AN EFFORT TO IMPROVE REMOTE VIEWING QUALITY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 17
• 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-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
Final Report-Task 6.0.6 October 1989
Covering Period 1 October 1988 to September 1989
AN EFFORT TO IMPROVE REMOTE VIEWING
QUALITY USING HYPNOSIS
Prepared By: Nevin D. Lantz
Prepared for: SG1J
Contracting Officer's Technical Representative
SRI Project 1291
MURRAY J. BARON, Director
Geoscience and Engineering Center
333 Ravenswood Ave. ? Menlo Park, CA 94025
ed For R e1ease NOd/6 b91081 2 bP96-00789R002200560001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
ABSTRACT
This report details a 3-year effort to improve remote viewing (RV) quality utilizing a
hypnotic trance to increase the amount of target-related data produced by a remote viewer. Two
separate protocols where used. In the first, all RV data were obtained in the waking state. A
session consisted of two RVs against the same target. The first of these was conducted in
accordance with SRI's normal protocol. The second, however, occurred after a treatment period.
During this period, the viewer was either hypnotized or given written material to proofread. In the
hypnosis condition, the viewer was instructed to recall the first RV and supply additional details
posthynotically. A strong improvement was seen for a single viewer during a pilot study. This result
did not replicate in a formal study using two other viewers. In the second protocol, RV data was
collected while the viewers remained in trance. No statistical improvement over preestablished
baselines were observed. In summary, hypnosis does not seem to be a productive way to enhance
remote viewing quality.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................ii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................... iv
I INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1
A. Overview .................................................... 1
B. Objective .................................................... 1
II METHOD OF APPROACH .......................................... 3
A. Hypothesis ................................................... 3
B. Viewer Selection .............................................. 3
C. Target Selection ............................................... 3
D. Hypnosis Procedure ............................................ 4
E. Protocols .................................................... 4
F. Analysis ..................................................... 5
A. Hypnotizability Scales .......................................... 6
B. RV Results ................................................... 7
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
LIST OF TABLES
1. Rank by Trial and Condition: Viewer 455 (Pilot) .............................. 7
2. Summary Statistics: Viewer 454 (Pilot) ...................................... 7
3. Average Rank by Trial and Condition: Viewer 330 ............................ 8
4. Summary Statistics: Viewer 330 ............................................ 8
5. Average Rank by Trial and Condition: Viewer 137 ............................ 8
6. Summary Statistics: Viewer 137 ............................................ 9
7. Interanalyst Reliability .................................................... 9
8. Rank by Trial and Viewer ................................................ 10
9. Summary Statistics: Viewers 373 and 137 ................................... 10
1. Sequence of Events in Hypnosis Experiment Protocol 1 ......................... 5
2. Sequence of Events in Hypnosis Experiment Protocol 2 ......................... 5
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
The search for a mental state wherein an unselected subject would score better on an ESP
task than during the normal waking state has recently generated considerable interest. This has
resulted in the study of various altered states of consciousness for their psi-conducive properties.
Many researchers consider hypnosis to be such a state. In 1986, SRI was tasked to explore the use
of hypnosis as a method for improving remote viewing (RV). The rationale for choosing hypnosis
as a tool for improving RV was twofold. Hypnosis has been associated with the manifestation of psi
phenomena since the days of Mesmer. Experimental work in the area has shown that there is
consistent improvement in ESP scoring with a trance-induction condition compared to a
no-induction condition (Schechter,'* Honorton and Krippner2). This report summarizes the
results of three studies with four remote viewers, conducted during the past 3 years, using hypnotic
processes in an attempt to significantly increase the effect size of experimental RV.t
B. Objective
One metaphor that conceptualizes the RV process is that of a radio transmitting system.
Three subsystems interact to transfer information from point to point; a transmitter produces a
signal, a medium carries the signal, and a receiver transduces the signal into an intelligible message.
In the RV process, the viewer acts as the receiver. Because nothing is known about the transmitter
or the signal-carrying medium of the RV process, the most logical approach to improving RV is to
maximize the efficiency of the receiver. While most of the reported studies of psi enhancement
with hypnosis have used forced choice guessing tasks as the measure of psi (Schechter'), there was
no reason in principle to believe that hypnosis could not be applied to the RV process. Our specific
objectives were to learn as much about the hypnotic process as possible and to test its applicability
to the improvement of the RV process.
