|
|
Originally
published in The Journal
of the American Society for
Psychical
Research, Vol. 84, No.
1, January 1990,
pp. 25-80.
Deception by Subjects in Psi
Research1
GEORGE P. HANSEN2
_____________________________________________ ABSTRACT: Parapsychology has long been tainted by the
fraudulent behavior of a few of those claiming psychic abilities.
Recently there has been renewed interest in studying persons who
claim psi abilities even though they have been caught cheating.
The issue of subject deception must be considered when evaluating
most parapsychological studies; however, in certain research
programs, attempted trickery is virtually certain, whereas in
others it is unthinkable. When evaluating a report, a reader must
consider the likelihood that deception may have been attempted,
along with the effect this might have on the legitimacy of
conclusions. This paper discusses two major approaches for
providing safeguards against cheating. Subject-based control is an
approach that focuses attention and resources on the subject.
Target-based control is primarily concerned with adequately
securing the target; this approach is the more easily implemented
and provides the higher degree of security. A section is devoted
to the special security problems with telepathy experiments.
Designing sufficient controls requires some knowledge of magic. A
survey of past presidents of the Parapsychological Association was
conducted, revealing that they had little familiarity with
conjuring. A discussion of the role of magicians is included.
Recommendations are made for dealing with the problems of subject
trickery.
______________________________________________
Psychic occurrences have endured a poor
reputation because of fraud by a few of those claiming psychic
powers (e.g., Keene, 1976). The affiliation of psi and fraud is
found all over the world; both Rose (1952) and Reichbart (1978)
have cited a number of anthropologists who have reported observing
simulated psychic events. This association has tainted the
scientific research as well. For instance, Irwin (1987) has
described how the reputation of a prominent medium hindered the
acceptance of parapsychology in Australia. Palmer (1988, p. 109)
recently wrote: “Psychic fraud . . . has been the single most
important factor in damaging the reputation of parapsychology and
retarding its growth.” Even more serious, a number of researchers
have endorsed tricksters as having genuine psychic powers.
The early Society for Psychical Research
(SPR) instituted a policy of refusing to work with psychics and
mediums who were known to have engaged in deceptive activity.
Recently, Inglis (1984) has vehemently and
_______
1 A portion of an earlier version of this paper
was presented at the 31st annual convention of the
Parapsychological Association in Montreal, August 1988.
2 I would like to thank Marcello
Truzzi, Robert Morris, Max Maven, Lupe Ah Chu, Jule Eisenbud, Rick
Berger, Dean Radin, Carlos Alvarado, and especially Charles Akers
and Charles Honorton for commenting on earlier drafts. I would
also like to thank James Matlock for comments and for making the
ASPR Library available many evenings and weekends.
The Journal of the American Society
for
Psychical Research
Vol. 84, January 1990 |
26
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
bitterly denounced that policy, and a number of people seem to
agree with him (e.g., Braude, 1986; Gregory, 1982). Several
leaders of the field seem to agree. Beloff (1985) has pleaded with
the skeptics to examine the Palladino mediumship. He has stated
that Glenn Falkenstein deserves investigation (Beloff, 1984a).
(Falkenstein is a well-known mentalist; for example, see Booth,
1984.) Presently Beloff (1988) is promoting the Margery
mediumship. Recently Azuma and Stevenson (1987) have advocated
further study of the notorious psychic surgeons.
This greater willingness to study (alleged)
psychic functioning of reported frauds was exemplified at the 1986
Parapsychological Association (PA) convention, where three papers
presented work with persons previously reported to have engaged in
fraudulent activity (Egely & Vertesy, 19863;
Stewart, Roll, & Baumann, 19864; Warren & Don,
19865). This is not an isolated instance. As seen in
the Table, every annual convention of the PA since 1980 has
included papers reporting positive results from subjects who later
admitted to or were reported as having used trickery at some point
in their careers.
In spite of the research
with tricksters, there has been rather little parapsychological
literature (in either the journals or other major reference
sources) dealing with the topic of subject deception. The
Handbook of Parapsychology (Wolman, 1977) has no chapter
devoted to the issue, nor is there any in the volumes of the
Advances in Parapsychological Research series (Krippner,
1977a, 1978, 1982, 1984, 1987). Indeed it would seem that most
researchers think that it is quite easy to rule out trickery and
that the database of parapsychology has little contamination by
fraud. For instance, Rhine (1974) commented: “Subject deception .
. . has long since ceased to be a major issue” (p. 101). A
statement by Beloff (1980) also seems to express this view: “An
experiment in which it is possible for the subject to cheat in any
way at all is, quite simply, an invalid experiment and no editor
or referee who knew his business would allow such an experiment to
be published” (p. 119). (This comment was made specifically in
reference to work with Bill Delmore by Kanthamani and Kelly, which
is discussed more fully later.) Chauvin (1980/1985) even
disparages discussion of the topic.
The
attitude of some parapsychologists stands in stark contrast to
that of the skeptics. For instance, Kurtz’s (1985) A Skeptic’s
Handbook of Parapsychology has five chapters explicitly
dealing with issues concerning
__________
3 Zoltan Vassy (personal communication, March 1987)
reported observing Pavlita engage in trickery when demonstrating
his device.
4 At the convention, Stewart did admit that Tina Resch had
been observed in trickery. This was not directly stated in the
written report. To the authors’ credit, they did address the issue
in their abstract in Research in Parapsychology 1986
(Stewart et al., 1986).
5 At the convention. Warren
and Don did admit that their subject was Olof Jonsson and that Cox
(1974) had reported observing Jonsson engage in trickery.
|
Deception by
Subjects
27
Table
CLAIMED
POSITIVE RESULTS FROM REPORTED TRICKSTERS IN PAPERS PRESENTED AT
PARAPSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION CONVENTIONS 1980–1988
______________________________________________
| Year |
Reported Trickster |
Paper or Other Presentation† |
Source of Allegation |
|
|
|
|
| 1980 |
Masuaki Kiyota |
Kasaharaet al. (1981) |
Stevenson et al. (1985) |
|
|
|
|
| 1981 |
Steve Shaw |
Phillips & Shafer (1982) |
Randi(1983b) |
|
Mike Edwards |
Phillips & Shafer (1982) |
Randi(1983b) |
|
SORRAT |
Cox (informal workshop)* |
Hansen & Broughton (1983) |
| 1982 |
Steve Shaw |
Thalboume & Shafer
(1983) |
Randi(1983b) |
|
Mike Edwards |
Shafer et al. (1983) |
Randi(1983b) |
|
Eusapia Palladino |
Cassirer(1983) |
Carrington (1909) |
|
J. H. |
Hasted et al. (1983) |
Playfair & Grosse (1988) |
|
Rony M. |
Berendt(1983) |
Berendt (personal communication, October 12,
1988) |
|
SORRAT |
Cox (informal workshop)* |
Hansen & Broughton (1983) |
|
Thomas Coutinho |
Montagno (informal workshop)* |
Roll (Pulos, 1987, p. 107) |
|
|
|
|
| 1983 |
SORRAT |
Cox (1984b) |
Hansen & Broughton (1983) |
|
|
|
|
| 1984 |
Tina Resch |
Roll(1984)* |
Stewart et al. (1987) |
|
|
|
|
| 1985 |
Tina Resch |
Baumann et al. (1986) |
Stewart et al. (1987) |
|
|
|
|
| 1986 |
Tina Resch |
Stewart et al. (1986) |
Stewart et al. (1987) |
|
Robert Pavlita |
Egely & Vertesy(1986)* |
Vassy (see footnote 3) |
|
Olof Jonsson |
Warren & Don (1987) |
Cox (1974) |
|
|
|
|
| 1987 |
Robert Pavlita |
Egely & Vertesy (1988) |
Vassy (see footnote 3) |
|
Olof Jonsson |
Don et al. (1988a) |
Cox (1974) |
|
|
|
|
| 1988 |
Olof Jonsson |
Don et al. (1988b) |
Cox (1974) |
|
Susie Cottrell |
McDonough et al. (1988) |
Randi(1979) |
____________________________________________
Notes:
† Unless otherwise noted, see
Research in Parapsychology (RIP) for that year (year
per first column of this table)
*
Not in RIP but presented at convention
subject fraud. Further, nearly all major critics of psi
research in the U.S. are well known within the conjuring
fraternity (Hansen, 1985a, 1987a). However, there is a growing
realization that more attention needs to be paid to the
possibility of subject cheating. At the 1983 and 1985 meetings
|
28
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
of the PA, roundtable discussions were conducted on the role of
magicians in psi research, and the PA issued a statement calling
for further collaboration with magicians (“PA Statement on
Magicians,” 1984). More critical evaluations are being made with
regard to possibilities of subject deception (especially Akers,
1984, but also Alvarado, 1987; Hansen, 1985b; Hastings, 1977;
Palmer, 1985, Chap. 6; and Stevenson, Pasricha, & Samararatne,
1988). Robert Morris (1985) in his Parapsychological Association
presidential message said that “fraud detection and prevention is
a rich, complex area of endeavor in itself; yet it is also very
appropriately a part of the domain of parapsychology” (p. 3).
Further, Morris (1982, 1986b) has started to outline major
concerns in the simulation of psychic events. Another positive
step has been the required class in magic for parapsychology
students at JFK University. Loyd Auerbach (1983) has presented a
workshop and prepared a reading list on magic for the American
Society for Psychical Research.
Deceit is
found in many human enterprises. Fascinating examples have been
discussed by MacDougall (1940) in his book Hoaxes. Further,
deception is not limited only to humans, but other species have
displayed it as well (Mitchell & Thompson, 1986). It should be
realized that parapsychologists are by no means the only
scientists who must deal with subjects trying to deceive them.
Psychologists often confront this problem. A number of
psychological tests have built in “lie scales” to detect faking,
and there is considerable debate as to the effectiveness of such
scales (e.g., McAnulty, Rappaport, & McAnulty, 1985). A quick
glance at the index of Psychological Abstracts under the
headings of “Faking” and “Malingering” will give an idea as to the
extent of the problem. Hyman (1989) has reviewed research on the
psychology of deception. Pollsters and others doing survey work
must concern themselves with the validity of responses of those
surveyed (e.g., Bachman & O’Malley, 1981; Bishop, Oldendick,
Tuchfarber, & Bennett, 1980; Traugott & Katosh, 1979).
Medical scientists confront similar problems in Munchausen’s
syndrome (O’Shea, McGennis, Cahill, & Falvey, 1984).
This paper is written primarily for
research workers currently engaged in parapsychology. A newcomer
may get the mistaken impression that the field is rife with fraud.
This is not the case; in fact, trickery is an issue in a quite
limited portion of the research. Nevertheless, this particular
portion is usually highly visible, and much of the public
(including outside scientists) associates parapsychology with this
tainted work. Even though in the large bulk of psi studies
concerns over deception are minor, the field as a whole shares the
responsibility for the unsavory reputation. This problem is not a
result of a few naive, overenthusiastic proponents.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the
salient issues concerning deception by subjects in
parapsychological research. I will focus on experimental and
quasi-experimental research and will not address issues of
deception and fabrication in spontaneous psi reports (e.g.,
Ejvegaard & Johnson, 1981). My procedure will be to describe a
few major conceptual
|
Deception by
Subjects
29
issues and then illustrate them with specific examples from the
parapsychological literature. I will take the bulk of the examples
from journal articles (rather than abstracts and conference
proceedings) because they comprise the most important and
respected data of psi research. Most of the cited abstracts and
conference papers are included because they are recent and give an
indication of the current state of the field. As suggested by
Child (1987), I have endeavored to make my criticisms as specific
as possible rather than allude to abstract issues. Some of my
examples will be drawn from historical cases, but the bulk will be
from the recent literature. A number of my comments and
evaluations will be extremely negative; however, I hope that I
have followed the suggestions made by Stevenson and Roll (1966)
for providing useful criticism.
The topic
of deception is quite vast. I hope that discussion of these issues
will provide the reader some insight as to when fraud control is
of paramount importance in psi research as well as when it is of
little or no concern. Also, I will outline the characteristics of
methods that are either more or less effective in dealing with
fraud. I will restrict myself to the topic of subject cheating;
the issue of experimenter fraud in science has been dealt with
extensively elsewhere (e.g.. Broad & Wade, 1982). Further, I
will not discuss the speculations on the role that trickery might
play in eliciting or disguising psi (e.g., Reichbart, 1978). Nor
will I enter the debate as to whether researchers should or should
not work with known cheaters. The term “magic” will be used
synonymously with conjuring or trickery and not in the
anthropological or occult senses.
The rest
of the paper will deal with three major topics: the subjects, the
nature of safeguards, and the role of magicians. When evaluating
controls against fraud, one must first assess the likelihood of
fraud being attempted. This depends on the nature of the persons
studied; thus, a considerable section is devoted to the research
subjects. In implementing controls against deception, there are
several strategies one can take, and these are discussed in
detail. Two primary approaches are identified: “subject-based
control” and “target-based control.” Some precautions needed in
psi research necessitate having a background in magic or
consulting with conjurors. Because such consulting has received
virtually no useful treatment within the parapsychological
literature, an extensive section is devoted to the matter.
SUBJECTS
In evaluating the controls against deceit,
one needs to consider the likelihood that trickery might be
attempted by the subjects. When one examines some
parapsychological experiments, subject cheating is virtually
unthinkable. In others, however, it is only reasonable to start
with the assumption that fraud was attempted and make an
evaluation accordingly. For most studies, the plausibility of
attempted trickery lies somewhere between these two extremes.
|
30
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
There are several possible ways of assessing
the likelihood of trickery. Many researchers seem to think that
motivation is a deciding factor. Although it is certainly
important, considering it alone may lead to false conclusions.
There have been cases of well-respected individuals who
perpetrated fraud for no readily apparent gain (e.g., see
Dingwall, 1963; Feilding, 1905/1963, pp. 1–8; Podmore, 1897;
Sidgwick, 1894). Motivations may often be quite hidden to the
casual (or even close) observer. Further, tricksters will
sometimes go to lengths nearly inconceivable to more ordinary
persons; for instance, a number of magicians have died because of
the risks they took (e.g., Robinson with White, 1986), and many
card cheaters have risked being killed (DeArment, 1982). Another
consideration in evaluating the likelihood of deception is the
history and background of the subject (some, like Eusapia
Palladino, seem to cheat at any opportunity). Still another is the
specific claim being made. Even a cursory examination of the
literature shows that studies involving macro-PK have a much
higher rate of fraud than those involving ESP (Carrington,
1907/1920, provides a useful, if dated, overview).
Relative Risk
Researchers face two types of risk in
cheating by subjects. The first, of course, is the likelihood that
cheating was attempted. Perhaps the single most outstanding factor
that has implications for the likelihood of fraud is the number of
subjects in a study. In nearly all cases, concerns about trickery
have been expressed only for investigations involving one (or, at
most, a few) individual(s). Readers having any doubts about the
probability of trickery with single subjects might examine the
chapters in A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology (Kurtz,
1985). Virtually all discussions of cheating center on cases of
single (or pairs of) individuals being tested or claiming psi
powers. There is essentially no discussion of deception in
experiments in which groups of subjects are involved. The second
risk involves the impact on conclusions. In studies with only one
subject, cheating could totally invalidate the results. However,
when working with groups of subjects, conclusions need not be
based on a single individual.
Perhaps the
highest risk research is that which depends entirely on the
results of a known trickster. The likelihood of trickery and the
potential threat to conclusions are extremely high. In some
instances, entire research programs have been based on phenomena
produced by one person. The preeminent historical example might be
Eusapia Palladino; she freely admitted that she cheated, yet many
investigations were conducted with her. Even in more recent times
parapsychologists have been very willing to invest considerable
effort in working with people who they know practice trickery.
This willingness is encountered in poltergeist cases, which have
had a high frequency of cheating (e.g., Owen, 1964, pp. 27–87;
Podmore, 1896).
|
Deception by
Subjects
31
When a research program is
heavily invested in an individual unknown subject, it is only
reasonable to conduct the research assuming the subject will
attempt trickery. In some such cases, the risk may be as high or
even higher than working with a proven trickster. A preeminent
modern example is the work with Bill Delmore conducted by
Kanthamani and Kelly. Diaconis (1978) reported: “I am sure that
B.D. used sleight of hand several times during the performance I
witnessed” (p. 133). (It should be noted that Kelly, 1979, took
issue with this, to which Diaconis, 1979, responded. Diaconis is
an extremely capable, knowledgeable magician [Kolata, 1985],
whereas Kelly apparently had no magic training whatsoever.)
Several factors make this case especially interesting. Kanthamani
was an experienced investigator, and the studies were conducted at
a major laboratory. The work produced a number of refereed journal
articles, and these are now frequently cited. McConnell (1983)
described a number of the reports as “having unusual evidential
interest regarding the reality of psi phenomena” (p. 311).
