A PROTOTYPICAL GANZFELD PSI EXPERIMENT WITH A CONTROL CONDITION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00792R000700960003-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 28, 1998
• Sequence Number: 3
• Content Type: RS

Approved For Release 2000/0/15 : CIA-RDP96-0079FFROp9 gp960003-3
40 apers anz e udies 41
The low-absorption subjects simply increased their rate of speech
quite slowly throughout the session. These findings indicate a
characteristic, discriminative "signature" of high-absorption per-
sons as individuals who rapidly develop a strong involvement with
Ganzfeld mentation (as reflected in speech rate) and who sustain it
through at least the third quadrant of the session.
Subjects who, as evidenced by this temporal "signature,"
quickly become involved with Ganzfeld mentation and sustain that
involvement for a considerable period should, as a consequence,
experience the session as shorter in subjective duration than those
who do not. This was confirmed when quadratic trend for words
per minute was correlated with subjective time estimates: rs = .197,
110 df, p = .019, one-tailed.
Transcript-based verbal indicators can elucidate both the
cognitive consequences of arousal and the development of internal
attention states. This methodology is objective, unobtrusive, non-
reactive, and free from the potential biases of self-report methods.
A PROTOTYPICAL GANZFELD PSI EXPERIMENT WITH A
CONTROL CONDITION
A.C. van Dalen, L.R.B. Dias, J.M.J. Murre, and
S.A. Schoutent (Parapsychology Laboratory, University
of Utrecht, Sorbonnelaan 16, 3584CA Utrecht, The
Netherlands)
The present experiment is an attempt to bring some further
evidence into the Ganzfeld debate. One of the claims made for
Ganzfeld studies is that they are supposed to be more successful
in detecting ESP compared to non-Ganzfeld conditions. Therefore,
it seems strange that so few experiments include a control condition
in which Ganzfeld stimulation is compared directly with a non-
Ganzfeld condition, because such a comparison is directly relevant
to the question whether Ganzfeld stimulation is psi conducive.
Schouten (Research Letter, Parapsychology Laboratory, Univ. of
Utrecht, [No. 11], 1981, 67-96) gives an overview of Ganzfeld studies
which included 34 reports.
The main objective of the present study was to investigate
the supposed psi conduciveness of the Ganzfeld by directly compar-
ing subjects' performance in Ganzfeld and non-Ganzfeld conditions.
In order to be able to generalize the results as much as possible
we went over the details of all experiments reported in Schouten
(1981) that showed a significant result. By taking the average,
the maximum, or the soundest possibility of the total of listed
particulars, we arrived at a sort of "prototypical" successful Ganz-
feld experiment. In addition, we tried to incorporate as much as
possible the critique expressed by Hyman (JP, 1985, 3-49) concern-
ing flaws in methods and procedures.
We decided in advance that we would conclude that this experi-
ment would offer support for the claim that Ganzfeld stimulation is
psi conducive only in the case we would find both (1) a significant
difference between the Ganzfeld and the non-Ganzfeld condition (in
a positive direction for the Ganzfeld condition), and (2) significant
psi-hitting in the Ganzfeld condition separately.
A secondary aim of the study was to gain more insight into
the effect of the Ganzfeld stimulation on subjects. To assess the
way subjects experienced the Ganzfeld we asked them to go over a
list of words that we expected be relevant to the conditions, and to
indicate which words they considered appropriate for their experi-
ence. We also asked the subjects to make a prediction of their
success in both conditions. This was done because we wanted to
investigate the influence of the subject's expectancies on psi-hitting.
To test for possible paranormal experimenter effects, two of the
experimenters made predictions for every subject regarding his or
her ESP scoring.
All subjects (41) were tested for GESP in a Ganzfeld and a
non-Ganzfeld condition, which served as a control condition in this
experiment. The non-Ganzfeld condition was equal to the Ganzfeld
condition in all respects except that no halves of ping-pong balls,
red light, headphones, and white noise were used. All subjects
took part in one trial in each condition. The order of the condi-
tions was randomized over the subjects. No subject had former
experience in Ganzfeld experiments. Every subject was offered an
optional compensation of maximally 15 guilders, and later feedback
of their results.
A target pool of 80 targets, which had been developed by
Schouten, was used. It consisted of pictures taken from National
Geographic Magazine, glued on white pieces of cardboard measuring
eight by eleven inches. A second, parallel target pool of small
copies (four by six inches) was used for judging.
A Schmidt generator was used to generate a random list ac-
cording to which target sets were to be selected. A second random
list was generated containing only numbers one to four for the se-
lection of a target picture from a set. The lists were known to the
experimenter-coordinator and to one external person (S.S.), but
not to anyone else.
A three-experimenter plan was employed to minimize possible
accidental leakage of information.
