THE EFFECTS OF HYPNOSIS ON REMOTE VIEWING QUALITY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 14, 1998
• Sequence Number: 1
• Content Type: REPORT

d For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R00220030000~- P-Vb$ 5
Final Report--Objective E, Task 3 December 1988
Covering the Period 1 October 1987 to 30 September 1988
THE EFFECTS OF HYPNOSIS ON REMOTE VIEWING
QUALITY
By: NEVIN D. LANTZ
Prepared for:
Peter J. McNelis, DSW
CONTRACTING OFFICER'S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE
SRI Project 1291
MURRAY J. BARON, Director
Geoscience and Engineering Center
333 Ravenswood Ave. ? Menlo Park. CA 94323
ved For Relea e- 00/0 '/O89~? A PbP96 OO789RU02200300001-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
ABSTRACT
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.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
I INTRODUCTION
Since the time of Mesmer, hypnosis has been associated with purported
manifestations of psychic ability. In his four-volume classic, Dingwall' compiled anecdotal
evidence of this association. Recent experimental work comparing extrasensory perception
(ESP) performance after hypnotic induction with performance under control conditions has been
reviewed by Honorton and Krippner2 and Schechter.3 With a total of 25 such comparisons, in
20 papers from 10 different laboratories, both investigations found a persistent effect in favor of
the hypnotic condition. Given that the bulk of psychoenergetic research at SRI International
(SRI) has focused on the remote viewing (RV) phenomenon and its enhancement, the possibility
that hypnosis might be used to facilitate higher-quality RV held some attraction.
An in depth study of the experimental literature raised several problems with doing
hypnosis research. One is the difficulty in determining exactly what variables associated with
hypnosis are responsible for enhancing an effect. Due to individual differences in hypnotic
susceptibility, most hypnosis studies use a same-subjects design. That is, subjects engaged in
hypnotic research are used as their own waking controls. But in the above-referenced studies it
was unclear whether the scoring advantage for hypnosis, was due to the induction itself or to the
percipients' and experimenters' positive expectations for hypnosis since subjects' and
experimenters' were never blind to condition-
A second problem was encountered in that, of the studies cited in the review articles,
only three used free response tasks as the test of psychic functioning, and of these, one used
remote viewing (RV) as the psychic test. Although a significant effect for the hypnosis condition
was reported, the study was described in such a way that the difference could not be evaluated.4
Palmer and van der Velden5 reported a study using RV of magazine pictures with a hypnosis
condition but found no significant psychic functioning in the hypnosis condition. Their study
used 150 subjects in groups of 8 to 16 for one session with no waking controls, an extremely poor
design at best. The obvious conclusion is that new territory is being broken with regard to
experimental work using hypnosis and RV.
' References may be found at the end of this report.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
With the above difficulties in mind, the SRI Cognitive Sciences Program initiated a
multiyear effort to determine whether hypnosis could be used to improve RV scores. During FY
1987, we conducted a pilot experiment with one viewer to discover whether hypnosis could be
used as a memory aid to recall unreported RV material following a standard RV session. In that
study, a standard RV session was conducted followed by the induction of a hypnotic trance.
When the trance was established, the hypnotist gave specific suggestions for directing the viewer's
mind toward target-related information from the preceding viewing. A post-hypnotic suggestion
was given to associate all the remembered material to the word "target." The trance was
terminated and a second RV of the same target was produced.
The assumption for the pilot study was that hypnosis would enhance RV data in the
second viewing of the same target because it would provide access to unconscious, target-related
material that was acquired, but not reported, during the first RV. No evidence of RV was found
in the pre-hypnosis RVs, but significant evidence of RV ability was found in post-hypnotic
sessions. However, this. pilot study suffered from the same design flaw as previous psychic
experiments with hypnosis, in that the subject was not blind to experimental condition, although
a counterbalanced random protocol was used. One method of correcting this problem would be
to use as a baseline for comparison previous responses from viewers who had participated in
similar earlier studies. Putting the same viewers through RV trials with hypnosis could yield data
uncontaminated by subject expectations.
B. Objective
In the pilot work noted, the RV monitor observed that in all RV sessions following
hypnosis the viewer was in a more internally focused and relaxed state than in the control
condition (a proofreading task between RV sessions). The question arose as to whether the
hypnotic trance could be used to specifically prepare and guide a viewer through an RV session.
In order to test this question as well as improve on previous design shortcomings where viewers
were not blind to condition, we designed an experiment where hypnosis was utilized as a method
for clearing away mental distractions and giving specific suggestions for focusing on the RV task
prior to doing a remote viewing. Remote viewings subsequently done while still in trance could
then be compared to a baseline of viewings from previous studies by the same viewers but without
hypnosis, to judge the efficacy of the hypnotic procedure.'
This report constitutes the deliverable for Objective E, Task 3.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
II METHOD OF APPROACH
A. Hypothesis
The rationale for conducting this experiment rested on the assumption that improved
RV could be achieved using the highly focused, relaxed state produced by hypnosis to guide the
RV process. This state would be characterized not only by the relative reduction of external
distraction but also by the reduction of distracting internal thoughts, associations, memories, and
feelings. It was hypothesized that the hypnotic procedure would maximize the reduction of
internal noise prior to an RV session, facilitating a lock on the, RV signal line and thus improving
RV quality when compared to non-hypnotic RV. In addition, it was hypothesized that providing
feedback to the viewer while still in trance could serve to cement the associative process between
the internal experience of the target details and the target itself.