Schmeidler (1977) reported the tests as being “under excellent
control of conditions” (p. 93). One paper was reprinted in Rao’s
(1984b) The Basic Experiments in Parapsychology.
Research studies on macro-PK are especially
risky, partly because they often involve only one or two subjects.
A recent example of such risks is the work of the McDonnell
Laboratory for Psychical Research with Mike Edwards and Steve Shaw
(e.g., see Phillips & Shafer, 1982). In this case there was
ample reason to suspect trickery might be attempted as there was
an article about Shaw in the Skeptical Inquirer reporting
his use of magic tricks (McBumey & Greenberg, 1980). Another
example would be the extensive investigations carried out with
Masuaki Kiyota (e.g., Eisenbud, 1982; Kasahara, Kohri, Ro, Imai,
& Otani, 1981; Keil, Cook, Dennis, Wemer, & Stevenson,
1982; Shafer & Phillips, 1982). Kiyota later admitted to
having used trickery although not in these experiments (Stevenson
et al., 1985; see also Phillips, 1987; Stevenson et al., 1987;
Uphoff, 1987a, 1987b).
A more moderate risk
is encountered when designing an experiment with a single subject
who is well known to the investigators and for whom no suspicion
of trickery has been raised. Leonora Piper would be a historical
example. More recent examples might include Malcolm Bessent, Hella
Hammid, Keith Harary, Ingo Swann, and Olga Worrall. To my
knowledge, no questions have been raised about the integrity of
any of these subjects. Further, Bessent, Harary, Piper, Swann, and
Worrall have been tested by several different investigators in
separate laboratories. However, investigators should realize that
because such research involves only one subject, the potential
threat to conclusions remains high.
A
somewhat lower risk situation is found when a relatively small
number of subjects are involved in a research program in which the
conclusions are based on individual subjects rather than the group
as a whole. In such cases, the researchers devote considerable
time and attention to each individual. The individuals are
typically highly motivated and inter-
|
32
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
ested in the research. Probably the best current example of
this approach is the remote-viewing work of Princeton Engineering
Anomalies Research (PEAR) (Nelson, Jahn, & Dunne, 1986). Due
to space limitations, only their overall results are presented in
journal articles; however, data for individual performance are
presented and discussed in technical reports available from the
laboratory. It might be argued that the risk is high in this type
of research because more subjects are involved. However, when a
number of subjects show similar effects, the conclusions are
strengthened.
An even lower risk situation
would involve using a small to moderate number (say between 10 and
50) of highly motivated subjects in which conclusions are based
upon performance of the group. An example might be a Ganzfeld
experiment in which each subject contributes only one or two
trials (e.g., Honorton & Schechter, 1987).
There seems to be only a small risk of
subject trickery when using large groups of unselected subjects,
such as in a classroom situation (e.g., Taddonio, 1976). The
testing is done in groups. The experimenter gives rather little
attention to any individual subject. Each subject may contribute
only one data point (out of several hundred). Usually the subjects
have little or no prior awareness that the test is to be
conducted, thus there is little time to prepare.
Probably the smallest risk exists when
subjects are not even aware of being in an experiment. Examples of
these can be found in Schechter’s (1977) review of nonintentional
ESP studies. Experiments in which the subjects are plants (e.g.,
Edge, 1978) or inanimate objects are not open to accusations of
cheating by the subjects.
The bulk of the
research in parapsychology is done with unselected subjects, and
thus the issue of subject fraud is usually of minor importance.
Akers (1984) has written: “In my own experience, I have rarely
encountered sophisticated trickery, even among subjects claiming
psychic skills” (p. 137). Even critic C. E. M. Hansel (1966) has
stated: “It is unlikely that more than a small number of
experiments on ESP are affected by cheating” (p. 234). However,
the most heavily publicized studies are those involving individual
subjects with dubious reputations.
Implications for Safeguards
To date, there has been no established code
or philosophy that provides guidelines as to level of security
needed when working with various types of subjects. The views
expressed have often been contradictory. Some have demanded
equally stringent controls for all psi experiments. However, that
is not a workable approach.
Some Conflicting Views
Rhine
(1938, p. 151) has stated: “The goal of the experimenter is the
complete exclusion of all possible sensory cues, which includes
assuming
|
Deception by
Subjects
33
the dishonesty of the subject,” and “if under the conditions
deception is humanly possible, the conditions are not adequate to
establish the degree of confidence required for so weighty a
conclusion as the occurrence of extra-sensory perception.”
Although many people subscribe to this approach, it is not
universally shared. Some believe that the burden is on the skeptic
to prove cheating occurred in an experiment rather than it being
the responsibility of the experimenter to safeguard against
trickery. Alfred Russel Wallace (1891) argued that magician S. J.
Davey should be considered to be a genuine medium unless all his
tricks were publicly explained!
The critics
likewise show little agreement on the topic. In discussing tests
with groups of subjects, Hansel (1966) writes: “It is necessary to
take as stringent safeguards against spurious high scores as in
experiments with single subjects” (p. 166). However, others
indicate that the necessity of controls and safeguards is a matter
of degree. For instance, Gardner (1983–84) writes:
Even among psychics, very few claim
such fantastic powers as the ability to bend metal by PK,
translocate objects, and levitate tables. It is only when
exceedingly rare miracles like these are seriously investigated
that it is essential to call in an expert on the art of close-up
cheating, (p. 115) Safeguards Based on
Risks
I do not completely agree with any of the
positions outlined above. It should be recognized that the
likelihood of trickery and level of safeguards are both matters of
degree. The cost of controls must be considered in any study. It
is often not practical to impose maximum controls. The safeguards
needed when testing a known trickster are drastically different
than when testing in a typical classroom situation with unselected
subjects. On the other hand, there are many instances in which
controls can be implemented at little or no cost. In such cases,
there is little reason not to do so.
In the
highest risk studies (i.e., those with single subjects who are
known tricksters or who are unknown to the investigators) the
experimenter should plan the experiment as though cheating
definitely will be attempted. From a purely pragmatic standpoint,
the researcher should assume the subject to be a fraud. A
qualified magician should be consulted; more will be said about
this later. Extraordinary precautions need to be taken, especially
in macro-PK studies or when using newly developed procedures.
Researchers should be warned not to become too complacent when
considering the possible extremes a trickster might undertake. For
instance, Mary Toft fooled physicians by “giving birth” to rabbits
that she had previously placed in her vaginal passage (see Price,
1931, p. 40; Seligman, 1961). It was suggested that Margery’s
uterus may have been surgically enlarged and possibly concealed
parts of fetal corpses in order to simulate ectoplasm (see Tietze,
1973, pp. 117, 167). Majax (1975/ 1977) has suggested that some
card cheats may have radio receivers im-
|
34
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
planted inside their skulls. Chari (1973) has reviewed several
other bizarre stunts.
When working with
small groups of highly motivated subjects, there is ample cause
for concern. For instance, Pamplin and Collins (1975) tested six
school children who claimed metal-bending ability. Five were found
to cheat when they thought that the controls were reduced.
However, they did not report any evidence of prior planning of
deception. On the other hand, Keil (1979) worked with 30 subjects
who had previously reported PK metal bending, and he obtained
negligible results, with no suspicious behavior. One of his tests
involved attempted movement of a compass needle, but no clear
movement resulted in 29 of the 30 cases. Movement in the one case
was later found to be due to an elevator in the building. Keil
realized that using a compass in this preliminary work might allow
surreptitious use of a magnet, yet there was no evidence of this
in any of the 30 people he worked with. Nevertheless, it seems
reasonable to insist on rigorous controls when conducting formal
trials with small groups of highly motivated subjects.
Studies with well-known psychic
practitioners of high integrity might be conducted a bit more
leniently. However, such an approach is not completely fair to the
subject. Aggressive skeptics are likely to cast doubt on the
findings and sometimes question the honesty of the psychic. The
experimenters have a major responsibility to protect the good
reputation of the subject. This necessitates strong safeguards
against cheating.
When research is
conducted with a number of unselected subjects, experiments have
frequently been “designed under the (reasonable) assumption that a
trickster would not be present. Usually, this would be a safe
assumption” (Akers, 1984, p. 137). Akers points out that a number
of published psi experiments did not implement controls that
excluded “cases where ordinary subjects might have cheated
spontaneously, without much forethought” (p. 137). In many
instances, little time or expense is required to implement more
stringent controls; in such cases, there seems little reason not
to do so.
Reporting Requirements
When preparing research reports, one should
give some information about the background of the subjects. This
is the only way a reader can make a reasonable evaluation as to
the likelihood of attempted trickery. This is particularly crucial
when special subjects are used. Guidelines for reporting have not
received much attention in the parapsychology literature. It seems
only reasonable to insist upon including all information that
would bear on the likelihood of fraud.
Previously, it has been common practice not to report a subject’s
known ability and practice of deception. In the case of Eva C.,
several prominent researchers protested publishing discoveries of
fraud (e.g., see Lambert, 1954). In the very first issue of the
Journal of Parapsychology, Pratt
|
Deception by
Subjects
35
(1937) did not report that he had caught Mrs. M.
cheating in one of his sessions (J. G. Pratt, personal
communication to C. Akers, October 24, 1978). Similar practice
continues to the present day. For instance. Subject #4 in Baumann,
Stewart, and Roll’s (1986) study was Tina Resch, who had received
extensive media coverage and had admitted to trickery in the past
(Stewart, Roll, & Baumann, 1987), yet none of this was
mentioned in the report. In the papers at the 1986 PA convention
involving reportedly fraudulent subjects, none of the authors
acknowledged the fact in their reports. One of the papers even
failed to give the subject’s name, in spite of the fact that he
(Olof Jonsson) had received extensive publicity for his personal
claims (e.g., Dunninger, 1974, pp. 195–216; Mann, n.d.; Steiger,
1971). I am personally acquainted with the authors of these recent
papers and am sure they had only the best intentions (believing
their controls to be adequate). However, to those not familiar
with the researchers, such practices can appear to be deliberate
attempts to mislead the reader. This has long been understood. For
instance, Verrall (1914), speaking of reports of Eva C. wrote:
“The omission of any such statement [regarding alleged
trickery] would naturally be interpreted as implying that she had
[an absolutely clean record]” (p. 344). The Parapsychological
Association’s “Ethical and Professional Standards for
Parapsychologists” contains a section on such issues. It reads:
Ordinarily, in the case of a subject
widely known for claims of personal psi ability, the
investigator with clear knowledge of psi simulation by that
subject has an obligation, once an investigation is completed,
to make public that knowledge along with any other information
gained from the investigation that may bear upon the public’s
perception of the psi abilities of this public figure. It is
deceptive to issue a report on such a person and not include all
the findings that bear upon how the person’s claims of psi
ability are to be interpreted. An investigator who deliberately
hides knowledge of such psi simulation in making a public report
on any subject is doing a disservice to the public and the
scientific community, and is acting in an unethical fashion.
(Parapsychological Association, 1980, pp.
14–15) In many situations
with special subjects, serious questions may have been raised
about trickery, but no iron-clad, legal proof has been
forthcoming. Nevertheless, researchers still have an obligation to
address the matter in reports. If a subject has made public claims
about psi abilities, it should be noted, and the name of the
subject should be given. If there are published accounts of
psychic feats, these should be cited. For instance, some accounts
might be impressive to laypersons but might strongly suggest
trickery to a magician. If there are published reports of
unsuccessful studies that could raise suspicions, these also
should be cited. For instance, some investigators of Masuaki
Kiyota did not cite the report of Scott and Hutchinson (1979).
Researchers do not often need to obtain proof of prior
trickery by a subject. If there is any information that might
raise suspicions, the investigator has an obligation to impose
stringent controls. This is to assure the integrity of the results
as well as to protect |
36
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
the reputation of the subject. The primary focus must be on the
adequacy of the controls and not on whether there is absolute
proof of prior deception.
When describing a
study with a number of participants, the reporting requirements
need not be as stringent as with a special subject. However, it
would be wise to give results for each individual such as in the
“Illustrative Study Summary” table suggested by Hyman and Honorton
(1986) or that of West and Fisk (1953). If someone examining the
report later felt that cheating was a possibility, one could
reanalyze the result by eliminating one or more of the high
scorers (in doing so one should give some defensible estimate of
the percentage likely to have attempted cheating in the
situation). The result could then be examined to see if the
overall conclusions were still supported. This would provide some
measure of the strength of the findings. An analogous procedure
was used by Honorton (1985) in his meta-analysis of the Ganzfeld.
He calculated the significance level after deleting the two most
successful and prolific researchers. The result was still strongly
significant.
CONTROL
Parapsychologists have investigated a
variety of phenomena under a wide range of conditions. Two of the
broad categories of research are laboratory investigation and
field study. These are largely distinct. Laboratory work typically
allows considerable control over observations and conditions,
whereas field studies permit a range from little or no direct
control to a great amount. For example, poltergeist phenomena are
typically sporadic, whereas the phenomena of “psychic surgery” are
stable, repeatable, and allow more systematic observation.
In some cases, field studies are
quasi-experimental, as in Western scientists’ observations of
Kulagina (e.g., Keil, Herbert, Ullman, & Pratt, 1976). In this
case, the subject was amenable to controls; however, the time
available for experiments was very limited. It seems fair to say
that the researchers were able to participate more in
demonstrations rather than fully controlled experiments. In other
instances, macro-PK subjects may allow no controls whatsoever
(e.g., Sai Baba).
Some have suggested that
in certain circumstances it may be unwise to impose rigorous
controls in order to “prove” the phenomena. This position is
suggested occasionally and usually only with regard to macro-PK
effects. In fact, William McDougall (1926/1967) advocated this in
relation to Margery. He wrote:
This third method consists in
accepting all the medium’s conditions, faithfully abiding by
them, in the hope that thus, if genuine supernormal phenomena
occur, one may attain a conviction of their reality; and that
also, if trickery is used, close observation on repeated
occasions will discover the fact and something of the modus
operandi. (pp. 182–183) |
Deception by
Subjects
37
McDougall specifically argued
against a “trick-proof test” in this case. Others have argued that
experimental control may be premature in some cases, such as
Batcheldorian sitter groups. They argue that not enough is yet
known to implement effective controls and still retain the
phenomena. Such an approach creates a very ambiguous situation.
Researchers may become unwilling or unable to acknowledge the
ambiguity and weakness of the evidence. Remaining “scientifically
objective” in such circumstances is extremely difficult. Some have
been critical of those who undertake this approach that imposes
few safeguards. Critics suggest that those who follow such a path
are gullible or “true believers.” Proponents argue that the
critics do not wish to understand the phenomena. Given the
provocative (albeit preliminary) results of Comell (1961), it is
not clear just whose view is naive.
This
paper is particularly concerned with evaluating quality of
research and procedures for establishing strong evidence. The vast
majority of parapsychological research consists of studies
attempting to implement rigorous safeguards.
Control Mode
The question of fraud prevention and
detection raises the issue of reliability of human observation.
All scientific work requires human observation at some level, of
course. The real question is how reliable the observing is likely
to be at crucial points, and that depends upon the nature of the
object or event being observed as well as on who is doing the
observing.
A psychical researcher can take
two basic approaches to preclude cheating. The scientist can focus
attention on the subject and try to spot tricks, perhaps using
cameras and other aids. Alternatively, effort can be spent in
securing the target system (the item to be influenced by PK or
perceived by ESP) so that the subject, and possible accomplices,
do not have access to it. I refer to these two as “subject-based
control” and “target-based control.” By these I mean the aspect on
which the experimenter concentrates attention and resources in
order to secure against trickery.
The focus
of experimental control is an issue that has received little
explicit attention. However, this aspect of methodology determines
the reliability of observations. The adequacy of security measures
can largely be defined by how easily and efficiently crucial
observations can be made. As might be expected, target-based
control lends itself to more reliability.
On the continuum of target-based control to subject-based control,
extreme examples of subject-based control can be found in the
historical investigations of physical mediums. For instance, in
sittings with Margery, a sitter would grasp an arm or leg (Tietze,
1973). The lights would be put out, and objects would move about
some distance from the me-
|
38
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
dium. At times, as in some sittings with Florence Cook, the
medium would be restrained by ropes or monitored by being placed
into an electrical circuit (e.g., see Stephenson, 1966). The
strength of the evidence for genuine PK depended entirely on how
well the restraint and observation of the medium (or others, such
as hidden accomplices) were assured and documented. With this
approach it was often extremely difficult to come to conclusions
(either that fraud did or did not occur); this fact is well
illustrated in Dingwall’s (1922) reflections on his work with Eva
C. At times, observers of mediums reported completely opposite
things (e.g., Feilding & Marriott, 1911). Although this
historical approach was not particularly successful, it is still
not an uncommon laboratory practice to use subject-based control.