Approved For Release 2000/08/15 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700960003-3
 Approved For Release pers
For the scoring procedure the target set was placed in front
of the subject in a left-to-right order and the subject was asked to
rate each picture on a 31-point scale (0-30) for similarity between
the picture and her experience during the previous 35-minute
period. Before the subject made her ratings she was given a
spoken semi-standardized instruction. It was decided in advance
to evaluate the data by means of Stanford's Z-scores.
Using these scores no difference between the Ganzfeld and
the non-Ganzfeld conditions was found (Wilcoxon T = 344.5, Z = -.11,
p > .90). We also carried out a few post-hoc analyses (these had
been planned in advance for the most part as well).
First, the correlation of direct hits in the two conditions was
investigated. A positive correlation of hits might be interpreted as
(weak) evidence for the hypothesis that psi effects are more de-
pendent on the persons involved than on the method of "inducing"
and testing such effects. The test of association on s tend de ttoward
ve
significance (chi-square = 5.48, 1 df, p
hypothesis finds some support. However, it should be taken into
account that in neither condition evidence for psi was observed.
h cked whether the order of conditions (i.e. , Ganzfeld
e
l
W
CIA-RDP96-007 AQ47PARAQ003-3
so e
e a
first vs. Ganzfeld last) had any influence on psi-hitting. This did
not seem to be the case (chi-square = .0315, 1 df, p > .85). In
the course of the experiment the "sender" changed his method of
concentration, employing auto-hypnosis from Subjects 18 to 41.
Comparing direct hits in both conditions no significant effect of
this change in method was found (chi-square = 1.95, 1 df,
p>r15).
The expectancies of the subjects with respect to their scoring
behavior were divided almost evenly: 17 subjects thought they
would do best in the Ganzfeld condition, 14 subjects predicted high-
er scoring in the non-Ganzfeld condition, and 10 subjects did not
want to make a prediction. Comparing the predictions with the rela-
tive magnitudes of the Stanford scores we were able to arrive at the
number of correct predictions: 16 out of a possible 31, which is not
significant (binomial p > .85) of course, because the probability of
a correct prediction is one-half.
Two of the experimenters (A.v.D. and L.D.) had made pre-
dictions as well for the probability of scoring for every subject in
both conditions. None of these predictions was successful (A.v.D.
Ganzfeld: chi-square = .0189, 1 df, p > .85; non-Ganzfeld: chi-
square = .0001, 1 df, p > .99; L.D. Ganzfeld: chi-square = .5831,
1 df, p > .40; non-Ganzfeld: chi-square = .0205, 1 df, p > .60).
We then evaluated the checklists of words. In order to find
clusters of words that maximally differentiated between the two con-
ditions we did a binomial test for every word comparing they total
number of entries in both conditions. These tests were no more
than an aid in the selection of possibly relevant, characterizing
words. For the non-Ganzfeld condition two differentiating words
were selected: annoying (6) and ordinary (8), where the numbers
within parentheses represent the number of entries in the indicated
condition. Although some words received far higher scores, such
as distracting (21), stimulating fantasy (14), mentally relaxing
(22), bodily relaxing (19), and quiet making (21), these words
also received fairly high scores in the Ganzfeld condition.
For the Ganzfeld condition more differentiating words were
found. Three of them had negative connotations: dizzy making
(9), irritating (10), and confusing (7), while sleepy making (18)
was more neutral. Two words were found which were close to be-
ing antonyms to the words that differentiated positively for the
non-Ganzfeld condition: captivating (19) and interesting (20).
Finally, we tested whether there was a correlation between
the magnitude of Stanford scores (either above or below zero) and
preference for certain words so that these words could serve as
predictors for scoring in either condition. Again exact binomial
tests were used. No striking results were found.
It will be clear from the results that this study is to be
counted as an unsuccessful replication of other Ganzfeld experi-
ments. Unfortunately, no evidence of psi was found in either
condition, so that we cannot reach a (tentative) conclusion about
a possible, differential advantage of Ganzfeld stimulation. The
only rather weak effect found in the post-hoc analysis speaks
against such an advantage.
We may ask ourselves why Ganzfeld stimulation would, if at
all, be conducive to psi-hitting. It may be important that the
stimulus input is strongly reduced and the attention is, perhaps,
directed more inwardly. However, to a certain extent this is also
the case if a subject is merely sitting comfortably in a chair. From
our query it can be seen that in both conditions words like fantasy
stimulating, mentally relaxing, and quiet making received approxi-
mately equal scores. Quite a number of subjects (almost ten) ex-
perienced the Ganzfeld stimulation as rather negative. Added to
this is the fact that the Ganzfeld stimulation may specifically in-
fluence the experiences of the subject. For example, some subjects
reported having thought of running water or of sitting in an air-
plane, experiences which they related to the white noise. Some of
them reported that they found this very confusing in the rating
procedure.
Approved For Release 2000/08/15 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700960003-3