions (or move objects or influence other people) with their "min*?
a. Definitely yes. Rating 3: i%
b. Yes, I think so. 2: fig%
c. Probably not. 1:
d. No. 0: @%
3. Do you believe that you can demonstrate the psychokinesis effect (lb.,
affect physical conditions or move objects or influence others with your)
1. Do you think that the existence of psychokinesis is:
a. Impossible,
b. Unlikely,
c. Likely,
d. Certain.
"mind")?
a. No, definitely.
b. No, I don't think so.
c. Yes, perhaps.
d. Yes, definitely.
Rating 0:
1:
2:
3:
5:
g%
0
4. Do you experience your hopes or wishes about the future coming co
true?
a.
b.
C.
d.
Never,
Seldom,
Now and then,
Often.
5. Do you consider yourself lucky?
a. Not at all,
b. Slightly,
c. Fairly,
d. Very.
Rating 0:
1:
2:
3: 2%
Rating 0: 718%
1: in6%
2: 49%
3: 28%
8%
43%
4%
6. Have you previously had experience of some sort of mind power
training?
a. Never,
b. Once,
c. Twice,
Rating 0: 77%
1: 9%
2: 0%
138 The Journal of Parapsychology
d. Three times or more. 3: 13%
7. Which of the following alternatives do you consider to be the best
description of your luckiness/unluckiness?
a. I am lucky in terms of getting what I want.
b. I am lucky in terms of receiving unexpected
gifts.
c. I am very rarely lucky.
d. I am not lucky at all.
Rating 3: 66%
2: 19%
1: 12%
0: 3%
8. Would you be satisfied with yourself (or feel comfortable) if you were
personally responsible for a PK event (for instance, if you were to break
glass with your "mind")?
a. Not at all,
b. Unlikely,
c. Likely,
d. Certain.
Rating 0: 11%
1: 24%
2: 38%
3: 28%
9. If you get the opportunity, do you then watch films like Poltergeist or
read articles or books about people that have extraordinarily powerful
influence/effect upon others with their "minds"?
a. Never,
b. Seldom,
c. Now and then,
d. Often.
10. Do you read books about psychic phenomena?
a. Often,
b. Seldom,
c. Never.
11. Do you read books or articles on
a. Never,
b. Seldom,
c. Now and then,
d. Often.
Rating 0: 17%
1: 24%
2: 41%
3: 18%
Rating 2: 33%
1: 43%
0: 25%
mind power training?
Rating 0:
1:
2:
3:
12. Would you be afraid of possessing psychokinetic abilities?
a. Yes,
b. Probably yes,
c. Probably not,
d. No.
Rating 0:
2:
3:
51%
20%
25%
4%
3%
24%
32%
41%
13. Would it bother you to directly witness a PK event (for instance, a
table levitation)?
Questionnaires as Predictors of PK Performance
a. No,
b. Perhaps,
c. Yes.
139
Rating 2: 57%
1: 31%
0: 12%
14. Do you think you could easily get over it (and not be concerned agibut
it in the future)? -cs
Rating 0: O
a. No, :08%
b. Unlikely,
c. Likely, 31:: :38:
2: g:41%
d. Certain.
-s
X
15. Have you had a psychokinetic experience? CD
a. Never, Rating 0: Fl%
b. Rarely, 231: :: t c 808!
c. Likely,
d. Now and then,
e. Often. 4: 03%
Co
16. How successful in general do you consider yourself to be?
a. I am definitely not a very successful person.
b. I am not as successful as the others.
c. I think I am a rather successful person.
d. I am definitely a very successful person.
17. Which of the following statements best describes you?
a. I am definitely strong-willed.
b. I am moderately strong-willed.
c. I am fairly weak-willed.
d. I am very weak-willed.
Which of the following statements best describes how
task that you are about to participate in?
a. I will definitely not be able to influence the test.
b. I will probably not be able to influence the test.
c. I will probably be able to influence the test.
d. I will definitely be able to influence the test.
18.
the
Rating 0: "2%
1: ;-11. 6%
2: 3%
3:CD
i310%
Rating 3: iT4%
2: &6%
1: 00%
0: K.) 0%
iyou feel alut
Rating 0:g 3%
1:-467%
2:o28%
3: Es 2%
Cr)
140 The Journal of Parapsychology
APPENDIX B
FACTOR LOADINGS, MEANS, AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
FOR THE 18 PAPEQ ITEMS
Items 10 and 13 contain three options, and Item 15 has five. All others
have four.