The work with Ted Serios (Eisenbud & Associates, 1967, 1968),
Bill Delmore (Kanthamani & Kelly, 1974a), and Joe Nuzum
(Schwarz, 1985b) contains recent examples. The drawing in Green
and Green (1977, p. 214) showing Swami Rama attempting to move
knitting needles is an especially good illustration. The swami is
shown bound, with a mask over his face to preclude his moving the
needles by blowing on them. The needles themselves were not
protected.
With the laboratory work of
Rhine, security measures started to focus more on the target. For
instance, ESP cards might be placed in a box, and the subjects
would be asked to guess the order. An extreme example of
target-based control can be seen in a recent study by Weiner and
Zingrone (1986). Subjects were asked to guess a list of Zener
symbols (the targets). Later, a list of targets was generated for
each subject by obtaining a random entry point into a table of
random numbers; the digits thus obtained were converted to specify
the targets. In some instances, the random entry procedure was
done several days after the guesses were made and over 1,000 miles
away from the subjects. This method has been used for a number of
other successful projects and reasonably precludes subject
cheating.
In most cases, the type of
control ranges somewhere between the case of purely subject-based
control and purely target-based control. The position of a
particular experiment relative to these two extremes will depend
upon how secure the target system can be shown to be, as well as
the level and type of observation necessary to safeguard against
and detect trickery. Evaluation of such security measures requires
professional judgment. The quality of that judgment will depend on
the level of knowledge of other studies in which trickery has been
attempted, technical knowledge of the target system (e.g.,
computer systems [e.g., Brand, 1987; Morgan, 1988], piezoelectric
PK sensors), and a background in conjuring.
Subject-based Control
When the primary focus of experimental
control is the subject him- or herself, the quality of eyewitness
testimony is of utmost importance. In order to evaluate the
reliability of a given report, two broad categories of
|
Deception by
Subjects
39
issues need to be considered: first, the nature of the
event observed, and second, the characteristics of the witnesses.
In recent years, there has been considerable empirical
investigation of eyewitness testimony (e.g., Hall, McFeaters,
& Loftus, 1987). Much of this material is pertinent to issues
in psychical research, and below I have drawn on some of the ideas
of Loftus (1979).
Event Factors
There are a number of aspects of any event
that will determine how accurately it is likely to be observed and
reported. The duration, frequency, and forewarning should be
considered when making evaluations. For instance, some poltergeist
events are extremely short and occur without warning to the
observers. Thus the evidence for such a specific occurrence is
rather weak. On the other hand, some macro-PK evidence is far
stronger. There were many levitations of Joseph of Copertino, and
some of these lasted more than a quarter of an hour (Dingwall,
1947).6 Another factor to consider is whether there was
any warning that the event was about to occur. Magicians and
fraudulent poltergeist agents make practical use of this concept.
A good magician will usually not tell an audience what is to occur
next (e.g., Fitzkee, 1945/1975). Most effects will generally not
be repeated for the same audience.
Witness Factors
A number of factors determine the
reliability of a witness to an event. The expectations, perceptual
set, prior beliefs, personal relationship with the subject,
background, culture (Segall, Campbell, & Herskovits, 1966),
and knowledge of conjuring all can influence perceptions.
Surprisingly, these have sometimes been totally neglected when
discussing visual validation techniques (e.g.. Hasted, 1976, pp.
367–368; Hasted, 1981, pp. 34–35).
Perceptual set. The perceptual set of observers is
important. If one knows that one is definitely watching a trick,
what one sees may be quite different than when one believes that
one is seeing genuine paranormal phenomena (see Nardi, 1984, for
discussion). Gardner (1983–84) has pointed out that Eisenbud’s
challenge to Randi to duplicate Serios’s psychic photography is
unreasonable. If Randi did undertake the challenge, he would not
be subject to the same type of observations as Serios. It is not
clear that there would be any meaningful way to compare them
because Serios is no longer active. (Sidgwick, 1886, p. 66, made a
similar point in another case.) However, it should be noted that
Randi did actually
_________
6 It should perhaps be noted
that the late Eric Dingwall was a member of the Committee for the
Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) as
well as of the Magic Circle.
|
40
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
accept the challenge and then backed out (Eisenbud, 1975;
Fuller, 1974). Eisenbud (1983, p. 118) has issued his own $10,000
challenge.
Of course, a skeptic’s
perceptions and controls can be as biased as a believer’s. For
instance, psychologist Edwin Boring was given some responsibility
for controlling Mr. Code during a seance in which Code was to
simulate some of Margery’s phenomena. Boring (1926) later candidly
admitted that he allowed Code to get away with cheating because he
wanted him to succeed. Arthur Ellison conducted an experiment in
which he levitated a bowl of flowers with a hidden electromagnet.
Yet five of six witnesses refused to admit the evidence of their
eyes (described in Inglis, 1986, pp. 266–267). Steiner (1986)
described how he fooled many skeptics at a CSICOP conference by
claiming not that he was psychic but that he could detect
extremely subtle cues. Also, Hyman (1964) has described how
magicians can misperceive tricks because of their expectations.
Social factors. Social factors need
to be kept in mind when making evaluations. Were the witnesses
under any social pressure to believe or accept a certain result?
The widely cited research of Solomon Asch (1951/ 1963) showed that
simple judgments such as comparing lengths of lines could be
dramatically altered by (quite subtle) peer pressure. Gregory
(1982) has pointed out that in poltergeist cases, “one is almost
invariably precipitated into a disturbed human situation in which
it is impossible, even if it were desirable, to maintain
impersonal neutrality” (p. 14). Those examining poltergeist
reports should be especially attentive to these types of pressure.
It is quite common for investigators to spend several days in a
household with those who have experienced the phenomena. Strong
interpersonal relationships develop. There have been cases in
which the poltergeist agent has lived for a time with one of the
researchers who served as therapist (Prince, 1926; Stewart, Roll,
& Baumann, 1986). It would be desirable to have such factors
explicitly addressed in reports.
The number
of witnesses to an event must be considered. If several persons
made reports, how independent were they? Did they discuss matters
among themselves before preparing reports?
The issue of social factors extends to the laboratory as well. The
work with Delmore is a good illustration. Kelly and Kanthamani
(1972) state:
Despite his ability, B.D. presented
formidable difficulties as a subject. He is quite temperamental
and not particularly sympathetic with the aims and methods of
experimental research. . . . Accordingly, productive sessions in
the laboratory were typically coupled with varied amounts of
argument, sometimes heated, regarding the utility of
experiments, the present and future organization of
parapsychology, and related subjects, (p.
188) When using a subject-based control
methodology, it is often difficult to be completely sure of just
who is specifying experimental conditions. I am not aware of
anyone else using most of the experimental procedures used with
Delmore. They appear to have been established largely by the
whim |
Deception by
Subjects
41
of the subject. The test procedure suggested by
Delmore (Kanthamani & Kelly, 1974a, pp. 364–365) gives the
impression of being from a book of magic tricks rather than a
formal laboratory test.
Memory
factors. When evaluating reports, one should consider when the
report was made. Did the observer make notes (or an audiotape
recording) of the event as it was taking place? If after the
event, how long after? The longer a person waits to make the
report, the more errors of memory are likely to be made. Magicians
will sometimes make subtle suggestions about what the audience has
already seen. At times they will misstate the order of events and
thus change the audience’s memory of what had happened. Virtually
all magicians have had the experience of hearing an audience
member later recount an effect, making it sound far more fantastic
than it actually was. Even written accounts based on original
published material sometimes contain similar distortions. An
amusing example is Rogo’s (1982, pp. 33–34) account of the
well-known photos of the “levitating” yogi (Plunkett, 1936; see
also “Levitation Photographed,” 1936). Rogo reports that the yogi
“right before the eyes of the startled onlookers—rose laterally up
into the air” (p. 33). It was not clear from Rogo’s account that
the yogi was under a tent that shielded the audience’s view while
he was rising. (It is surprising that Rogo presented this as
though it might plausibly be considered a genuine miracle. The
trick has been explained many times [e.g., Brandon, 1983, pp. 207
(facing), 273; Proskauer, 1936; Rawcliffe, 1952/1959, pp. 209
(facing), 281; Zusne & Jones, 1982, pp. 84–85].)
Background of witnesses. The
knowledge and background of witnesses must be considered. Some
people will be more reliable observers than others, and this is
especially true when attempting to detect trickery. For instance,
most experienced magicians have watched thousands of simulations
of paranormal events. Further, they have spent years studying such
methods. Hodgson (1894) wrote:
It is, of course, not to be doubted that a conjuror,
or a person familiar with the devices of conjurors, is more
likely to discover the modus operandi of a trick than the
ordinary uninitiated observer,—and even if he fails to discover
the trick, he may by virtue of his knowledge of various
trick-devices, write a better record than another person who is
not superior to him in other respects, (p.
360) I think most reasonable people
would agree with Hodgson’s statement. However, a few
parapsychologists even discount the value of magicians in psi
research. For instance, Gregory wrote: “A magician’s word as such
is not necessarily more acceptable to, say, academic people in any
case. . . . The kind of experiments we are planning are not, I
would hope, such as could be at all easily counterfeited by a
magician” (cited in Manning, 1982, p. 353). However, this seems to
express a minority opinion in the field. In cases in which
trickery is a possibility, observations made by magicians must be
given much more weight than others. Although
having |
42
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
a magician observing an event is no guarantee that fraud will
be detected, it does improve the chances. When conducting work
where observation of the subject is crucial, it only makes sense
to seek high-quality witnesses, that is, ones who are
knowledgeable in legerdemain.
It is
surprising then, that most psychical researchers have had no such
background. Many poltergeist researchers have not educated
themselves in magic. Yet the entire strength of some of their
cases rests entirely on the investigators’ personal observations
(e.g., Stewart et al., 1986). However, even an accomplished
magician may not necessarily detect bogus poltergeist activity.
Poltergeist phenomena usually happen without warning, thus it is
difficult to direct one’s attention where needed in order to
detect the trick. As Maven (in Singer, 1987) noted in his
observations of psychic surgery, the practitioner was not
especially technically adept but was very good at timing (i.e.,
making the crucial move when it would not be detected). I have had
a similar experience with a “poltergeist agent” engaged in
trickery. This is not to say that magicians are useless in these
situations, but realistically, they may be of limited value for
actually catching fraud in the act.
In
other types of field investigations, knowledge of magic tricks is
important as well. In certain cases, investigators can impose
little or no control and must be content with merely watching. The
only way a reader can evaluate a report from such a study is to
consider the knowledge, background, and expertise of the
researcher. One must consider the likelihood that the researcher
would catch a trick if it indeed occurred. For instance, Pratt and
Keil (1973) observed Nina Kulagina and reported: “We never
observed any behavior suggesting that Kulagina was preparing a
trick” (p. 387). Haraldsson and Osis (1977) watched Sai Baba and
reported: “We were not able to detect any evidence of fraud” (p.
40). In these cases, given other statements made in the reports,
it seems quite clear (to a magician) that the observers had no
such relevant expertise whatsoever. When scientists report their
observations in professional journals (as were these), they imply
that they have the technical competence to make the observations
and the expertise to evaluate them. Failure to report the lack of
such background is deceptive to the reader. In the case of Sai
Baba, it can be noted that Christopher (1979, pp. 114–116)
described a number of events suggesting trickery.
Experience in conjuring is important not
only in poltergeist cases and other field studies but in
laboratory research as well. In fact, it is probably even more
important for laboratory work. Poltergeist investigators usually
do not witness paranormal events themselves but rather rely on
accounts of others. In contrast, laboratory workers strive to
elicit phenomena so they can observe them for themselves. Thus it
can be especially crucial for these researchers to be trained in
conjuring or consult with someone who is.
In some instances, experimenters have not appreciated that special
training is required to make adequate observations. This is
illustrated in
|
Deception by
Subjects
43
acute form by the work of Kanthamani and
Kelly (1974a). In this study, Delmore was to shuffle a deck of
cards with the goal of matching a prearranged target deck. After
the shuffling was completed, the experimenter recorded the target
deck. The subject then turned over the cards from his deck. The
report reads: “The subject was generally allowed to turn the cards
of the call deck one by one, because he enjoyed doing so and the
presence of experimenters and observers rendered it extremely
unlikely that he could at this point change the order of the
cards” (p. 361). This cannot be considered a procedure of a
preliminary, isolated experiment; a virtually identical statement
was made in Kanthamani and Kelly (1975, pp. 207–208). It is hard
to believe that the authors, editors, or referees had any
experience in conjuring because there are dozens of methods for
accomplishing the feat. I recommend the book Gambling Scams
by Ortiz (1984) for a good discussion of what can be accomplished
with playing cards.
Another example of this
type is Eisenbud’s work with psychic photography (for overviews,
see Eisenbud, 1974, 1977b). He has acknowledged that the strength
of his investigations depends upon his ability to spot trickery,
and in at least one circumstance he has claimed having “complete
confidence” and “considerable experience in this type of
situation” (Eisenbud, 1977a, p. 303). One wonders whether Eisenbud
has ever detected attempted faking of psychic photography. Randi
(1981) has shown that Eisenbud’s (1981) knowledge of trickery is
apparently minimal. Eisenbud’s work on psychic photography
utilized a subject-based control methodology and relied heavily on
his direct, personal observations to control against trickery; as
such, only a very weak case has been made for the genuineness of
the phenomenon.
The above are not isolated
examples. Many others could be cited. For instance, Stevenson and
Pratt (1968) wrote: “We never observed any movement on the part of
Ted [Serios] which was in any way suspicious” (p. 109). The
essential problem in evaluating such reports is that the reader
(and the experimenter) has no “baseline.” That is, if trickery
really did occur, what was the probability of it being detected?
As mentioned earlier, it is difficult in cases like these to
establish an empirical control condition because of varying
“perceptual set.” Further, one might wonder whether either Pratt
or Stevenson had any training in magic. For instance, they wrote:
“We are fully aware of the inadequacy of ordinary human vision in
detecting quick hand movements such as conjurors employ” (p. 125).
The notion of “quick hand movements such as conjurors employ” is
largely a myth (see Christopher, 1962, p. vii); anyone familiar
with conjuring realizes that. It is worth noting that magicians
had observed suspicious movements on the part of Serios
(Eisendrath, 1967; Reynolds, 1967), and Brookes-Smith (1968) and
Rushton (1968) have suggested normal methods for producing the
photos. There is also considerable earlier literature on how to
simulate psychic photographs (Black, 1922; Price, 1925a, 1925b,
1933, 1936; Prince, 1925), and MacCarthy gave an
im- |
44
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
pressive demonstration of fake psychic photography while
handcuffed (Editor, 1935; Wendlandt, 1935). All the evidence
suggests that untrained researchers are most unlikely to detect
trickery. The burden is upon those who suggest otherwise.
Still another study in which no competent
magician was actively involved resulted in one of the poorest
reports of recent years. Schwarz’s (1985a, 1985b) descriptions of
macro-PK phenomena produced by Joe Nuzum read like descriptions
from the conjuring literature. The reader may wish to compare the
pictures of the match under the glass on page 21 of Schwarz’s
(1985a) article with that of page 45 in Tannen’s Catalog of
Magic No. 15 (Louis Tannen, Inc., 1985). One might also
compare the third feat of Affidavit A (p. 17) with the effect
called “Rupert’s Pearls” (sometimes known as “Devil’s Tears”)
advertised on page 17 of the June 1986 issue of Linking
Ring. Many other equally striking comparisons could be made.
To Schwarz’s credit, he did consult with several other magicians;
however, those he spoke to seemed unaware of a number of standard
magic tricks.
Strength of Eyewitness Reports
There have been some attempts to evaluate
how effective human observation can be in detecting trickery
(e.g., Besterman, 1928, 1932; Crocker with Prince, 1930; Hodgson,
1892; Hodgson & Davey, 1887). Virtually all those who have
conducted systematic investigation have concluded that human
observation is quite unreliable. Those who have suggested that
direct observation can serve as a reliable detector have been
reduced to rather feeble arguments with no empirical data.
It has been suggested that certain
ostensible paranormal phenomena have been so spectacular that the
reports cannot reasonably be attributed to misperception or
trickery. In some cases this is probably true. However, it is
rather difficult to specify exactly what criteria apply. That is,
how spectacular must such an event be? Perhaps one approach that
could be taken is to gather reports of paranormal events and
compare them to reports of known magic tricks with similar
results. By analyzing the two groups, some distinguishing
characteristics might be found. This, however, is not quite as
easy as it might first seem. Wallace (1893) claimed (after the
fact) to point out differences between Mr. Davey’s trick
performances and effects seen in seances with professional
mediums. Hodgson (1893) was unconvinced by Wallace and suggested
that any comparisons between “real” and simulated phenomena need
to be made by persons blind as to condition.