In particular we were interested in whether hypnosis could be used as a recall agent after an
RV session to bring additional unreported material to consciousness, in much the same way that
hypnosis has been used in clinical situations to recover unconscious material. A pilot study with
* The references may be found at the end of this report,
t This report constitutes the deliverable of the Statement of Work item 6.0.6.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08108 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
one viewer and a formal experiment with two additional viewers were carried out to address this
question. In addition, we were curious about how the trance state itself influenced RV production.
..i Two viewers participated in an experiment where RV descriptions and drawings were produced and
feedback was given while the viewer was in trance.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
A. Hypothesis
The rationale for conducting this series of experiments rests on the assumption that RV data
are mediated through the subconscious and then raised to consciousness by memory, associative,
and attentive processes. The hypothesis tested was that a hypnotic trance state would assist the
viewer to focus on and report more target-related information than in an unassisted RV. Two
different experimental protocols were used. Protocol 1 compared a hypnosis intervention between
two RVs of the same target with a proofreading intervention. We predicted that when the quality of
the first RV was poor, hypnosis would assist in raising it during the second RV.
Protocol 2 utilized RV production during the trance itself in an attempt to increase the RV
quality over the duration of the experiment. Remote viewing quality could also be compared with
work done in previous studies.
Four viewers were selected from a pool of individuals who had participated in previous RV
studies, on the basis of willingness and time to participate. The range of viewing experience varied
across the four from a novice who had participated in one previous experiment to an experienced
viewer who had participated in experiments for over 10 years. Prior to beginning the study each
viewer was administered the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale3 (SHSS) both to aid in
developing individually specific RV protocols and to begin a database for comparing hypnotizability
and scoring on psychic tasks.
C. Target Selection
A target pool of 100 National Geographic photographs of natural scenes previously chosen
as potential targets for RV experiments was divided into 20 packets of 5 targets each. The five
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
numbered and stored individually in manila folders for ease of handling during the experiment.
When a target was selected for a trial, the folder containing the number and target photograph was
removed from the stack of targets and placed in a designated spot for the trial.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
Target selection for each trial was conducted by a research assistant, after the viewer,
hypnotist and monitor were sequestered in the remote viewing room. While aware of the general
nature of the pool, the viewer, monitor, 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.
D. Hypnosis Procedure
A licensed clinical psychologist, with a wide range of both clinical and research experience
and training in hypnosis, was contracted to administer the susceptibility scales, assist in the
development of individually specific trance inductions, and conduct the hypnosis sessions.
After the hypnotizability scale was 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 what might
help 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 were tailored to the needs of each individual
viewer. This protocol included specific instructions for initiating and deepening the trance,
suggestions leading to subjectively defined levels of readiness and confidence (rated on a numerical
scale), assistance in producing an RV response, help in evaluating the response, and presentation
of the target stimulus as feedback with evaluation and support.
Two different experimental protocols were used in these studies (see below). A pilot series
of 12 trials with one viewer using protocol 1 was conducted to debug the process and familiarize
everyone with the procedures. Several changes were made to the final protocol as a result.
Protocol 1 involved two RVs with a hypnosis or proofreading condition between them. The
conditions were counterbalanced with an unequal number so that the viewer and monitor were
always blind to which condition-hypnosis or proofreading-would follow the first viewing. After
synchronizing watches with an assistant, the RV monitor and viewer were sequestered in an RV
laboratory. In another part of the building, the assistant selected a target envelope and placed it on
a table in an empty office (see Section II.C). RV1 was conducted and the response was copied and
stored for safekeeping. The hypnotist then entered the RV room and either proceeded with the
hypnosis session or presented the viewer with a printed manuscript for proofreading. After 30
minutes, the hypnotist left the room and a second RV was produced (see Figure 1).
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
In the hypnosis condition, the hypnotist guided the viewer into a trance and when a
previously agreed-upon trance depth and confidence level were achieved, the viewer was given
suggestions to relive the experience of the just-completed viewing and to recall and remember
posthypnotically all target-related information. The trance was then terminated and the hypnotist
left the room.
Viewer, and hypnotist I Target RV1 Hypnosis I
and hypnotisit randomly Proofreading
sequestered selected 15 minutes (30 minutes) 15 minutes
I Feedback
Figure 1. Sequence of Events in Hypnosis Experiment Protocol 1
In protocol 2, 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 and
placed the target in the designated spot (see Section II.C). 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 remember and accurately communicate that material. Following the RV session
and while the viewer was still in a trance, the viewer was shown the target photograph as feedback.
(It was hoped that this would facilitate state-specific learning for association between response and
target elements.) After the feedback, the trance was terminated. (see Figure 2).