Two experienced remote viewers who had participated in previous studies provided
the data for this experiment. One viewer had shown significant RV ability in studies using an
outbound RV protocol but had failed to produce a significant series using National Geographic
magazine photographs as targets. The other viewer was a relative novice who showed some
qualitative RV ability in a novice training study conducted in FY 1986 and had participated in a
feedback experiment in FY 1987 without showing independently significant results. It was hoped
that the hypnosis procedure would improve RV scores for both viewers when compared with the
previous studies.
Prior to their participation in the study each viewer was administered the Stanford
Hypnotizability Scales, both to aid in developing individually specific RV protocols and because
previous work has shown a relationship between high hypnotizability and high scoring on psychic
tasks.6
C. Target selection
One hundred National Geographic photographs of natural scenes previously chosen
as a pool of potential targets for RV experiments were arranged in 20 packets of 5 targets each.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
The 5 targets within a packet were selected on the basis of their dissimilarity (i.e., to be as
different from one another as possible). A specific target appeared in one and only one packet.
Targets were stored individually in a manila folder for ease of handling during the experiment.
When a target was selected for a trial, the folder containing the target was removed from the
stack of targets and placed in a designated spot for the trial.
Target selection for a specific trial was conducted just before each experimental RV
session by a research assistant after the viewer, hypnotist, and monitor were sequestered in the
remote viewing room. While they were aware of the general nature of the pool, the viewer,
experimenter, hypnotist, and assistant remained blind to the specific target photograph until after
each trial was completed. Using a pseudorandom algorithm seeded by a computer system clock,
a target packet was selected from the target pool and, by the same technique, a target was
selected from within the designated packet. Targets were chosen with replacement, so that the
same target could be selected more than once. A total of 16 targets was randomly selected for 16
experimental trials for each subject.
D. Hypnosis Procedure
Since our interest was in the highest-quality hypnosis procedure, we decided to hire
an experienced professional. The services of a licensed clinical psychologist with a wide range of
both clinical and research experience and training were contracted to administer the
hypnotizability scales, assist in the development of individually specific trance inductions, and
conduct the hypnosis RV sessions.
After the hypnotizability scales were administered, an interview was conducted with
each viewer to determine personal beliefs about RV, methods of preparing for RV, experiences
during RV, confidence and characteristics associated with accuracy of RV, and suggestions for
helping the viewer perform at the highest level.
On the basis of strengths shown on the hypnotizability scales and specific answers to
interview questions, an induction and RV protocol was tailored to the needs of each individual
viewer. This included specific instructions for initiating and deepening the trance, suggestions
leading to predefined levels of readiness and confidence, assistance in producing an RV
response, help in evaluating the response, and presentation of the target stimulus as feedback
with evaluation and support while still in trance.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
E. Protocol
An experimental trial was conducted as follows. The viewer, monitor and hypnotist
were sequestered in an RV laboratory where the hypnotist assisted the viewer into a trance. In
another part of the building, an assistant selected a specific target from the pool using a computer
random number generator and placed the target in the designated spot. After the trance was
established the hypnotist gave specific suggestions to focus on target material, to have a full
sensory experience of the target, and to write and/or draw that material on paper provided.
Following the RV session the viewer was shown the target photograph as feedback (see Figure 1).
Viewer, monitor
and hypnotist
sequestered
Target
randomly
selected
Hypnosis
(30 minutes)
RV
(15-30 minutes)
Feedback I Trance terminated
FIGURE 1 (U) SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IN EACH HYPNOSIS TRIAL
F. Analysis
RV responses were ranked using the visual correspondence method by an
independent analyst who was blind to the target. In this procedure the target and its four
companions from the designated packet were presented in random order along with the viewer's
response to an analyst who rank-ordered the targets in order of decreasing similarity to the
response (i.e., a rank of 1 means that the target best matches the response, and a rank of 5
means the worst match). The output from each trial was the rank number the analyst assigned to
the correct target. The sum of ranks over the 16 trials was used to calculate the p-value for each
viewer in the experiment.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
III RESULTS
A. Hypnotizability scales
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.
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.
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
5
4
5
4
. 4
2
5
5
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
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 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
IV DISCUSSION
RV has been demonstrated to be a weak phenomenon such that success on any
given study cannot be expected 100 percent of the time. The following discussion focuses on
three other possibilities for failure to achieve positive results in this study.
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.
A 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 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
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 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4
REFERENCES
I
1. Dingwall, E. J. (Ed.), Abnormal Hypnotic Phenomena: A Survey of Nineteenth-Century
Cases, Barns & Noble, Inc.. New York, 1967 (4 Vols.)
2. Honorton, C., and Krippner, S., Hypnosis and ESP performance: A Review of the
Experimental Literature, Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 63,
214-252, 1969,
3. Schechter, E. I., Hypnotic Induction vs. Control Conditions: Illustrating an Approach to
the Evaluation of Replicability in Parapsychological Data, Journal of the American Society
for Psychical Research, 78, 1-27, 1984
4. Krippner, S., Experimentally-induced Telepathic Effects in Hypnosis and Non-hypnosis
Groups, Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 62, 387-398, 1968,
5 Palmer, J., and van der Velden, I., ESP and "Hypnotic Imagination": A Group
Free-response Study, European Journal of Parapsychology, 4, 413-434, 1983,
6. Honorton, C., Significant Factors in Hypnotically-induced Clairvoyent Dreams, Journal of
the American Society for Psychical Research, 66 86-102, 1972
7. Milton, J., Critical Review of the Displacement Effect (part I), The Journal of
Parapsychology, 52 (1), March, 1988,
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200300001-4