Filming
It should also be noted that the problem of
baselines applies not only to direct observation. The study of the
Princeton-Dartmouth football game
|
Deception by
Subjects
45
by Hastorf and Cantril (1954) showed the effect of
viewers’ biases on their perceptions when viewing film. In my
personal experience, a number of researchers have suggested that
simply obtaining film or video recordings of a paranormal event
would provide strong evidence for genuineness. This is clearly not
the case. At the 1981 PA convention, Peter Phillips and Mark
Shafer (1982) presented video recordings of some small objects
apparently being affected by PK. Neither Phillips nor Shafer had
any background or baseline by which to judge the events filmed.
Although they did not claim that the films provided strong
evidence, they clearly had been personally impressed with what
they had observed. (It should be noted that at that time many
parapsychologists were very critical of the work [see Truzzi,
1987, p. 83].) Later, it was revealed that the filmed effects had
been entirely due to trickery by the subjects (Randi, 1983b). Keil
and Fahler (1976) filmed the movement of objects near Nina
Kulagina. They claimed that their case was strong; however, no
commentary was provided by someone with a background in magic. The
descriptions read very much like effects revealed in The New
Invocation, a periodical devoted to weird and bizarre magic.
Simply having photographic evidence of a
seemingly paranormal phenomenon is probably not enough to
establish its reality. There are many ways to fake such results
(e.g., “levitation” photos by Herbert, 1939; see also Crawley,
1982, 1983, on the Cottingley Fairy photographs). And there is a
vast literature on trick photography. Thus it is desirable to have
reliable witnesses to vouch for the essential accuracy of the
photos or films. Anyone familiar with UFO or Bigfoot research is
well aware of this.
Filming and videotaping
have not been particularly successful in validating paranormality
of phenomena, but they have been used to establish evidence of
trickery. For instance. May and Jahagirdar (1976) filmed the
supposed “materialization” of kum-kum, a red, sacred powder, by an
Indian spiritual leader. Their conclusions were somewhat guarded,
and they suggested that the action caught on film appeared to be
fraudulent (see also May with Bonewits, 1976). Singer and
Ankenbrandt (1980) gave a good description of the difficulties
encountered in their attempt to document psychic surgery by
videotaping. Singer also filmed a holy man who allegedly
materialized objects but who was apparently not fully cooperative
with the filming (Bharati, 1986). At the 1982 PA convention,
Berendt (1983) presented a film of metal bending by Rony M.;
Berendt appeared to be persuaded by the evidence. However, John
Palmer was not, and after viewing the film, described it as
“rubbish” and requested that he be quoted (Hoebens, 1982–83).
Peterson (in Singer, 1987) directed one of the most elaborate
attempts to document psychic surgery. He found clear evidence of
trickery, and his report gives some detail as to the difficulties
in using film and video. Pamplin and Collins (1975) were able to
catch the actions of cheating metal benders on camera. However, in
a later discussion, Collins and Pinch (1982) pointed out that it
was quite difficult to |
46
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
pinpoint unambiguous incidents of cheating on videotape.
Establishing evidence of paranormality in such instances is likely
to be even more difficult.
Randi (1978)
briefly described a protocol to validate metal bending using
filming. Osbome (Keil & Osbome, 1981) achieved some success
with a procedure rather similar to that suggested by Randi. These
procedures primarily focused on monitoring the target.
Blindfolds
Another method for controlling the subject
is the use of blindfolds; it has long been recognized that these
typically provide little security in ESP experiments (e.g.,
Sidgwick, 1884). Although they are rarely used today, researchers
new to the field sometimes try them. There is considerable
information about the topic within the conjuring literature. Some
of the difficulties with blindfolds have been explained by
Christopher (1975, pp. 77–103) and Gardner (1966).
Target-Based Control
When an experiment’s focus of security
shifts to the target system, two main concerns should be
addressed. The first is the target’s actual level of accessibility
to the subject; this is important not only during the experiment
but before and after as well. The second concern is that if the
target was clandestinely accessed, what is the likelihood that
this would later be detected by the experimenter?
The level of accessibility will depend on
factors such as physical proximity of the subject to the target.
In some experiments, the targets may be 1,000 miles away; the
previously discussed experiment by Weiner and Zingrone (1986) is
an example. In other cases, the subject is allowed to physically
touch the targets. Temporal proximity is important too. In some
cases, only a second is necessary to gain pseudo-ESP information
or manipulate an object for a fake PK effect. In other instances
much time may be needed.
The actual level
of target security will depend upon the details of the particular
study, and as such, all-inclusive general rules are difficult to
formulate. Evaluation of such matters requires judgment, and a
crucial factor in the quality of the judgment depends upon one’s
knowledge of conjuring as well as one’s familiarity with technical
aspects of the target. The types of needed expertise will depend
on the particular circumstances. Sometimes experimental reports
provide sufficient detail to allow the reader to conclude
reasonably that trickery was excluded, but sometimes reports are
insufficiently detailed.
Some specific
examples may help the reader to develop an understanding of these
issues. There are a number of formal psi experiments involving
special subjects in which the actual level of target security is
|
Deception by
Subjects
47
unclear or doubtful. I will focus primarily on studies
with special subjects because security measures are of crucial
importance in these cases. Such issues become paramount when the
experimenter believes that the target system is quite secure but
actually lacks the expertise to make a reliable judgment.
An example in ESP testing is the work of
Kanthamani and Kelly (1974b) with Bill Delmore. In several of the
series, the experimenter randomly removed a card from a box and
placed it in an opaque folder. This was done out of the line of
sight of the subject. The folder containing the card was then held
up to show the subject. He then made his guess. However, there is
no mention of any precautions to assure that reflective surfaces
(“shiners” or “glims” in magicians’ and gamblers’ parlance) were
not available for the subject. For instance, a window behind the
experimenter might have been used for the purpose. Further it was
reported that “interested visitors were also allowed to watch
during some sessions” (p. 19). Perhaps one of them was able to
catch a glimpse and signal the subject. Palmer (1985) criticized
this work but concluded that the experiments resulted in a genuine
anomaly that merited scientific attention. This evaluation is too
generous. The work with Delmore used controls far weaker than
customary parapsychology experiments, and the risks were far
greater. Within the parapsychological literature there have been a
number of discussions of the use of reflective surfaces; see Nicol
(1979) for several historical cases. Tart (1968) and Stokes (1982)
discussed cheating methods using mirrors. Bergson noted that the
cornea of a person’s eye might reflect concealed images to another
person (Myers, 1887), and Coover (1917) investigated this
empirically.
An example in PK testing is
the work of Taylor (1975) in preparing metal bars inside tubes. He
reported successful paranormal bending of the bars but gave very
few details. Randi (1975) showed that it was quite easy to
circumvent Taylor’s security measures; Taylor (1977) initially
disputed this, but now seems to disavow his earlier report (Taylor
& Balanovski, 1979).
Safeguards Needed Before and After Tests
As mentioned earlier, the experimenter needs
to be conscious of security not only during the experiment but
before and after as well. Akers (1986) briefly noted that some of
the reports dealing with Hubert Pearce and Pavel Stepanek were
deficient in these details. Several other examples can be cited.
The study of Warren and Don (1986) with
Olof Jonsson seems to have had insufficient security precautions
prior to testing. They placed five Zener cards inside envelopes,
and these were stored in the jacket pocket of one of the
researchers until the time of the experiment. It may have been
possible for the subject to have gained access to the envelopes
before the experiment, determined the contents, and marked the
envelopes. The re-
|
48
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
port gave no details about the formal security measures in
effect before the test was underway. It should be realized that
envelopes by themselves afford little protection. There are a
number of published methods reported in the parapsychological
literature for seeing into them (Besterman, Soal, & Jephson,
1931; Morris, 1986b); other sources also describe methods (e.g.,
Stewart, 1988). Some take only a second or two to accomplish and
leave no traces. There are also published ways of opening
envelopes without detection (e.g., CIA Flaps and Seals
Manual [Harrison, 1975]). Further, simply storing the
envelopes in a jacket pocket has been shown to be inadequate.
Martin Johnson (1976) sealed a drawing in an envelope and placed
it in his pocket. Yet a magician was still able to discern the
drawing.
Target material must be secured
not only before and during the test but often after as well.
Hansel (1966) points out that in the extremely high-scoring
experiment of Riess (1937, 1939), target sheets were kept in an
unlocked desk drawer in his home some time after the test was
conducted. The subject, a friend of one of his students, did not
submit her calls until the day after the sending period. Hansel
alleged (without apparent documentation) that it may have been
possible for someone to have gained access to the record sheets
because a servant in the home was known to the students. Another
example occurred in the Project Alpha scam (Randi, 1983b); the
subjects broke into the laboratory and were able to manipulate PK
target items. Thus, simply locking up critical material in a
laboratory may not always be sufficient.
At
times, simply securing the target system itself is not adequate.
If hidden security measures are employed, it may be necessary that
the details of these too be kept secure. For instance, if tiny
marks are put on a bar of metal to identify it (to avoid
substitution), the subject and possible accomplices must not be
told about such measures. Some investigators have taken unusual
precautions in similar circumstances. For instance, when working
with the Society for Research on Rapport and Telekinesis (SORRAT),
Hansen and Broughton (1982) kept the documentation regarding
security measures hidden in the home of one of the experimenters
rather than in the laboratory.
Detection of Trickery
An important question is whether the
experimenter could reliably detect cheating if it occurred. One of
the main advantages of target-based control over subject-based
control is that this detection might be done after the fact, and a
variety of checks might be made over a period of time. Outside
parties can be used to help in such verification.
There have been a number of schemes used to
help assure target security. For instance, if a researcher is
working with sealed envelopes, one needs to be sure that they were
not surreptitiously opened. In such cases,
|
Deception by
Subjects
49
secret markings can be made at seams or other
locations in order to detect opening or substitution. Another
method to detect cheating was used by Zenhausem, Stanford, and
Esposito (1977). They placed undeveloped photographic paper
(previously exposed to a unique pattern known only to the
preparer) next to the target page and wrapped them both in
aluminum foil. These were then placed in a manila envelope. Thus,
if the envelope were opened, the pattern would be destroyed. This
would be revealed when it was developed (52 unselected subjects
were used, and no evidence of cheating was found). Rogo (1977) has
briefly described several other methods to detect cheating. Tests
can also be made after the fact in some studies of psychic
surgery. Lincoln (1975) and Lincoln and Wood (1979) reported tests
on blood that supposedly came from human patients. The results
indicated bovine and porcine origin. Others have analyzed claimed
cancerous tissues and found them not to be from a human source
(“Psychic Surgery,” 1974).
Empirical Check of Controls
Hastings (1977) suggested that controls be
directly tested, and Hansen (1982) proposed a formal scheme for
doing so. Briefly, it requires preparing a number of identical
test items in advance. One of these would be randomly selected and
given to a subject. If the subject was successful, another of the
items would be randomly selected and given to a magician to
attempt to duplicate the feat. Later the two items would be
compared with the previously prepared security documentation. This
approach provides the experimenter with motivation to design the
controls well in order to thwart the magician. Part of this method
was put into practice by Hansen and Broughton (1983); however,
indications of cheating were found before a magician became
involved.
Special Safeguards
Also on the matter of target-based control,
one study is especially exemplary, that of Schmidt, Morris, and
Rudolph (1986). Schmidt had publicly proposed this type of
experiment earlier (Schmidt, 1980; Schmidt, Morris, & Rudolph,
1982), conducted the study, and found strong positive results. The
procedure involved a retroactive PK effect and provided convincing
controls against not only subject deception but experimenter fraud
as well. This experiment probably has the best controls against
fraud of any in the history of parapsychology. The details are
rather involved, and the reader is encouraged to consult the
original report.
There have been a few
articles and experimental attempts addressing controls against
experimenter fraud; these, of necessity, involve target-based
control. Johnson (1975) has discussed a model of control. Akers
(1984) listed various experimental attempts along these lines.
|
50
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
Evaluation Issues
Evaluating security measures of a study
requires judgment. This should be based on experience and
knowledge of similar attempts in the past. Perhaps one of the most
important factors in evaluation is the level of detail given in a
report. This often gives a good indication as to the thought and
attention given the task. Several examples can be cited; for
instance, Eisenbud (1982) sealed film and spoons in a lead-lined
container. The loading of the container was done while the subject
was still in Japan, and the loading was witnessed and videotaped.
The seals of the container were photographed close-up. In another
recent report, Randi (1983a) sealed metal bars in tubes and took
photographs with polarized light that showed the internal stress
patterns of the plastic tubes. He also very accurately weighed the
tubes; this was witnessed and documented. These reports
demonstrated good forethought and attention to detail. The
controls were documented and witnessed prior to the experiment.
They allowed others the possibility of examining documentation
before and after the completion of the study.
In marked contrast are Hasted’s (1976)
validation techniques with psychic metal-bending. In some
experiments. Hasted placed paper clips inside glass spheres; these
clips then were bent by the subjects. A surprising aspect of the
experiment was that each sphere had a hole in it. This allowed
ready access to the paper clips. Nevertheless, Hasted concluded
that the paper clips had been bent by psychic means because the
clips were so tightly “scrunched” (he provided no data of an
empirical assessment). Later, Alabone and Hasted (1977) seemed to
acknowledge that this was an entirely subjective judgment. In
another example. Cox (1984b, 1985) placed items in a fish tank and
then sealed it. Later, some of the items “dematerialized.” Hansen
(1985b) described how easily the precautions could have been
overcome. By being familiar with such reports, someone evaluating
other work can posit reasonable alternatives and check to see if
the author addressed such issues. By such comparisons, reasonable
judgments may be formed.
Telepathy Experiments
Telepathy experiments involve special
considerations with regard to subject trickery, and as such,
deserve a separate section devoted to them. In fact this
difficulty has been long recognized. Rhine and Pratt (1957/ 1962)
state:
With GESP and pure telepathy,
precautions have to be elaborate and have to be adapted to the
special needs of the experimental situation. This methodological
problem is often taken too lightly; as we have said, GESP is the
hardest psi-test procedure to control adequately against error,
especially error due to deception, (p.
37) |
Deception by
Subjects
51
There have been a number of
historical instances that have shown this to be a serious problem.
The early SPR investigated the team of G. A. Smith and Douglas
Blackburn and found evidence for telepathy (Gurney, Myers,
Podmore, & Barrett, 1883). Later Blackburn issued a confession
as to how they had deceived the researchers, but Smith denied it
(see “Confessions of a ‘Telepathist’,” 1911; Coover, 1917, pp.
477–495; Gauld, 1965a, 1965b, 1968, pp. 179–182; Hall, 1964, 1968;
Nicol, 1966; and Oppenheim, 1985, pp. 285–286 for extended
coverage of the affair). Whatever the ultimate truth of the
matter, the experimental precautions did not rule out the
possibility of collusion between agent and percipient. Barrett,
Gurney, and Myers (1882) also investigated the alleged telepathic
abilities of the Creery sisters. Here, too, precautions were not
always sufficient to rule out collusion, and later the sisters
confessed to cheating (Gurney, 1888; for discussion see Coover,
1917, pp. 463–477; Hall, 1964; “Psychological Literature,” 1887).
Soal and Bowden (1960) conducted numerous telepathy studies with
several Welsh children; during a few of the experiments, two boys
were detected using codes to signal each other. This led to some
discussion as to how much cheating was actually involved (e.g.,
Mundle, 1959; B. H. Nicol, 1960; J. F. Nicol, 1960; Scott &
Goldney, 1960; Soal, 1959, 1960; Thouless, 1961).
The most severe problem faced by
experimenters is the possibility of the sender signaling the
receiver. There are innumerable ways of doing this, and a huge
number of methods have been incorporated into commercially
available magic tricks. Dingwall (1956) has given a very brief
historical overview of simulations of telepathy. Some suggested
methods for use in psi experiments include high-pitched whistles
(Hansel, 1959; Scott & Goldney, 1960), subtle changes in
lighting conditions (Estabrooks, 1947, pp. 122–126), radio
transmitters (Soal & Bowden, 1960), and even transmitters
hidden in teeth (Targ & Puthoff, 1974).
Parapsychologists have not always realized the subtlety of some of
the methods. For instance, Thalboume and Shafer (1983) suggested a
radio transmitter was unlikely to have been used in their
experiment because there were no semantic correspondences between
target and response. However, even a brief glance at some of the
advertisements for these devices in magic periodicals would reveal
that such correspondences would not necessarily be semantic in
nature. Familiarity with the classic Thirteen Steps to
Mentalism (Corinda, 1968) should also have been sufficient to
keep from making such statements.