Viewer, monitor Target Hypnosis
and hypnotist I sendomly 1 (30 minutes) I (15-30 minutes)
sequestered selected RV
I Feedback I Trance terminated
Figure 2. Sequence of Events in Hypnosis Experiment Protocol 2
F. Analysis
RV responses were ranked by an independent analyst, who was blind to the target, using the
visual correspondence method. The target and the four decoys from the designated packet were
presented in random order, along with the viewer's response. The analyst's job was to rank-order
the targets by decreasing similarity to the response; a rank of 1 means that the target best matches
the response, and a rank of 5 means the worst match. (In the pilot study, six decoys were used,
giving a rank of 1 through 7.) The output from each trial was the numerical rank the analyst
assigned to the correct target. The sum of ranks across trials was used to calculate the p-value and
effect size for each viewer in the experiments.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
III RESULTS
A. Hypnotizability Scales
The novice viewer (330) scored a 12 on Form A of the SHSS. He was then given Form C, a
more difficult scale, to test the limits of his hypnotizability. He scored an 8 on this 12-point scale
by failing auditory, visual, and olfactory hallucinations as well as the amnesia item. This score
placed him in the high general level of hypnotic responsiveness, with a centile equivalent of 81.
The hypnotist also noted difficulty establishing rapport with this viewer because of analytical,
agnostic, and preestablished beliefs regarding the reality of hypnotic processes. Despite this
difficulty, the viewer was able to show profound relaxation, detailed visual imagery (though bound
to reality), effected motor functioning, and demonstrated amnesia.
The moderately experienced viewers (454, 137) produced scores of 10 and 7, respectively
(92 and 71 centile equivalents), on the 12-point SHSS: Form C. Viewer 454 was not able to alter
his perception of ammonia or produce a negative visual hallucination, but showed high imaginal
ability in all sensory fields, produced a deep state of relaxation, was able to regress, performed
posthypnotic suggestions, and demonstrated amnesia, hypermnesia, and posthypnotic automatic
writing. Viewer 137 produced a deep state of relaxation, showed ability to regress and to be
absorbed in imagery, performed posthypnotic suggestions, and showed amnesia. This viewer
showed difficulty altering sensory phenomena, and 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 experienced viewer (372) produced a score of 10 on the 12-point SHSS: Form C-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, and 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 hypnotist noted several attempts to minimize conflict between visualized
behavior and internalized values, particularly around distortion items and inhibiting imagery. He
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
suggested that further hypnotic work be positively framed, with minimal conflict between hypnotic
suggestions and the viewer's belief system.
In summary, three of the viewers rated in the highly susceptible range and one in the
medium to high range. Though none were true somnambulists (highest level of hypnotic
susceptibility), all were able to profoundly alter their waking state of consciousness through the use
of hypnotic processes.
Tables 1 and 2 show the results for viewer 454 using Protocol 1 in the pilot study. Table
1 shows the individual ranks assigned by a single analyst for all sessions in this pilot study. RV1
occurred prior to the treatment [i.e., hypnosis (H) or proofread (P)], and RV2 occurred after.
As predicted, viewer 454 demonstrated improved RV performance only after the
hypnosis condition (X2 = 3.441, dfl = S, p C 0.632).
Rank by Trial and Condition: Viewer 454 (Pilot)
Trial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
RVI
2
4
3
3
1
5
2
5
4
4
7
4
RV2
4
1
4
7
2
3
1
1
4
4
1
1
Treatment
P
H
H
P
P
H
P
P
H
P
H
H
Summary Statistics: Viewer 454 (Pilot)
sum of ranks
p-value
effect size
Prehypnosis
27
0.758
-0.071
Posthypnosis
14
0.025
1.000
Preproofreading
17
0.094
0.786
Postproofreading
19
0.183
0.643
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
Two viewers (330 and 137) participated in the formal experiment using Protocol 1. In
addtion, the ranking was performed by three independent analysts. Tables 3 and 4 show the results
for viewer 330. In general, viewer 330 showed nonsignificant decline in RV performance during
the hypnosis condition, whereas a slight improvement was seen during the proofreading condition.
Average Rank by Trial and Condition: Viewer 330
Trial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Pre-T
2.7
4.3
3.7
2.0
3.0
2.3
1.0
4.7
2.7
3.3
1.7
4.3
2.3
4.3
2.3
2.3
3.0
1.0
3.7
3.7
Post-T
2.7
3.3
1.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
1.7
3.3
4.3
2.7
2.3
4.0
4.0
3.7
2.0
3.0
1.0
5.0
3.7
2.3
Cond.