Items
Factor
loadings
Means
SD
1
.56
1.95
0.69
2
.59
1.99
0.65
3
.71
1.42
0.74
4
.32
2.15
0.60
5
.23
1.97
0.86
6
.47
0.49
1.02
7
.22
2.49
0.81
8
.58
1.82
0.96
9
.36
1.60
0.97
10
.50
1.08
0.76
11
.46
0.83
0.96
12
.62
2.11
0.88
13
.61
1.45
0.70
14
.47
2.08
0.92
15
.58
0.64
1.14
16
.24
1.90
0.57
17
.13
2.14
0.57
18
.64
1.29
0.55
REFERENCES
BATCHELDOR, K. J. (1984). Recent phenomena at Exeter. PK Messenger, No.
4, April.
BE-rrs, G. H. (1909). The distribution and functions of mental imagery (Contri-
butions to Education Series, No. 26, pp. 1-99). New York: Columbia
University Teachers' College.
BRAUD, W. G. (1980). Lability and inertia in psychic functioning. In B.
Shapin & L. Coly (Eds.), Concepts and theories of parapsychology: Proceed-
ings of an international conference (pp. 1-36). New York: Parapsychology
Foundation.
BROUGHTON, R. S. (1979). An experiment with the Head of Jut. European
Journal of Parapsychology, 2, 337-357.
DALE, L. A. (1946). The psychokinetic effect: The first A.S.P.R. experiment.
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 40, 123-151.
Questionnaires as Predictors of PK Performance 141
DI VESTA, F. J., INGERSOLL, G., & SUNSHINE, P. (1971). A factor analysis of
imagery tests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 471-
479.
FORISHA, B. D. (1975). Mental imagery verbal processes: A developmen> tal
study. Developmental Psychology, 11, 259-267.
FoRwALD, H. (1969). Mind, matter and gravitation: A theoretical and expel-ren-
tal study (Parapsychological Monographs No. 11). New York: Par&sy-
chology Foundation. -n
GEORGE, L. (1981). A survey of research into the relationships betweer'gim-
agery and psi. Journal of Parapsychology, 45, 121-146.
GISSURARSON, L. R. (1989). Psychokinetic attempts on a random event baseEmi-
crocomputer test using imagery strategies. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis in$sy-
chology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.
GISSURARSON, L. R. (1991a). Reported auditory imagery and its relationship
with visual imagery. Journal of Mental Imagery, in press. 0
GISSURARSON, L. R. (1991b). Studies into methods of enhancing and pan-
tially training psychokinesis: A review. Journal of the American Socia@for
Psychical Research, in press.
GISSURARSON, L. R., & MORGAN, K. (1988). Comments on the Wichmann-
Hill random number generator. SRU Bulletin, 13, 99-100, 107- 1 on
GISSURARSON, L. R., & MORRIS, R. L. (1990). Volition and psychokinFsis:
Attempts to enhance PK performance through the practice of imagry
strategies. Journal of Parapsychology, 54, 331-370. -0
GISSURARSON, L. R., & MORRIS, R. L. (1991). An experimental investigatit of
assigned volitional mentation. Manuscript submitted for publication. 6
GORDON, R. (1949). An investigation into some of the factors that faeur
the formation of stereotyped images. British Journal of Psychology,, 9,
156-167.
GREENE, F. M. (1960). The feeling of luck and its effect on PK. J ourng of
Parapsychology, 24, 129-141. 0
GUR, R. C., & HILGARD, E. R. (1975). Visual imagery and the discriminaxson
of differences between altered pictures simultaneously and successimely
presented. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 341-345.
0
HARALDSSON, E. (1981). Some determinants of belief in psychical phen@n-
ena. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 75, 297-30?t
HONORTON, C. (1975). Psi and mental imagery: Keeping score on the Pktts
scale. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 69, 327-332.
JACKSON, D. N., & PAUNONEN, S. V. (1980). Personality structure and as-
sessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 503-551.
JAcoss, J. C. (1985). PK experiments with a true and a pseudo random
number generator. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 53, 18-25.
JAcoas, J. C. (1987). A compound pseudo random number generator with
an extremely long cycle period. SRU Bulletin, 19, 92-96.
JAHN, R., & DUNNE, B. J. (1987). Margins of reality: The role of consciousness
in the physical world. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.