Morris
(1978) has pointed out that a signaling method might be
implemented in forced-choice situations in which the sender
signals the receiver for the next trial. One could send a slightly
longer or shorter signal depending upon the target. An alternative
method is to send the signal at certain times. Annemann (1938)
suggested that the interval between signals could be used as a
code. On the other hand, in typical psi experiments it is
acceptable for the receiver to signal the sender when ready for
the next trial, as noted by Rhine and Pratt
(1957/1962). |
52
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
Another possibility for trickery arises when
the sender is allowed to pick the targets or determine their
order. For instance, if the sender is to shuffle a deck of cards
to be used as targets, he or she may arrange them into an order
previously agreed upon with the receiver (Price, 1955, has
discussed similar methods). If the target is selected by the
sender without randomization, there is no control against
potential collusion between sender and receiver (Scott, 1988), as
well as possible deception by the sender acting alone. (The
virtually unique modern example of nonrandom, sender selection of
targets occurs in the remote-viewing work of Nelson, Jahn, &
Dunne, 1986.) The sender might deliberately pick a target that
conforms with the response biases of the receiver. Similar
problems exist when descriptor lists are filled in by the sender
at the time of the experiment, even when the target is randomly
selected (e.g., Jahn, Dunne, & Jahn, 1980). The receiver could
use a similar strategy; Morris (1982), in his discussion of fraud,
noted: “Unless selected randomly from an equally attractive target
pool, targets are likely to have certain sensible, preferable
characteristics that would allow a psychic familiar with whomever
chose the target to infer rationally the nature of the target” (p.
21). The current Nelson et al. (1986) remote-viewing statistical
baseline includes information from other percipients’ responses.
If a percipient said very little (or very much), the empirical
baseline might not be appropriate. For any given response, we
cannot be sure that the mean chance expected Z score will be zero
under the null hypothesis. An optimal guessing strategy may exist;
this could allow a sophisticated form of cheating. This was not a
problem with the earlier evaluation method presented in Jahn et
al. (1980). I should point out that I have no reason whatsoever to
think cheating actually took place in the Princeton research, but
it should be noted that it is a highly visible research program
and has served as a role model for other experimenters (e.g.,
Rauscher & Houck, 1985).
There are
several approaches in dealing with the various problems in such
situations. One could use a sender who is also one of the
experimenters, as suggested by Rhine and Pratt (1957/1962, p.
161). The researchers could also report the results of the
individual subjects. Thus an assessment could be made as to the
generality of the results.
The problem of
radio transmitters and similar devices is a real one. There are
many different types that are inconspicuous; some are hidden in
ordinary household items. These are readily available from magic
dealers as well as advertisers in certain popular magazines (see
Free, Freundlich, & Gilmore, 1987, for an overview). Virtually
no parapsychology laboratory currently has the resources to
convincingly exclude the use of such devices. The use of Faraday
cages and electrically shielded rooms does provide some, but not
complete, protection. In situations when security is especially
crucial, laboratory personnel might be used as senders.
It seems inappropriate to conduct telepathy
experiments without a formal random selection of the target.
Stanford (1986) has written that random selection “is presently
regarded as a sine qua non of adequate
|
Deception by
Subjects
53
ESP-test methodology” (p. 14). It is surprising
that one parapsychological journal and a major laboratory still
accept ESP tests without formal, random target selection.
MAGICIANS
To overcome some of the problems addressed
above, scientists will need further contact with magic and
magicians. Although conjurors are clearly of limited value in psi
research, they do have their place. Indeed there is much to be
gained by having them more actively involved. There are a number
of barriers that will need to be overcome before this can be fully
effected. I will discuss these obstacles and then consider some of
the special issues that arise when a scientist wishes to consult
with a magician.
Limits
There are clearly limits on the value of
magicians. Certainly, having a magician involved in the design and
execution of an experiment is no guarantee of fraud-proof
conditions. In fact, as Hyman has written: “Even if one assembles
all the world’s magicians and scientists and puts them to the task
of designing a fraud-proof experiment, it cannot be done” (1981,
p. 39). Critics have frequently called for magicians to be
involved in psi experiments. However, a number of the greatest
magicians in history have endorsed particular research, but the
critics seemingly found it no more acceptable. For instance
Robert-Houdin, often referred to as the father of modern magic,
endorsed the clairvoyant abilities of Alexis Didier (see Houdini,
1924; Podmore, 1902/1963, Vol. 1, p. 143). J. N. Maskelyne
(“Spiritualistic Expose-II,” 1885; Maskelyne, 1885) acknowledged
the paranormality of some table-turning, noting that Faraday’s
explanations were not adequate. Professor Hoffman (Lewis, 1886)
indicated that he thought some slate-writing phenomena were
genuine. Harry Kellar (1893) observed what he considered to be
genuine levitations of the medium Mr. Eglinton (however, Prince,
1930, p. 158, reported that Kellar retracted certain statements).
Howard Thurston (1910) endorsed the table levitations of
Palladino. In one study of apparently genuine telepathy, several
members of the Magic Circle attempted to detect a code between a
mother and son but were unable to do so (Recordon, Stratton, &
Peters, 1968). Abb Dickson and Artur Zorka performed some tests
with Uri Geller and reported positive findings (Zorka, 1976).
These magicians were well known and well regarded by their
colleagues. Obviously, some critics will not be satisfied with
evidence even when it is certified by a magician.
Further, magicians can be fooled. An
example occurred during Soal’s work with the Welsh schoolboys.
Jack Salvin, a professional magician and Chair of the Occult
Committee of the Magic Circle, was in charge of some of the
experiments (with Soal not present); strong results were obtained
(Soal & Bowden, 1960). Later, however, Salvin was presented
with a
|
54
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
similar test that involved trickery, which he was unable to
detect (Scott & Goldney, 1960).
Benefits
Given that critics will dismiss evidence
even when qualified magicians certify the phenomena, some may
conclude that a magician’s approval is worthless. For instance,
Inglis (1986) has written: “Even if experienced magicians vet
projects, and give the seal of their approval, it will bring
little benefit” (p. 259). This is incorrect. All evidence is a
matter of degree. Having a magician consult on a research project
enhances the strength of evidence as well as overall credibility.
Certainly, technical improvements in studies can be achieved if
competent advice is obtained. There are a number of ways in which
consultation with magicians can be of benefit.
In experimental work, magicians may be able
to suggest how safeguards can be overcome with magicians’ methods.
Experience in magic can help a person detect procedural flaws in
psi experiments. For instance, certain subtle sensory cues are
similar to those on which magicians sometimes capitalize. I
suspect that Ray Hyman’s sharp eye for flaws (e.g., Hyman, 1977)
is in part due to his background in conjuring. Also, Martin
Gardner (personal communication, January 18, 1988) is preparing a
critique of the Stepanek work based on potential loopholes in
experimental procedure.
Morris (1986a) has
suggested that parapsychology laboratories have a competent
magician review procedures every year or when a new area of
research is undertaken. This precaution may uncover weaknesses and
also would serve to keep laboratory personnel more alert to the
possibilities for trickery.
In field
investigations of regularly occurring extreme phenomena (e.g.,
physical mediumship, psychic surgery), magicians may detect
methods used. Some of the methods of fraudulent psychics are well
known to magicians and may be spotted immediately. Even if a
method is new, a magician is in a much better position to suggest
how the feat was accomplished. Nearly all magicians have had lots
of practice at this because they frequently watch new effects
being performed. The information provided by the magician can be
used by a researcher to make a preliminary evaluation as to
whether further investigation is warranted.
Magicians can, at times, provide information about the background
of certain psychic claimants. There are a number of such claimants
who have studied magic, and this can often be learned by utilizing
the informal networks in the conjuring fraternity. For instance,
magicians in Steve Shaw’s home area undoubtedly would have been
familiar with him because Shaw (of Randi’s Project Alpha) received
considerable news coverage for feats as a mentalist (e.g., “Young
Mentalist,” 1978; Hazlett, 1979). If a particular claimant has
practiced trickery in the past, a researcher should then be
especially careful.
|
Deception by
Subjects
55
Parapsychologists could
benefit by more knowledge of conjuring. Even if one only does
research with large groups of subjects, one may be called on to
referee papers in which knowledge of trickery is needed. Such
training is useful when preparing review articles as well; a
reviewer needs to be able to evaluate the soundness of studies.
Background in conjuring can help researchers avoid making silly
public statements on the topic (see Hansen, 1987b, for a listing
of examples). Further, many researchers teach courses or give
lectures on parapsychology in which the issue of trickery is
likely to be raised.
Barriers to Communication
There are four major factors that have
presented difficulties in effectively consulting with magicians.
Probably the most important obstacle is parapsychologists’ lack of
knowledge of magic and magicians. Most researchers do not know
enough about conjuring to establish and maintain effective
communication. A second problem, much related to the first, is
that information on conjuring is not readily available. The third
factor is that there has been no effective network or
institutional channel to promote communication. The fourth factor
is the belief of many scientists that most magicians are hostile
to psychic research. This stereotype is false.
It should be noted that many
parapsychologists have consulted with magicians in the course of
their work (e.g., Beloff, 1984b; Bender, Vandrey, & Wendlandt,
1976; Bersani & Martelli, 1983; Crussard [Randall, 1982];
Eisenbud, 1967; Haraldsson & Osis, 1977; Hasted, 1981;
Recordon, Stratton, & Peters, 1968; Rhine, 1934; Roll &
Pratt, 1971; Ryzl, Barendregt, Barkema, & Kappers, 1965;
Schwarz, 1985a; Shafer & Phillips, 1982; Targ & Puthoff
[Marks & Kammann, 1980]). Parapsychologist Eberhard Bauer even
appeared on the cover of the January-February 1980 issue of the
German magic magazine, Magische Welt. Further, it can be
noted that Richard DuBois (“Obituary: Richard DuBois,” 1965),
former president of the Society of American Magicians (SAM), and
Gerald L. Kaufman (see “Gerald L. Kaufman,” 1968), past president
of the parent assembly of the SAM, both served on the Board of
Trustees of the American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR).
Kaufman was especially active (Murphy, 1969). However, there is
reason to think that these interactions have not been as fruitful
as they might have been. It seems that magicians have played an
extremely minor role; further, only rarely did they prepare
written reports of their participation.
Level of Conjuring Knowledge
A certain amount of knowledge is needed
before effective consulting can be done. This should surprise no
one, for a similar situation exists when consulting, say, a
statistician. If someone with no training in statistics whatsoever
designed a complex psychological experiment, collected data, and
then consulted a statistician, we might expect the results
|
56
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
not to be very meaningful. Indeed, the design might not even be
analyzable. In order to ask the right questions and understand the
advice, a researcher needs to be somewhat familiar with the
subject matter.
Many of the studies
criticized above appeared in refereed parapsychological journals
and not just as convention abstracts. This should raise
considerable concern. To me, a number of researchers have seemed a
bit complacent about the general level of sophistication regarding
fraud prevention. To test my perceptions I decided to assess the
level of conjuring information available in parapsychology. I
conducted two brief oral surveys in which the respondents were
informed of the nature of the poll. The data were usually
collected in brief conversations at conventions or over the phone.
Survey of PA presidents. The current
and past presidents of the PA were queried about their background
in conjuring. These people were selected because they are expected
to be the most competent; they are the ones who set standards in
the field, and many have responsibilities for training students
and newcomers. I was able to contact 23 individuals (of 24 now
living). Of these, only 4 had ever taken a course in magic; 19
owned 2 or fewer books on the topic, and only one had more than
eight books. Only three had reported ever reading any conjuring
periodicals.
Library survey. I
contacted five libraries at institutions devoted to
parapsychology. These each had over 2,000 books and had at least a
part-time librarian. Those contacted included the Foundation for
Research on the Nature of Man, Durham, North Carolina; American
Society for Psychical Research, New York; Parapsychology
Foundation, New York; Mind Science Foundation, San Antonio, Texas;
and the Parapsychology Sources of Information Center, Dix Hills,
New York.
As of January 1987, the largest
number of books on conjuring in any of these libraries was
approximately 60 (at the ASPR, as listed in the card catalog).
Only about half of those were primarily devoted to explaining
techniques of magicians, and most of those were quite old. The
next largest collection was approximately 20. No library
subscribed to any magic periodicals.7
Hidden Knowledge
Magic is unlike academic areas because the
knowledge is not readily available to outsiders. This poses
obstacles that are not fully realized, even by magician critics.
If someone wants to learn something about quantum mechanics or
biofeedback, for example, one only needs to go to a library or
check with experts in the field. The findings and information in
such things are “public.” One of the norms of science is that
knowledge be-
________
7
While James Matlock was Librarian and Archivist at
the ASPR, that library started to subscribe to several magic
periodicals and undertook a more active acquisition policy.
|
Deception by
Subjects
57
comes public property; Merton (1942/1973, p. 274)
states that “secrecy is the antithesis of this norm.” This is
quite different from the situation in regard to magic. The
literature is difficult to obtain, and there can be penalties for
revealing methods to those outside the fraternity. Gloye (1964)
has provided a good discussion of this. Further, there is much
disagreement within the magic community about revealing methods of
mentalism when such is presented as genuine (Rauscher, 1984).
In response to an article by Harry Collins,
Martin Gardner (1983–84) has written: “How Collins got the
impression that magicians are reluctant to explain secrets of
psychic fraud is beyond me” (p. 115). Gardner gives the impression
that magicians would be delighted to help scientists.
Unfortunately, the situation is not quite so simple. I personally
know of several instances in which a researcher has approached a
magician and asked about a particular apparent psychic effect; the
magician refused to give out information. After such unsettling
experiences, some have concluded that magicians are simply not
worth consulting. I have also encountered a psi researcher (who
worked at a major parapsychology laboratory) who was also a
magician. He thought that I revealed too much when I only
mentioned (to other parapsychologists) the existence of the book
Confessions of a Psychic (Fuller, 1975), in spite of the
fact it had been discussed in Skeptical Inquirer!
Lack of Institutionalized Channels
Another barrier to effective communication
with magicians is the lack of established channels. In most areas
of research, the needed specialists can be found easily. In a
university, if a researcher needs computer programming or
statistical assistance, there are almost certainly consultants
readily available. The methods for obtaining their help are quite
direct. Programmers’ and statisticians’ positions are
institutionalized within academia and are clearly visible.
Further, if the researcher knows nothing of computers, the
programmer is likely to be familiar enough with aspects of the
project to be of help. That is, there is sufficient shared
culture. Magicians, on the other hand, are not so easily located
through traditional academic channels. I know of no university
courses for credit on magic, let alone departments devoted to the
topic. Even within theater and fine arts programs, conjuring is
considered such a low-status art form that it is rarely mentioned.
Because magic practitioners are not readily visible or likely be
known to researchers, they are unlikely to be consulted.
Another problem scientists face is trying
to identify who is competent as a consultant. There is no body
within the magical fraternity that “legitimizes” a magician. If
one wants to become a lawyer or M.D., one must take specified
course work, pass certain tests, etc. Nothing similar exists for
conjurors. As a result, a researcher who wants competent advice
may be in a quandary. In fact, I know of several scientists who
have visited local magic groups and concluded (rightfully) that
those people could be
|
58
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
of no help to them. These researchers understandably went on to
conclude that magicians would be of little help. A
parapsychologist visiting a local magic group a time or two
expecting to learn how to rule out fraud is like a magician
visiting a psychic fair and expecting to learn about the science
of parapsychology.
Stereotypes
Many people seem to think that magicians are
quite hostile to parapsychology, and this has led some researchers
not to consult magicians. It should be realized that both critics
and proponents have promoted this stereotype and antagonism. Cox
(1974, p. 12; 1984a, p. 383) has described many magicians as
having “open minds [that] indeed might best be ‘closed for
repairs.’” Reichbart (1978, p. 170) has claimed: “Not all,
but most magicians have an anti-psi bias.” Gardner (1983, p. 18)
has asserted that “conjurors are indeed the enemy [of psychic
researchers].” In fact, the opposite is more likely the case.
Birdsell (1981) polled a group of magicians and found that 82%
gave a positive response to a question of belief in ESP. Truzzi
(1983) noted a poll of German magicians found that 72.3% thought
psi was probably real. In a major magic periodical, Sansotera
(1987) has given a brief account of a poltergeist in the home of a
magician.
Education Needed
Before the field of parapsychology can make
significant strides in dealing with subject fraud, a major
educational program will be needed. It must be realized that
currently there is no institutionalized academic training or
career path for parapsychology that is comparable to other
academic disciplines. The person entering the field must decide
for him- or herself what kinds of training to seek. If
parapsychology were a fully established academic field, required
course work would include education in conjuring. However, few if
any university curricula in any field include anything on magic.