P
H
P
P
H
H
H
P
P
P
P
H
H
P
P
H
H7
H
H
H
Summary Statistics: Viewer 330
sum of ranks
p-value
effect size
Prehypnosis
31
0.376
0.129
Posthypnosis
35
0.701
-0.129
Preproofreading
27
0.546
0.000
Postproofreading
26
0.454
0.079
The results for viewer 137 (see Tables 5 and 6) showed a nonsignificant improvement
in RV performance, but the RV did not reach statistical significance in 10 trials.
Average Rank by Trial and Condition: Viewer 137
Trial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Pre-T
3.7
3.7
3.0
3.3
2.0
4.7
2.0
2.0
2.7
4.0
2.7
1.0
3.7
2.7
1.7
4.0
3.7
4.7
1.3
4.7
Post-T
1.0
2.0
2.3
3.3
2.3
5.0
3.7
2.7
1.7
3.7
4.0
1.3
3.0
3.7
2.3
1.3
2.3
4.7
2.7
3.3
Cond.
H
H
P
H
H
H
PI
P
P
P
P
H
H
H
P
P
H
P
P
P
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
Summary Statistics: Viewer 137
sum-of ranks
p-value
effect size
Pre-hypnosis
28
0.636
-0.079
Post-hypnosis
24
0.233
0.236
Pre-proofreading
33
0.542
0.0
Post-proofreading
32
0.458
0.064
To estimate interanalyst reliability, we used the Spearman-Brown expression for
computing the reliability of a composite analysis,
--.......,...' .., r......,. 1 + (N-1)r'
where N is the number of analysts and r is the average correlation coefficient. Table 7 shows the
interanalyst reliabilities. Generally, reliabilities of 0.5 or larger are considered good. The results
are in qualitative agreement with what would be expected; the better the RV quality, the better the
interanalyst reliability.
Interanalyst Reliability
Viewer
Judge 1 vs 2
Judge 1 vs 3
Judge 2 vs 3
Average
Reliability
330
.316
.132
.303
.250
.500
137
.423
.472
.590
.495
.746
In summary, during the pilot study, viewer 454 showed significant evidence of remote
viewing in the posthypnosis RV sessions (p < 0.025) and increased the effect size from r = 0.071 to
r = 1.000 comparing pre and post hypnosis RVs. There was no statistical difference in effect sizes
pre and post proofreading. This result did not replicate during the formal test.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
In this protocol, RV data were collected while the viewers remained in trance. Tables 8 and
9 show the assigned ranks (by a single analyst) and summary statistics, respectively, for this
experiment.
Rank by Trial and Viewer
Trial
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
Summary Statistics: Viewers 372 and 137
Viewer
sum of ranks
p-value
effect size
372
50
0.669
-0.088
137
56
0.933
-0.354
The sum of ranks for viewer 372 is 50, with an associated p-value of 0.67. For viewer 137
the sum of ranks is 56, with an associated p-value of 0.93. Viewer 372 showed a significant
decrease in performance as the study progressed, as evidenced by a linear correlation coefficient of
r = .510 between trial number and rank (df = 15, p S 0.044). Viewer 137 showed a nonsignificant
tendency toward decreasing performance from the beginning to the end of the study (r = .348, df =
15, p S 0.269).
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
IV DISCUSSION
In his recent critique of the hypnosis and psi literature, Stanford4 concludes that, although
40 years of investigation have provided evidence that hypnosis often enhances ESP performance,
there are presently no clear indications as to what it is about the hypnotic process that favors ESP
scoring. Many views on why hypnosis may be psi conducive have been expressed. Casler5
suggested that hypnosis offers the possibility of maximizing task motivation. Honorton6 found that
relaxation, reduction of exteroceptive input from peripheral receptors, and internalization of
attention are the important elements. Sargent? reported an effect when controlling for state, trait,
and personality variables, but did not control for relaxation. Fourie8 proposed that the effect is due
to the nature of the interaction between the hypnotist and subject. Barber and Wilson9 speculated
that hypnotic susceptibility may be the important variable. Rogo10 argued that any conclusion is
premature, because state and trait factors affecting the results have been confounded, and that
personality factors are probably the operative variable.
