An attempted replication of the PRL ganzfeld research - Psychophysical Research Laboratories - Autoganzfeld, part 2

[TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 1 OMITTED]

Despite pervasive folklore among scientists that one should not report interim results, we presented an interim report on this work at the 1995 convention of the Parapsychological Association. In that context, it should be noted that 59 of the replication sessions (45 FT2 and 14 EC) were conducted following the interim report. These contributed only 10 hits to the remainder of the series for a post-interim-report hit rate of 16.9% (z = -1.63). The difference between the 92 replication sessions done before the interim report and the 59 done after it is significant, Fisher's exact p = .04, two-tailed.

TABLE 2

DIRECT HIT RESULTS BY SENDER-RECEIVER RELATIONSHIP, REPLICATION
SERIES

                N Trials   N Hits   % Hits   ES [Pi]   ES h    z

Lab assigned       36        11       30.6     .57       12    0.60
Friend/lab         64        10       15.6     .36     -.23   -1.96
friend
Spouse             21         4       19.0     .41     -.14   -0.87
Parent/child       23        10       53.5     .70      .39    1.72
Siblings            7         5       71.4     .88      .97    2.23

Table 2 presents the direct hit results by sender-receiver relationship for first-time participants. As can be seen from that table, parent/child and sibling sender-receiver pairs produced exceptionally high hit rates, 43.5% and 71.4% respectively. By contrast, another category that prior research indicates should do well, friends, produced an unusually low hit rate of 15.6%. Of the 34 friends pairs that were tested after the interim report, only 4 produced hits (11.8%, z = -2.126).

The replication data base was examined for several other simple effects that have been reported in prior research. Table 3 presents the direct hit results for breakdowns by type of target (static or dynamic), sex of receiver, mental discipline practice by receiver, and handedness of receiver. Contrary to earlier findings, the dynamic targets did not produce a better hit rate than the static targets. In fact, the static targets yielded a promising hit rate of 31.3% while the dynamic targets gave only 23%. The hit rates for the target types were not significantly different, Fisher's exact p = .27. Also in contrast to previous findings, receivers who practiced mental disciplines (yoga, TM, etc.) did not produce a better hit rate. In conformity with prior research, persons who reported personal psi experiences did produce a better hit rate than those who did not report psi experiences, but the difference was not significant. Left-handed receivers yielded a noticeably better hit rate (45.5%) than either right-handed or ambidextrous receivers, but this was not significant, [[Chi].sup.2] = 2.19, df = 2, ns.

TABLE 3

DIRECT HIT RESULTS FOR OTHER BREAKDOWNS, REPLICATION SERIES

                N Trials   N Hits   % Hits   ES [Pi]    ES h     z

Target type

Static              64       20      31.1       .58      .14    1.01
Dynamic             87       20      23.0       .47     -.05   -0.05

Sex of receiver

Male                65       18      27.7       .54      .06    0.38
Female              86       22      25.6       .51      .01    0.02

Mental disciplines

Yes                112       29      25.9       .51      .02    0.13
No                  39       11      28.2       .54      .07    0.31

Psi experiences

Yes                138       37      26.8       .52      .04    0.41
No                  13        3      23.1       .47     -.05   -0.43

Handedness

Right              128       32      25.0       .50      .00    -.09
Left                11        5      45.5       .71      .43    1.20
Ambidextrous        12        3      25.0       .50      .00   -0.28