Thus the student who desires such training must look outside
academe and should invest the time, energy, and money in magic
that would be equivalent to education in other topics that would
be required in a parapsychology curriculum (e.g., statistics). For
instance, a student pursuing a doctoral degree in psychology at a
private university might accumulate 10 credit hours of statistics.
At $300 per credit hour, this comes to $3,000. An investment of
this size can be used for building personal libraries, dues for
magic organizations, lessons on magic, and trips to conventions.
This should be a minimum for someone coming into parapsychology.
This amount of training will not make one
an expert. However, it should be enough for average researchers to
understand their own limits. It would make them more aware of
possibilities of trickery and should allow
|
Deception by
Subjects
59
them to consult effectively with those who are
experts. Researchers wishing to specialize in macro-PK studies and
certain types of field investigation should obtain much more
training.
Who Should be Consulted
As mentioned above, it is difficult for most
researchers to know which magicians might be worth consulting.
Some guidelines can be given. First, any scientist wishing to find
a consultant should discuss the matter with the PA liaison with
magicians’ groups (currently Loyd Auerbach serves as liaison). The
consultant should be one who has some appreciation for scholarly
work; preferably, he or she should have published a reasonable
amount. As Singer and Ankenbrandt (1980) have suggested, to avoid
questions of competence, the consultant should be nationally
recognized (within the conjuring fraternity) as an expert in an
area appropriate to the topic of investigation. Ideally, the
consultant would have a similar professional background as the
person employing him or her (e.g., psychology, physics). This
would allow the consultant to appreciate more fully the problems
facing the client.
It is equally important
who should not be chosen as a consultant. During a PA convention
roundtable, several magicians recommended that those conjurors who
have a public vested interest in the outcome should not be
consulted (Truzzi, 1984). This seems particularly apt. Collins
(1983) pointed out that magicians do not share the same values as
scientists; rather, they are “a group whose values include
secretiveness and financial self-interest above the quest for
truth” (p. 931). This fact was especially well illustrated by
Houdini, who reportedly framed Margery (Gresham, 1959, p. 254;
Christopher, 1969, p. 198, questions this, however). Several
modern-day magicians seem especially unsuited as consultants.
Randi would lose $10,000 if he validated an effect as paranormal.
Further, he has a tendency to be rather inaccurate in his
statements (Krippner, 1977b; Rao, 1984a; Targ & Puthoff, 1977,
pp. 182–186; Tart, 1982). In fact, Dennis Stillings has
demonstrated that “Randi is capable of gross distortion of facts”
(Truzzi, 1987, p. 89). He has even been quoted as saying, “I
always have an out” with regard to his $10,000 challenge (Rawlins,
1981, p. 89), and he has reneged on similar offers (Fuller, 1979).
He has also admitted to deliberately misrepresenting scientific
research in the past (Randi, 1975, p. 61). A number of other
magicians affiliated with CSICOP would not be appropriate
consultants either because they would lose money if they validated
a psychic effect (Hansen, 1987a).
As
Collins (1983) has pointed out, a magician consultant should be
employed only as a consultant and should not be given control of
the study. To do otherwise is to abdicate responsibility as a
scientist. Giving control to a magician could put a subject at
risk by allowing a possibly hostile magician to frame the subject.
Unfortunately, at least one investi-
|
60
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
gator (Delanoy, 1987) gave control of an experiment to magician
Randi, whose ethics have been questioned (Truzzi, 1987). The
magician’s only role should be as an expert in recommending means
for discovering and ruling out trickery. The parapsychologist must
be concerned with many other issues as well. The researcher must
try to establish favorable conditions, be aware of other technical
problems such as statistical requirements, and be sensitive to
ethical issues. None of these are the province of the magician.
Researchers should be aware that effective
consulting is not likely to be accomplished in a quick session or
two. Extended services may be needed, depending upon the project.
At any rate, the magician should prepare written reports if
consulting is extensive. The reports by Hoy (1977, 1981) and Maven
(Singer, 1987) are excellent examples.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is clear that the problem of subject
fraud in psi research is not something that disappeared when
researchers stopped investigating mediums. Indeed, the problem
today is as acute as it has ever been, and it appears that the
problem is growing. Further, few investigators have made any
serious effort to educate themselves on the topic. Thus strong
recommendations need to be made. A greater knowledge of fraud and
trickery is needed not only by investigators. Journal editors,
referees, book reviewers, and those publishing articles and books
reviewing the literature also need to become more aware and
informed in these areas.
Laboratories and
investigators need to regularly consult with appropriately
experienced magicians. At a minimum, it would be a good idea to
have a suitable magician review laboratory procedures at least
once a year. If new methods are being developed or work is done
with special subjects, more frequent consulting will probably be
necessary. Most magicians will not be qualified to advise psi
researchers. The PA liaison with magic societies should be asked
to recommend appropriate consultants.
A
greater knowledge of magic is especially recommended for
researchers who intend to work with gifted subjects or who want to
develop new testing methods. Such researchers should take classes
in magic, attend conventions, and follow the periodical literature
on the topic.
Reports of a study involving
a gifted subject should include a statement describing the
subject’s background in using or studying trickery (if any). In
order to evaluate the potential of attempted cheating, this
information is required. Even if ironclad proof of trickery is not
available, if there has been suspicious behavior, it needs to be
reported. Failure to include this, when there is such background,
is deceptive to the reader.
Reports should
state who was present during experimental sessions. This will help
the reader assess the possible role of accomplices.
|
Deception by
Subjects
61
When working with
unselected subjects, the procedures should not allow the subjects
to cheat on the spur of the moment (i.e., without advance
preparation). This should be the minimum standard; preferably, a
higher criterion should be met.
If the
validity of a study depends primarily on adequate control or
direct observation of the subject, the report should describe the
researchers’ backgrounds in conjuring and their ability to make
the crucial observations. When one is reporting uncontrolled
observations of macro-PK phenomena, some discussion should be
included about how trickery might accomplish the feat. If the
investigator does not have a background in conjuring, it should be
so stated.
If a study relies on
target-based control, the report should give sufficient detail to
allow an evaluation of the level of security. Empirical tests of
security measures might be included.
Journal editors have a special responsibility to select referees
that have competence to evaluate reports for controls against
subject cheating. This is especially important when the paper
involves a special subject, a new type of psi test, or
subject-based control.
Referees should
alert editors as to the limits of their areas of competence.
If the validity of conclusions of a study
depends upon the results of a few subjects, data for individuals
should be given.
If the authors make
comments as to lack of possibilities of trickery in their
experiment, they should provide convincing evidence of that claim.
Formal ESP experiments should include
random selection of targets and not leave this to the whim of the
sender.
CONCLUSIONS
Parapsychology investigates a wide range of
phenomena under a variety of conditions. Sometimes full
experimental control is possible, whereas in other cases,
researchers are merely bystanders with no say at all. The research
strategies and statements of conclusions must vary accordingly.
With much of the laboratory work, the scientist can focus on
target materials and achieve good controls against deception. When
one focuses on controls of the subject, security is more
problematic.
Today most professional
research in parapsychology is done with unselected subjects and
with good controls against deception. However, there is growing
interest in working with special subjects, and a number of people
have advocated that further attention be given such subjects even
when they have been shown to cheat. Much of the publicity given
the field involves research with such dubious claimants. Until the
researchers establish greater technical competence in conjuring
and make use of outside consultants, the field will continue to
enjoy a less than optimal reputation.
|
62
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
REFERENCES
AKERS, C. (1984). Methodological criticisms of parapsychology.
In S. Krippner (Ed.), Advances in Parapsychological
Research 4 (pp. 112–164). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
AKERS, C. (1986). Has parapsychology found its basic
experiments? [Review of The Basic Experiments in
Parapsychology by K. Ramakrishna Rao (Ed.)]. Contemporary
Psychology, 31, 180–181.
ALABONE, R. P., & HASTED, J. B. (1977). Letter to the
editor. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 49,
558–559.
ALVARADO, C. S. (1987). Observations of luminous phenomena
around the human body: A review. Journal of the Society for
Psychical Research, 54, 38–60.
ANNEMANN. (1938, August). Was Prof. J. B. Rhine hoodwinked?
Jinx, No. 47, 329, 333.
ASCH, S. E. (1963). Effects of group pressure upon the
modification and distortion of judgements. In H. S. Guetzkow
(Ed.), Groups, Leadership and Men: Research in Human
Relations (pp. 177–190).
New York: Russell & Russell.
(Original work published 1951)
AUERBACH, L. M. (1983). Mentalism for parapsychologists.
ASPR Newsletter, 9(1), 4.
AZUMA, N., & STEVENSON, I. (1987). Difficulties confronting
investigators of “psychic surgery” in the Philippines.
Parapsychology Review, 18(2), 6–8.
BACHMAN, J. G., & O’MALLEY, P. M. (1981). When four months
equal a year: Inconsistencies in student reports of drug use.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 536–548.
BARRETT, W. F., GURNEY, E., & MYERS, F. W. H. (1882). First
report on thought-reading. Proceedings of the Society for
Psychical Research, 1, 13–34.
BAUMANN, S., STEWART, J. L., & ROLL, W. G. (1986).
Preliminary results from the use of two novel detectors for
psychokinesis [Summary]. In D. H. Weiner & D. I. Radin (Eds.),
Research in Parapsychology 1985 (pp. 59–62). Metuchen, NJ:
Scarecrow Press.
BELOFF, J. (1980). John Beloff replies to his commentators.
Zetetic Scholar, No. 6, 116–127.
BELOFF, J. (1984a, May). Glenn Falkenstein queried. AIPR
Bulletin, No. 3, 13.
BELOFF, J. (1984b). Research
strategies for dealing with unstable phenomena. Parapsychology
Review, 75(1), 1–7.
BELOFF, J. (1985). What is your counter-explanation? A plea to
skeptics to think again. In P. Kurtz (Ed.), A Skeptic’s
Handbook of Parapsychology (pp. 359–377). Buffalo, NY:
Prometheus Books.
BELOFF, J. (1988). Extreme phenomena and the problem of
credibility. In D. H. Weiner & R. L. Morris (Eds.),
Research in Parapsychology 1987 (pp. 171–186). Metuchen,
NJ: Scarecrow Press.
|
Deception by
Subjects
63
BENDER, H., VANDREY, R., & WENDLANDT,
S. (1976). The “Geller effect” in Western Germany and Switzerland:
A preliminary report on a social and experimental study [Summary].
In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, & R. L. Morris (Eds.),
Research in Parapsychology 1975 (pp. 141–144). Metuchen,
NJ: Scarecrow Press.
BERENDT, H. C. (1983). A new Israeli metal-bender (with film)
[Summary]. In W. G. Roll, J. Beloff, & R. A. White (Eds.),
Research in Parapsychology 1982 (pp. 43–44). Metuchen, NJ:
Scarecrow Press.
BERSANI, F., & MARTELLI, A. (1983). Observations on
selected Italian mini-Gellers. Psychoenergetics: The Journal of
Psychophysical Systems, 5, 99–128.
BESTERMAN, T. (1928). Report of a pseudo-sitting for physical
phenomena with Karl Kraus. Journal of the Society for Psychical
Research, 24, 388–392.
BESTERMAN, T. (1932). The psychology of testimony in relation
to para-physical phenomena: Report of an experiment.
Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 40,
363–387.
BESTERMAN, T., SOAL, S. G., & JEPHSON, I. (1931). Report of
a series of experiments in clairvoyance conducted at a distance
under approximately fraud-proof conditions. Proceedings of the
Society for Psychical Research, 39, 375–414.
BHARATI, A. (1986). Review of Hindu Loaves and Fishes
produced and directed by P. Singer. American
Anthropologist, 88, 1042–1043.
BIRDSELL, P. G. (1981). Investigation into the Opinions of a
Group of Magicians Regarding the Relationship of the Occult to
Modern Magic. Unpublished master’s thesis, Holy Names College,
Oakland, CA.
BISHOP, G. F., OLDENDICK, R. W., TUCHFARBER, A. J., &
BENNETT, S. E. (1980). Pseudo-opinions on public affairs.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 198–209.
BLACK, J. (1922). The spirit-photograph fraud: The evidence of
trickery, and a demonstration of the tricks employed.
Scientific American, 127, 224–225, 286.
BOOTH, J. (1984). Psychic Paradoxes. Los Alamitos, CA:
Ridgeway Press.
BORING, E. G. (1926, January). The paradox of psychic research
with especial reference to the “Margery” case. Atlantic
Monthly, 137, 81–87.
BRAND, R. L. (1987, February 23–27). Compcon Tutorial on
Computer Security. Paper presented at the IEEE Compcon ’87
Conference, San Francisco, CA.
BRANDON, R. (1983). The Spiritualists: The Passion for the
Occult in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. New York:
Knopf.
BRAUDE, S. E. (1986). The Limits of Influence: Psychokinesis
and the Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
BROAD, W., & WADE, N. (1982). Betrayers of the Truth:
Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
|
64
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
BROOKES-SMTTH, C. (1968). Review of The World of Ted
Serios by J. Eisenbud. Journal of the Society for Psychical
Research, 44, 260–265.
CARRINGTON, H. (1909). Eusapia Palladino and Her
Phenomena. New York: B. W. Dodge.
CARRINGTON, H. (1920). The Physical Phenomena of
Spiritualism: Fraudulent and Genuine. New York: Dodd, Mead.
(Original work published 1907)
CASSIRER, M. (1983). Palladino at Cambridge [Summary]. In W. G.
Roll, J. Beloff, & R. A. White (Eds.), Research in
Parapsychology 1982 (pp. 75–77). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow
Press.
CHARI, C. T. K. (1973). Regurgitation, mediumship and yoga.
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 47, 156–172.
CHAUVIN, R. (1985). Parapsychology: When the Irrational
Joins Science (Trans. by K. M. Banham). Jefferson, NC:
McFarland. (Original work published 1980)
CHILD, I. L. (1987). Criticism in experimental parapsychology,
1975–1985. In S. Krippner (Ed.), Advances in Parapsychological
Research 5 (pp. 190–224). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
CHRISTOPHER, M. (1962). Panorama of Magic. New York:
Dover.
CHRISTOPHER, M. (1969). Houdini: The Untold Story. New
York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
CHRISTOPHER, M. (1975). Mediums, Mystics & the
Occult. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
CHRISTOPHER, M. (1979). Search for the Soul. New York:
Thomas Y. Crowell.
COLLINS, H. (1983, June 30). Magicians in the laboratory: A new
role to play. New Scientist, 98, 929–931.
COLLINS, H. M., & PINCH, T. J. (1982). Frames of
Meaning: The Social Construction of Extraordinary Science.
Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
CONFESSIONS OF A “TELEPATHIST.” (1911). Journal of the
Society for Psychical Research, 15, 115–132.
COOVER, J. E. (1917). Experiments in Psychical Research at
Leland Stanford Junior University. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University.
CORINDA, T. (1968). Thirteen Steps to Mentalism. New
York: Tannen. (Originally issued individually as a set of
pamphlets by Corinda’s Magic Studio in London, 1958–1960)
CORNELL, A. D. (1961). A statistical evaluation of possible
paranormal effects in a seance room. Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research, 55, 104–110.
COX, W. E. (1974). Parapsychology and magicians.
Parapsychology Review, 5(3), 12–14.
COX, W. E. (1984a). Magicians and parapsychology. Journal of
the Society for Psychical Research, 52, 383–386.
COX, W. E. (1984b). Selected static-PK phenomena under
exceptional conditions of security [Summary]. In R. A. White &
R. S. Broughton
|
Deception by
Subjects
65
(Eds.), Research in Parapsychology
1983 (pp. 107–110). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
COX, W. E. (1985). An invited rebuttal to George Hansen’s
“Critique of Mr. Cox’s Mini-Lab Experiments.” Archaeus, 3,
25–28.
CRAWLEY, G. (1982). That astonishing affair of the Cottingley
Fairies (Parts 1–2). British Journal of Photography, 129,
1375–1380, 1406–1414.
CRAWLEY, G. (1983). That astonishing affair of the Cottingley
Fairies (Parts 3–10). British Journal of Photography, 130,
9–15, 66–71,
91–96,117–121,142–145,153,159,170–171,332–338,362–367.
CROCKER, G. G. [WITH PRINCE, W. F.] (1930). A significant
experiment. Bulletin of the Boston Society for Psychic
Research, No. 12, 88–98.
DEARMENT, R. K. (1982). Knights of the Green Cloth: The Saga
of the Frontier Gamblers. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press.
DELANOY, D. L. (1987). Work with a fraudulent PK metal-bending
subject. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 54,
247–256.
DIACONIS, P. (1978). Statistical problems in ESP research.