Stanford further delineates seven methodological problems that hamper interpretation of
the studies in Schechter's1 review; (1) tremendous heterogeneity across studies as to the nature of
the induction itself, (2) individual differences in the skills needed to manifest hypnotic effects,
which were not measured, (3) use of same subjects designs, which can cause a variety of problems
(e.g. possible motivation to lower scores in the control condition), (4) failure to make random
assignments to induction and control groups in cases where the induction-control manipulation was
applied to separate groups, (5) the experimenter who administered the ESP task not being blind to
the condition, (6) lack of measurement of the degree of shift in internal state from waking to
trance, and (7) little systematic work examining specific hypotheses concerning why hypnosis
should work.
Before beginning this research, we assumed along with previous researchers in the field that
hypnosis was a unitary process that could be applied in a standardized way to the problem at hand.
We have learned that this assumption is incorrect. Our experience and the expanding body of
hypnosis and psi literature suggest that the coupling of hypnosis and psi tasks involves an extremely
complicated operation with the potential for multiple interactions when different viewers,
experimenters, hypnotists, and hypnotic techniques are used. Though our studies addressed some
of the methodological problems noted by Stanford, the number of viewers involved was too small to
.OW Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
statistically account for all the variance. However, several speculative conclusions, pointing to
directions for further work, can be addressed.
In the RVs conducted while the viewer was in trance, it is highly likely that the trance state
itself was not conducive to the kind of production our particular RV protocol requires (i.e., drawing
and writing), thus producing a trance-task interaction. If one assumes that learning occurred and
the viewers became better at entering and maintaining the trance state as the study progressed, this
could explain why performance worsened over the course of the 16 trials.
In the case of hypnotic recall of a previous RV, though the promising results of the pilot study
were not repeated in the subsequent experiments, factors related to hypnotist-viewer-
hypnotizability interactions are relevant. Viewer 330 continued to have difficulty following the
suggestions of the hypnotist, and a sort of competitive rapport developed between them that
worked against a positive result. Viewer 137 simply may not have been hypnotically susceptible
enough to produce the dramatic shift necessary for enhanced productiveness. Viewer 454 was also
skilled in the use of self hypnosis, which may have contributed something to the positive result.
Additional work also needs to be done in the area of induction-subject interactions. It is
evident that individuals respond differently to the induction process, which may interact with
susceptibility and personality factors, in the viewer as well as the hypnotist. More time and effort
resolving these issues prior to an experiment may be required.
The issue of hypnotic susceptibility in relation to psi performance remains unresolved and
should be the starting point for further studies. Several other good viewers, who could not
participate in the present study, showed high hypnotizability on the SHSS. Conducting a series of
RV trials with a group of persons who have previously been administered a standardized test of
susceptibility, such as the SHSS, could help to resolve this question.
An additional area that could be explored that would eliminate hypnotist-viewer
interactions would be the use of a carefully constructed self-hypnotic protocol as a pre-RV
procedure, for focusing attention processes on the RV task. A series of process-oriented studies
could be designed to discover the optimum conditions necessary for enhanced RV.
In conclusion it must be said that because of the interaction effects of a large number of
competing variables, the quest for a state of consciousness wherein anyone can improve psi
performance is an ill-advised and illusive goal. The best that can be hoped for is that
highly-selected individuals can be helped to improve performance under certain well-specified
conditions.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6
1. 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.
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. Weitzenhoffer, A. M., and Hilgard, E. R, Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C,
Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, 1962.
4. Stanford, R. G., Ganzfeld and Hypnotic-Induction Procedures in ESP Research: Toward
Understanding Their Success, In S. Krippner (Ed.), Advances in Parapsychological
Research, 5, 39-76, McFarland and Co., Inc., Jefferson, N.C., 1987
5. Casler, L., Hypnotic Maximization of ESP Motivation, The Journal of Parapsychology, Vol.
40, 187-193, 1976.
6. Honorton, C., Psi and Internal Attention States, In B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of
Parapsychology, 435-472, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1977.
7. Sargent, C. L., Hypnosis as a Psi-Conducive State: A Controlled Replication Study, The
Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 42, Number 4, 257-275, 1978.
8. Fourie, D. P., Hypnosis and Psi, European Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 4, Number 5,
455-473, 1983.
9. Barber, T. X., and Wilson, S. C., The "Fantasy-Prone Personality," the Psychic, and the
Excellent Hypnotic Subject ("somnambule") : Are They the Same Person? In W. G. Roll, R.
L. Morris, and R. A. White (Eds.) Research in Parapsychology, 41-42, Scarecrow Press,
Metuchen, NJ, 1982.
10. Rogo, D. S., Research on Psi-Conducive States: Some Complicating Factors, The Journal of
Parapsychology, Vol. 40, Number 1, 34-45, 1976.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200560001-6