REMOTE VIEWING STUDY 

Angela Thompson Smith, Ph.D.

Summary and Preliminary Group Data

In 2001 a study was carried out to investigate certain aspects of human consciousness and, in particular, the topic of remote viewing. As part of a potentially much larger study to measure the “footprint of consciousness” the study investigated characteristics of remote viewing and of the individuals doing the viewing. In particular, variables such as gender, age, type and length of training, the trait of absorption, and range of handedness were evaluated. Other variables such as distance, time, sidereal time, and presence or absence of solar storms were included, as these might be important to remote viewing performance.

A call went out for trained remote viewers to participate in the study and 25 viewers completed all of the requirements for the study. The requirements included completion of an Informed Consent, questionnaires, and one remote viewing session. The study was conducted “double-blind”: the participants, as well as the experimenter, were “blind” to the targets until they had been scored. Third parties selected the targets and put them into sealed, numbered envelopes, contacted the participants, scheduled the viewing dates, and scored the targets. The target pictures were chosen at random from a pool of 100 targets and provided as feedback to the participants by email and postal mail.

The twenty-five participants who took part in the study ranged in age from 20 to 66 years. There were 13 males and 12 females. The participants ranged between 63 and 9,513 miles away from the picture targets. The participants had been trained at 8 schools of remote viewing. Some of the preliminary remote viewing results were interesting.  For example, participants were asked if they used a monitor during their sessions: of the 25 participants, 19 did their session solo.

A scoring method developed by Problems<Solutions<Innovations was used to evaluate the remote viewing sessions. The scale scored each session on 39 categories, on a yes, no, or unknown basis. Trained scorers compared the participants’ session summaries to the picture target, and a percentage score was given to each session. The summaries ranged from 6% to 100% correct information perceived about the target. The mean correct information obtained by the participants was 63.8%. Ten of the participants perceived 80% and higher correct information.

There was a positive correlation between the time that the participant took to complete their session and their percentage score (p = .037) indicating that shorter sessions appeared to generate higher scores. The participants took on average about an hour to complete their sessions. Higher scores were also positively correlated with level of training (p = .002). However the unequal number of participants from the different training schools made it difficult to estimate any difference between schools.  There were no age or gender differences in scores.

The laterality data showed that the participants fell into a distribution of right, left, and mixed- handedness that was comparable to that found in the general population. There was a bias toward being left-eared in the remote viewing group, compared to a right-ear preference in the general population. The study population was equally divided between having a right or left-eye preference. In the general population, being right-eyed is the norm. Also the study participants were equally divided between being right or left-footed where the norm in the general population is to be right-footed.

Variables such as the trait of absorption, laterality, distance, time, sidereal time, and presence or absence of solar storms were not compared to session scores, at this time, because of the small database. There was insufficient data for these measures to give a meaningful analysis. Further data will be collected in the future to evaluate these measures.

I would like to thank all of the research participants and volunteers who contributed their time and expertise in order to carry out this study.

LATERALITY AND PSI

Angela Thompson Smith, Ph.D.

In 1987 a pilot project of 150 individuals who had participated for the first time in the Psychophysical Research Laboratory’s (PRL) Ganzfeld studies (a state of semi-sensory deprivation which facilitates psi abilities) were asked to report on their hand-preference.PRLwas located at Princeton Junction, NJ and directed by Mr. Charles (Chuck) Honorton). At that time I was participating as a volunteer participant at thePRL. According to Geschwind (1974), self-report is generally regarded as the best single measure of lateral preference. Participants were requested to return a postcard, giving information on their hand preference as follows: right- handed, left-handed or mixed-handed. There was an 80% return rate for the postcards. A preliminary analysis of the results showed the following:

R Preference (n=91)

L Preference (n=11)

Mixed (n=19)

The handedness estimates were compared with first-place hits on a Ganzfeld psi experiment. Among the 91 right- handers, only 29 had direct Ganzfeld hits (32%, z=1.38). Of the left- handers, an even smaller proportion had direct hits on the Ganzfeld, 2 out of 11 (18%, z =-.17). However, there were 10 mixed-handed subjects with direct hits, out of 19 (53%, z = 2.2). While this was a preliminary study, the results certainly warrant further investigation.

How are mixed- handers different from strong right or left- handers? The distribution of mixed-handedness ranges between 24% to 34% in the general population and more males than females are mixed-handed (Annett, 1970). Mixed handedness may be a normal variant on the right/left continuum (Annett, 1967, 1970, 1972). She demonstrated that the handedness distribution on the general population should be regarded as continuous, rather than a discrete right/left distribution. Bakan (1975) found a familial influence for ambilaterality: mixed- handers reported far more left-handed and mixed-handed relatives than right- handers did.

Most adults with mixed hand preference appear to be cognitively and neurologically normal (Bishop, 1983). The assumption that mixed handedness reflects immature, underdeveloped cerebral lateralization is not confirmed. Mixed-handedness may also be a product of environmental pressures. On the whole, ambilateral adults with mixed-hand preference are cognitively and neurologically normal and may represent a normal, genetic variation. Mixed- handers may have a unique perspective on the world and behave according to their different view.