Science, 201, 131–136.
DIACONIS, P. (1979). Rejoinder to Edward F. Kelly. Zetetic
Scholar, No. 5,29–31.
DINGWALL, E. J. (1922). The hypothesis of fraud. Proceedings
of the Society for Psychical Research, 32, 309–331.
DINGWALL, E. J. (1947). Some Human Oddities: Studies in the
Queer, the Uncanny, and the Fanatical. London: Home & Van
Thal.
DINGWALL, E. J. (1956). The simulation of telepathy. In G. E.
W. Wolstenholme & E. C. P. Millar (Eds.), Ciba Foundation
Symposium on Extrasensory Perception (pp. 141–147). Boston:
Little, Brown.
DINGWALL, E. J. (1963). Introduction. In F. Podmore, Mediums
of the 19th Century (Vol. 1, pp. v–xxii). New Hyde Park, NY:
University Books.
DON, N. S., WARREN, C. A., MCDONOUGH, B. E., & COLLURA, T.
F. (1988a). Event-related brain potentials and a phenomenological
model of psi-conducive states [Summary]. In D. H. Weiner & R.
L. Morris (Eds.), Research in Parapsychology 1987 (pp.
72–76). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
DON, N. S., WARREN, C. A., MCDONOUGH, B. E., & COLLURA, T.
F. (1988b). State specificity and psi testing. Proceedings of
Presented Papers: The 31st Annual Convention of the
Parapsychological Association, 102–123.
DUNNINGER, [J.] AS TOLD TO WALTER GIBSON. (1974).
Dunninger’s Secrets. Secaucus, NJ: Lyie Stuart.
EDGE, H. L. (1978). Plant PK on an RNG and the experimenter
effect [Summary]. In W. G. Roll (Ed.), Research in
Parapsychology 1977 (pp. 169–174). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow
Press.
EDITOR. (1935). Deception in psychic photography. Quarterly
Transactions of the British College of Psychic Science, 14,
154–159.
|
66
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
EGELY, G., & VERTESY, G. (1986, August). Experimental
Investigation of Biologically Induced Magnetic Anomalies.
Poster session paper presented at the 29th annual convention of
the Parapsychological Association, Rohnert Park, CA.
EGELY, G., & VERTESY, G. (1988). Experimental investigation
of biologically induced magnetic anomalies [Summary]. In D. H.
Weiner & R. L. Morris (Eds.), Research in Parapsychology
1987 (pp. 87–92). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
EISENBUD, J. (1967). The World of Ted Serios: l
“Thoughtographic” Studies of an Extraordinary Mind. New York:
William Morrow.
EISENBUD, J. (1974). Psychic photography and thoughtography. In
E. D. Mitchell et al. (J. White, Ed.), Psychic Exploration: A
Challenge for Science (pp. 314–331). New York: Putnam’s.
EISENBUD, J. (1975). On Ted Serios’ alleged “confession.”
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 69,
94–96.
EISENBUD, J. (1977a). Observations on a possible new
thoughtographic talent. Journal of the American Society for
Psychical Research, 71, 299–304.
EISENBUD, J. (1977b). Paranormal photography. In B. B. Wolman
(Ed.), Handbook of Parapsychology (pp. 414–432). New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
EISENBUD, J. (1981). Cutting the deck with Susie Cottrell.
Skeptical Inquirer, 5(3), 68–70.
EISENBUD, J. (1982). Some investigations of claims of PK
effects on metal and film by Masuaki Kiyota: I. The Denver
experiments. Journal of the American Society for Psychical
Research, 76, 218–233.
EISENBUD, J. (1983). Parapsychology and the Unconscious.
Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books.
EISENBUD, J., & ASSOCIATES. (1967). Some unusual data from
a session with Ted Serios. Journal of the American Society for
Psychical Research, 61, 241–253.
EISENBUD, J., & ASSOCIATES. (1968). Two experiments with
Ted Serios. Journal of the American Society for Psychical
Research, 62, 309–320.
EISENDRATH, D. B., JR., (1967, October). An amazing weekend
with the amazing Ted Serios: Part II. Popular Photography,
67(4), 85–87, 131–133, 136.
EJVEGAARD, R., & JOHNSON, M. (1981). Murderous ESP—A case
of story fabrication. European Journal of Parapsychology,
4, 81–98.
ESTABROOKS, G. H. (1947). Spiritism. New York: Dutton.
FEILDING, E. (1963). The haunted solicitor. In Sittings with
Eusapia Palladino & Other Studies (pp. 1–8). New Hyde
Park, NY: University Books. (Original work published 1905)
FEILDING, E., & MARRIOTT, W. (1911). Report on a further
series of sittings with Eusapia Palladino at Naples.
Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 25,
57–69.
|
Deception by
Subjects
67
FITZKEE, D. (1975). Magic by
Misdirection. Oakland, CA: Magic Limited/Lloyd E. Jones.
(Original work published 1945)
FREE, J., FREUNDLICH, N., & GILMORE, C. P. (1987, August).
Bugging. Popular Science, 231(2), cover, 44–49,
86–88.
FULLER, C. (1974, August). Dr. Jule Eisenbud vs. the Amazing
Randi. Fate, 27(8), 65–74.
FULLER, C. (1979, July). Randi rides again. Fate, 32(1),
37–44.
FULLER, U. [MARTIN GARDNER]. (1975). Confessions of a
Psychic. Teaneck, NJ: Karl Fulves.
GARDNER, M. (1966). Dermo-optical perception: A peek down the
nose. Science, 151, 654–657.
GARDNER, M. (1983). Lessons of a landmark PK hoax. Skeptical
Inquirer, 7(4), 16–19.
GARDNER, M. (1983–84). Magicians in the psi lab: Many
misconceptions. Skeptical Inquirer, 8(2), 111–116.
GAULD, A. (1965a). Letter to the editor. Journal of the
Society for Psychical Research, 43, 220–224.
GAULD, A. (1965b). Mr[.] Hall and the S.P.R. Journal of the
Society for Psychical Research, 43, 53–62.
GAULD, A. (1968). The Founders of Psychical Research.
New York: Schocken Books.
GERALD L. KAUFMAN. (1968). Journal of the American Society
for Psychical Research, 62, 327.
GLOYE, E. E. (1964). Institutionalized Secrecy and Mass
Communications; An Analysis of Popular Literature on
Conjuring. Unpublished manuscript, Whittier College, Whittier,
CA.
GREEN, E., & GREEN, A. (1977). Beyond Biofeedback.
New York: Delacorte Press/Seymour Lawrence.
GREGORY, A. (1982). Investigating macro-physical phenomena.
Parapsychology Review, 13(5), 13–18.
GRESHAM, W. L. (1959). Houdini: The Man Who Walked Through
Walls. New York: Holt.
G[URNEY], E. (1888). Note relating to some of the published
experiments in thought-transference. Proceedings of the Society
for Psychical Research, 5, 269–270.
GURNEY, E., MYERS, F. W. H., PODMORE, F., & BARRETT, W. F.
(1883). Third report on thought-transference. Proceedings of
the Society for Psychical Research, 1, 161–215.
HALL, D. F., MCFEATERS, S. J., & LOFTUS, E. F. (1987).
Alterations in recollection of unusual and unexpected events.
Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1, 3–10.
HALL, T. H. (1964). The Strange Case of Edmund Gurney.
London: Gerald Duckworth.
HALL, T. H. (1968). The strange case of Edmund Gurney: Some
comments on Mr. Fraser Nicol’s review. International Journal of
Parapsychology, 10, 149–164.
|
68
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
HANSEL, C. E. M. (1959, April 30). Experiments on telepathy.
New Scientist, 5, 983–984.
HANSEL, C. E. M. (1966). ESP: A Scientific Evaluation.
New York: Charles Scribner’s.
HANSEN, G. P. (1982). A suggested methodology in macro-PK
experimentation [Summary]. Journal of Parapsychology, 46,
53.
HANSEN, G. P. (1985a). A brief overview of magic for
parapsychologists. Parapsychology Review, 16(2), 5–8.
HANSEN, G. P. (1985b). A critique of Mr. Cox’s mini-lab
experiments. Archaeus, 3, 17–24.
HANSEN, G. P. (1987a). CSICOP and skepticism: An emerging
social movement. Proceedings of Presented Papers: The 30th
Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association,
317–331.
HANSEN, G. P. (1987b). Examples of a need for conjuring
knowledge [Summary]. In D. H. Weiner & R. D. Nelson (Eds.),
Research in Parapsychology 1986 (pp. 185–186). Metuchen,
NJ: Scarecrow Press.
HANSEN, G. P., & BROUGHTON, R. S. (1982, August). An
investigation of macro-PK: The SORRAT. Paper presented at the
25th annual convention of the Parapsychological Association,
Cambridge, England.
HANSEN, G. P., & BROUGHTON, R. S. (1983). An investigation
of macro-PK: The SORRAT [Summary]. In W. G. Roll, J. Beloff, &
R. A. White (Eds.), Research in Parapsychology 1982 (pp.
115–116). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
HARALDSSON, E., & Osis, K. (1977). The appearance and
disappearance of objects in the presence of Sri Sathya Sai Baba.
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 71,
33–43.
HARRISON, J. M. (ED.). (1975). CIA Flaps and Seals
Manual. Port Townsend, WA: Distributed by Loompanics.
HASTED, J. B. (1976). An experimental study of the validity of
metal-bending phenomena. Journal of the Society for Psychical
Research, 48, 365–383.
HASTED, J. (1981). The Metal Benders. Boston: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
HASTED, J. B., ROBERTSON, D., & SPINELLI, E. (1983).
Recording of sudden paranormal changes of body weight [Summary].
In W. G. Roll, J. Beloff, & R. A. White (Eds.), Research in
Parapsychology 1982 (pp. 105–106). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow
Press.
HASTINGS, A. C. (1977). Magicians, magic, and Uri Geller.
Psychoenergetic Systems, 2, 133–138.
HASTORF, A. H., & CANTRIL, H. (1954). They saw a game: A
case study. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49,
129–134.
HAZLETT, T. (1979, January 4). Steve Shaw: Mentalist or
magician? Observer-Reporter [Washington, PA], p. B-1.
HERBERT, C. V. C. (1939). Short exposure photographs of a
jumping model. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical
Research, 45, 196–198.
|
Deception by
Subjects
69
HODGSON, R. (1892). Mr. Davey’s imitations by
conjuring of phenomena sometimes attributed to spirit agency.
Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 8,
253–310.
HODGSON, R. (1893). Reply to Mr. Alfred Russel Wallace.
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 6, 36–47.
HODGSON, R. (1894). Indian magic and the testimony of
conjurers. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical
Research, 9, 354–366.
HODGSON, R., & DAVEY, S. J. (1887). The possibilities of
mal-observation and lapse of memory from a practical point of
view. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 4,
381–495.
HOEBENS, P. H. (1982–83). Cambridge centenary of psychical
research: Critics heard, encouraged to cooperate. Skeptical
Inquirer, 7(2), 2–4.
HONORTON, C. (1985). Meta-analysis of psi ganzfeld research: A
response to Hyman. Journal of Parapsychology, 49, 51–91.
HONORTON, C., & SCHECHTER, E. 1. (1987). Ganzfeld target
retrieval with an automated testing system: A model for initial
ganzfeld success [Summary]. In D. H. Weiner & R. D. Nelson
(Eds.), Research in Parapsychology 1986 (pp. 36–39).
Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
HOUDINI. (1924). A Magician Among the Spirits. New
York:Harper.
HOY, D. (1977). Report from the expert observer. In G. W. Meek
(Ed.), Healers and the Healing Process (pp. 107–110).
Wheaton, IL: Theosophical Publishing House.
HOY, D. (1981). Psychic surgery: Hoax or hope? Zetetic
Scholar, No. 8, 37–46.
HYMAN, R. (1964). The Nature of Psychological Inquiry.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
HYMAN, R. (1977). The case against parapsychology.
Humanist, 37(6), 47–49.
HYMAN, R. (1981). Further comments on Schmidt’s PK experiments.
Skeptical Inquirer, 5(3), 34–40.
HYMAN, R. (1989). The psychology of deception. Annual Review
of Psychology, 40, 133–154.
HYMAN, R., & HONORTON, C. (1986). A joint communique: The
psi ganzfeld controversy. Journal of Parapsychology, 50,
351–364.
INGLIS, B. (1984). Science and Parascience: A History of the
Paranormal, 1914–1939. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
INGLIS, B. (1986). The Hidden Power. London: Jonathan
Cape.
IRWIN, H. J. (1987). Charles Bailey: A biographical study of
the Australian apport medium. Journal of the Society for
Psychical Research, 54, 97–118.
JAHN, R. G., DUNNE, B. J., & JAHN, E. G. (1980). Analytical
judging procedure for remote perception experiments. Journal of
Parapsychology, 44, 207–231.
JOHNSON, M. (1975). Models of control and control of bias.
European Journal of Parapsychology, 1(1), 36–44.
|
70
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
JOHNSON, M. (1976). Some reflections after the P.A. convention.
European Journal of Parapsychology, 7(3), 1–5.
KANTHAMANI, H., & KELLY, E. F. (1974a). Awareness of
success in an exceptional subject. Journal of
Parapsychology, 38, 355–382.
KANTHAMANI, H., & KELLY, E. F. (1974b). Card experiments
with a special subject. I. Single-card clairvoyance. Journal of
Parapsychology, 38, 16–26.
KANTHAMANI, H., & KELLY, E. F. (1975). Card experiments
with a special subject II. The shuffle method. Journal of
Parapsychology, 39, 206–221.
KASAHARA, T., KOHRI, N., Ro, Y., IMAI, S., & OTANI, S.
(1981). A study on PK ability of a gifted subject in Japan
[Summary], In W. G. Roll & J. Beloff (Eds.); J. McAllister
(Asst. Ed.), Research in Parapsychology 1980 (pp. 39–42).
Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
KEENE, M. L., AS TOLD TO ALLEN SPRAGGETT. (1976). The
Psychic Mafia. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
KEIL, [H. H.] J. (1979). Field experiments with 30 possible PK
subjects. European Journal of Parapsychology, .3(1), 21–35.
KEIL, H. H. J., COOK, E. W., DENNIS, M., WERNER, C. A., &
STEVENSON, I. (1982). Some investigations of claims of PK effects
on metal and film by Masuaki Kiyota: III. The Charlottes ville
experiments. Journal of the American Society for Psychical
Research, 76, 236–250.
KEIL, H. H. J., & FAHLER, J. (1976). Nina S. Kulagina: A
strong case for PK involving directly observable movements of
objects. European Journal of Parapsychology, 7(2), 36–44.
KEIL, H. H. J., HERBERT, B., ULLMAN, M., & PRATT, J. G.
(1976). Directly observable voluntary PK effects: A survey and
tentative interpretation of available findings from Nina Kulagina
and other known related cases of recent date. Proceedings of
the Society for Psychical Research, 56, 197–235.
KEIL, [H. H.] J., & OSBORNE, C. (1981). Recent cases in
Australia suggestive of directly observable PK [Summary]. In W. G.
Roll & J. Beloff (Eds.); J. McAllister (Asst. Ed.),
Research in Parapsychology 1980 (pp. 35–39). Metuchen, NJ:
Scarecrow Press.
KELLAR, H. (1893, January). High caste Indian magic. North
American Review, 156, 75–86.
KELLY, E. F. (1979). Reply to Persi Diaconis. Zetetic
Scholar, No. 5, 20–28.
KELLY, E. F., & KANTHAMANI, B. K. (1972). A subject’s
efforts toward voluntary control. Journal of
Parapsychology, 36, 185–197.
KOLATA, G. (1985, April). Prestidigitator of digits. Science
85, 6(3), 66–72.
KRIPPNER, S. (ED.). (1977a). Advances in Parapsychological
Research 1: Psychokinesis. New York: Plenum.
KRIPPNER, S. (1977b). Editorial. Psychoenergetic
Systems, 2, 5–11.
|
Deception by
Subjects
71
KRIPPNER, S. (ED.). (1978). Advances in
Parapsychological Research 2: Extrasensory Perception. New
York: Plenum.
KRIPPNER, S. (ED.). (1982). Advances in Parapsychological
Research 3. New York: Plenum.
KRIPPNER, S. (ED.). (1984). Advances in Parapsychological
Research 4. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
KRIPPNER, S. (ED.). (1987). Advances in Parapsychological
Research 5. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
KURTZ, P. (ED.). (1985). A Skeptic’s Handbook of
Parapsychology. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
LAMBERT, R. (1954). Dr[.] Geley’s reports on the medium Eva C.
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 37, 380–386.
LEVTTATION PHOTOGRAPHED. (1936, June 29). Time, 27,
62–63.
LEWIS, A. J. (1886). How and what to observe in relation to
slate-writing phenomena. Journal of the Society for Psychical
Research, 2, 362–375.
LINCOLN, P. J. (1975). Disclosing the bewitched by serological
methods. Medicine, Science and the Law, 15, 163–166.
LINCOLN, P. J., & WOOD, N. J. (1979, June 2). Psychic
surgery: A serological investigation. Lancet, 1,
1197–1198.
LOFTUS, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
LOUIS TANNAN, INC. (1985). Catalog of Magic No. 15. New
York: Tannen.
MACDOUGALL, C. D. (1940). Hoaxes. New York:
Macmillan.
MAJAX, G. (1977). Secrets of the Card Sharps (Trans. by
E. W. Egan). New York: Sterling. (Original work published
1975)
MANN, A. (n.d.). The Third Ecstasy. Freehold, NJ: Al
Mann Exclusives.
MANNING, M. (1982). The subject’s report. Proceedings of the
Society for Psychical Research, 56, 353–361.
MARKS, D., & KAMMANN, R. (1980). The Psychology of the
Psychic. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
MASKELYNE, J. N. (1885, April 23). Mr. Maskelyne and the
spiritualists. Pall Mall Gazette, p. 2.
MAY, E. C., WITH BONEWITS, I. (1976, September/October).
Psychic bull in India. Psychic, 7(4), 56–61.
MAY, E. C., & JAHAGIRDAR, K. T. (1976). From where does the
kum-kum come? A materialization attempt [Summary]. In J. D.
Morris, W. G. Roll, & R. L. Morris (Eds.), Research in
Parapsychology 1975 (pp. 150–152). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow
Press.
MCANULTY, D. P., RAPPAPORT, N. B., & MCANULTY, R. D.
(1985). An a posteriori investigation of standard MMPI validity
scales. Psychological Reports, 57, 95–98.
MCBURNEY, D. H., & GREENBERG, J. K. (1980). Downfall of a
would-be psychic. Skeptical Inquirer, 5(1), 61–62.
|
72
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
MCCONNELL, R. A. (1983). An Introduction to Parapsychology
in the Context of Science. Pittsburgh, PA: Author.
MCDONOUGH, B. E., DON, N. S., & WARREN, C. A. (1988). EEG
frequency domain analysis during a clairvoyant task in a
single-subject design: An exploratory study. Proceedings of
Presented Papers: The 31st Annual Convention of the
Parapsychological Association, 124–132.
MCDOUGALL, W. (1967). The case of Margery. In R. Van Over &
L. Oteri (Eds.), William McDougall: Explorer of the Mind
(pp. 180–209). New York: Garrett/Helix. (Original work published
1926)
MERTON, R. K. (1973). The normative structure of science. In N.
W. Storer (Ed.), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and
Empirical Investigations (pp. 267–278). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. (Original work published 1942)
MITCHELL, R. W., & THOMPSON, N. S. (EDS.). (1986).
Deception: Perspectives on Human and Nonhuman Deceit.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
MORGAN, K. (1988). Anomalous human-computer interaction (AHCI):
Towards an understanding of what constitutes an anomaly (or, how
to make friends and influence computers) [Summary]. In D. H.
Weiner & R. L. Morris (Eds.), Research in Parapsychology
1987 (pp. 109–112). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
MORRIS, R. L. (1978). A survey of methods and issues in ESP
research. In S. Krippner (Ed.), Advances in Parapsychological
Research 2: Extrasensory Perception (pp. 7–58). New York:
Plenum.
MORRIS, R. L. (1982). An updated survey of methods and issues
in ESP research. In S. Krippner (Ed.), Advances in
Parapsychological Research 3 (pp. 5–40). New York: Plenum.
MORRIS, R. A. [sic]. (1985, January). President’s
message. Parapsychological Association Annual Report, 1–3.
MORRIS, R. L. (1986a). Minimizing subject fraud in
parapsychology laboratories. European Journal of
Parapsychology, 6, 137–149.
MORRIS, R. L. (1986b). What psi is not: The necessity for
experiments. In H. L. Edge, R. L. Morris, J. H. Rush, & J.
Palmer, Foundations of Parapsychology: Exploring the Boundaries
of Human Capability (pp. 70–110). Boston: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
MUNDLE, C. W. K. (1959). Review of The Mind Readers by S. G.
Soal and H. T. Bowden. Journal of the Society for Psychical
Research, 40, 84–96.
MURPHY, G. (1969). In memory of Gerald L. Kaufman. Journal
of the American Society for Psychical Research, 63, 57–59.
MYERS, F. W. H. (1887). Note on certain reported cases of
hypnotic hyperaesthesia. Proceedings of the Society for
Psychical Research, 4, 532–539.
NARDI, P. M. (1984). Toward a social psychology of
entertainment magic (conjuring). Symbolic Interaction, 7,
25–42.
|
Deception by
Subjects
73
NELSON, R. D., JAHN, R. G., & DUNNE, B. J.
(1986). Operator-related anomalies in physical systems and
information processes. Journal of the Society for Psychical
Research, 53, 261–285.
NICOL, B. H. (1960). The Jones boys: A case for telepathy not
proven. Journal of the American Society for Psychical
Research, 54, 118–135.
NICOL, J. F. (1960). Keeping up with the Joneses.
Tomorrow, 8(1), 58–66.
NICOL, [J.] F. (1966). The silences of Mr. Trevor Hall.
InternationalJournal of Parapsychology, 8, 5–59.
NICOL, J. F. (1979). Fraudulent children in psychical research.
Parapsychology Review, 10(1), 16–21.
OBITUARY: RICHARD DuBois. (1965). Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research, 59, 247.
OPPENHEIM, J. (1985). The Other World: Spiritualism and
Psychical Research in England, 1850–1914. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
ORTIZ, D. (1984). Gambling Scams: How They Work, How to
Detect Them, How to Protect Yourself. New York: Dodd, Mead.
O’SHEA, B., MCGENNIS, A., CAHILL, M., & FALVEY, J. (1984).
Munchausen’s syndrome. British Journal of Hospital
Medicine, 31, 269–274.
OWEN, A. R. G. (1964). Can We Explain the Poltergeist?
New York: Garrett/Helix.
PA STATEMENT ON MAGICIANS. (1984). Parapsychology
Review, 75(2), 16.
PALMER, J. (1985). An Evaluative Report on the Current
Status of Parapsychology. U.S. Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences. Prepared under contract number
DAJA 45-84-M-0405.
PALMER, J. (1988). Letter to the editor. Journal of the
Society for Psychical Research, 55, 107–109.
PAMPLIN, B. R., & COLLINS, H. (1975). Spoon bending: An
experimental approach. Nature, 257, 8.
PARAPSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION. (1980). Ethical and
Professional Standards for Parapsychologists. Alexandria, VA:
Author.
PHILLIPS, P. R. (1987). Reply from Phillips. Journal of the
American Society for Psychical Research, 81, 91–92.
PHILLIPS, P. R., & SHAFER, M. (1982). Exploratory research
with two new psychic metal-benders [Summary]. In W. G. Roll, R. L.
Morris, & R. A. White (Eds.), Research in Parapsychology
1981 (pp. 144–146). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
PLAYFAIR, G. L., & GROSSE, M. (1988). Enfield revisited:
The evaporation of positive evidence. Journal of the Society
for Psychical Research, 55, 208–219.
PLUNKETT, P. T. (1936, June 6). An Indian yogi’s levitation act
photographed: Preliminaries and accessories; and the subsequent
trance-like rigidity of the performer. Illustrated London
News, pp. 993–995.
|
74
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
PODMORE, F. (1896). Poltergeists. Proceedings of the Society
for Psychical Research, 12, 45–115.
PODMORE, F. (1897). Studies in Psychical Research. New
York: Putnam’s.
PODMORE, F. (1963). Mediums of the 19th Century (2
vols.). New Hyde Park, NY: University Books. (Original work
published 1902)
PRATT, J. G. (1937). Clairvoyant blind matching. Journal of
Parapsychology, 1, 10–17.
PRATT, J. G., & KEIL, H. H. J. (1973). Firsthand
observations of Nina S. Kulagina suggestive of PK upon static
objects. Journal of the American Society for Psychical
Research, 67, 381–390.
PRICE, G. R. (1955). Science and the supernatural.
Science, 122, 359–367.
PRICE, H. (1925a). Psychic photography: Some scientific aids to
spurious phenomena—I. Journal of the American Society for
Psychical Research, 19, 570–587.
PRICE, H. (1925b). Psychic photography: Some scientific aids to
spurious phenomena—II. Journal of the American Society for
Psychical Research, 19, 617–636.
PRICE, H. (1931). Regurgitation and the Duncan mediumship.
Bulletin of the National Laboratory of Psychical Research,
No. 1.
PRICE, H. (1933). Leaves From a Psychist’s Case-Book.
London: Gollancz.
PRICE, H. (1936). Confessions of a Ghost-Hunter, London:
Putnam.
PRINCE, W. F. (1925, December). My doubts about spirit
photographs. Scientific American, 133, 370–371.
PRINCE, W. F. (1926). The Psychic in the House. Boston:
Boston Society for Psychic Research.
PRINCE, W. F. (1930). The Enchanted Boundary: Being a Survey
of Negative Reactions to Claims of Psychic Phenomena
1820–1930. Boston: Boston Society for Psychic Research.
PROSKAUER, J. J. (1936, July 13). Yogi’s trick. Time,
28, 4, 6.
“PSYCHIC SURGERY” CAN MEAN FISCAL EXCISION WITH TUMOR
RETENTION. (1974). Journal of the American Medical
Association, 228, 278–280.
PSYCHOLOGICAL LITERATURE. (1887). Review of Proceedings of
the English Society for Psychical Research. From July, 1882,
to May, 1887 and Phantasms of the Living by Edward [sic]
Gurney, Frederick [sic] W. H. Meyers [sic] and Frank
Podmore. American Journal of Psychology, 1, 128–146.
PULOS, L. (1987). Evidence of macro-psychokinetic effects
produced by Thomas of Brazil. Pursuit, 20, 101–107.
RANDALL, J. L. (1982). Psychokinesis: A Study of Paranormal
Forces Through the Ages. London: Souvenir Press.
RANDI, J. (1975). The Magic ofUri Geller. New York:
Ballantine.
|
Deception by
Subjects
75
RANDI, J. (1978). Tests and investigations of
three psychics. Skeptical Inquirer. 2(2), 25–39.
RANDI, J. (1979). Examination of the claims of Suzie [sic]
Cottrell. Skeptical Inquirer, 3(3), 16–21.
RANDI, J. (1981). More card tricks from Susie Cottrell.
Skeptical Inquirer, 5(3), 70–71.
RANDI, J. (1983a). A test of psychokinetic metal bending: An
aborted experiment [Summary]. In W. G. Roll, J. Beloff, & R.
A. White (Eds.), Research in Parapsychology 1982 (pp.
112–113). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
RANDI, J. (1983b). The Project Alpha experiment: Part 1. The
first two years. Skeptical Inquirer, 7(4), 24–33.
RAO, K. R. (1984a). Review of Test Your ESP Potential: A
Complete Kit with Instructions, Scorecards and Apparatus by J.
Randi. Journal of Parapsychology, 48, 356–358.
RAO, K. R. (ED.). (1984b). The Basic Experiments in
Parapsychology. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
RAUSCHER, E. A., & HOUCK, J. (1985). Los Angeles area to
San Francisco Bay Area remote perception experiment. Psi
Research, 4(3/4), 48–78.
RAUSCHER, W. V. (1984). ESP or Trickery? The Problem of
Mentalism Within the Art of Magic. No publisher listed.
RAWCLIFFE, D. H. (1959). Illusions and Delusions of the
Supernatural and the Occult. New York: Dover. (Original work
published 1952)
RAWLINS, D. (1981, October). sTARBABY. Fate, 34(10),
67–98.
RECORDON, E. G., STRATTON, F. J. M., & PETERS, R. A.
(1968). Some trials in a case of alleged telepathy. Journal of
the Society for Psychical Research, 44, 390–399.
REICHBART, R. (1978). Magic and psi: Some speculations on their
relationship. Journal of the American Society for Psychical
Research, 72, 153–175.
REYNOLDS, C. (1967, October). An amazing weekend with the
amazing Ted Serios. Part I. Popular Photography, 67(4),
81–84, 136–140, 158.
RHINE, J. B. (1934). Extra-Sensory Perception. Boston:
Boston Society for Psychic Research.
RHINE, J. B. (1938). The hypothesis of deception. Journal of
Parapsychology, 2, 151–152.
RHINE, J. B. (1974). Security versus deception in
parapsychology. Journal of Parapsychology, 38, 99–121.
RHINE, J. B., & PRATT, J. G. (1962). Parapsychology:
Frontier Science of the Mind. Springfield, IL: Charles C
Thomas. (Original work published 1957)
RIESS, B. F. (1937). A case of high scores in card guessing at
a distance. Journal of Parapsychology, 1, 260–263.
|
76
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
RIESS, B. F. (1939). Further data from a case of high scores in
card guessing. Journal of Parapsychology, 3, 79–84.
ROBINSON, B., WITH WHITE, L. (1986). Twelve Have Died.
Watertown, MA: Ray Goulet’s Magic Art Book Co.
ROGO, D. S. (1977). A critical examination of the “Geller
effect.” Psychoenergetic Systems, 2, 39–43.
ROGO, D. S. (1982). Miracles: A Parascientific Inquiry into
Wondrous Phenomena. New York: Dial Press.
ROLL, W. G. (Chair). (1984). A Study of Ostensible RSPK
Occurrences in Columbus, Ohio. Roundtable at the
Parapsychological Association 27th Annual Convention, August 6–10,
Dallas, TX.
ROLL, W. G., & PRATT, J. G. (1971). The Miami disturbances.
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 65,
409–454.
ROSE, R. (1952). Psi and Australian aborigines. Journal of
the American Society for Psychical Research, 46, 17–28.
RUSHTON, W. A. H. (1968). Serios-photos: If contrary to natural
law, which law? Journal of the Society for Psychical
Research, 44, 289–293.
RYZL, M., BARENDREGT, J. T., BARKEMA, P. R., & KAPPERS, J.
(1965). An ESP experiment in Prague. Journal of
Parapsychology, 29, 176–184.
SANSOTERA, J. (1987, February). Assembly report (Assembly 161).
M-U-M., 47.
SCHECHTER, E. I. (1977). Nonintentional ESP: A review and
replication. Journal of the American Society for Psychical
Research, 71, 337–374.
SCHMEIDLER, G. R. (1977). Research findings in psychokinesis.
In S. Krippner (Ed.), Advances in Parapsychological Research 1:
Psychokinesis (pp. 79–132). New York: Plenum.
SCHMIDT, H. (1980). A program for channeling psi data into the
laboratory and onto the critic’s desk [Summary]. In W. G. Roll
(Ed.), Research in Parapsychology 1979 (pp. 66–69).
Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
SCHMIDT, H., MORRIS, R. L., & RUDOLPH, L. (1982).
Channeling psi evidence to critical observers [Summary]. In W. G.
Roll, R. L. Morris, & R. A. White (Eds.), Research in
Parapsychology 1981 (pp. 136–138). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow
Press.
SCHMIDT, H., MORRIS, R., & RUDOLPH, L. (1986). Channeling
evidence for a PK effect to independent observers. Journal of
Parapsychology, 50, 1–15.
SCHWARZ, B. E. (1985a). K: A presumed case of telekinesis.
International Journal of Psychosomatics, 32, 3–21.
SCHWARZ, B. E. (1985b). K: A presumed case of telekinesis.
Pursuit, 18, 50–61.
SCOTT, C. (1988). Remote viewing. Experientia, 44,
322–326.
SCOTT, C., & GOLDNEY, K. M. (1960). The Jones boys and the
ultra-
|
Deception by
Subjects
77
sonic whistle. Journal of the Society for
Psychical Research, 40, 249–260.
SCOTT, C., & HUTCHINSON, M. (1979). Television tests of
Masuaki Kiyota. Skeptical Inquirer, 3(3), 42–48.
SEGALL, M. H., CAMPBELL, D. T., & HERSKOVITS, M. J. (1966).
The Influence of Culture on Visual Perception. New York:
Bobbs-Merrill.
SELIGMAN, S. A. (1961). Mary Toft—The rabbit breeder.
Medical History, 5, 349–360.
SHAFER, M. G., McBeath, M. K., Thalboume, M. A., &
PHILLIPS, P. R. (1983). PK experiments with two special subjects
[Summary], In W. G. Roll, J. Beloff, & R. A. White (Eds.),
Research in Parapsychology 1982 (pp. 66–68). Metuchen, NJ:
Scarecrow Press.
SHAFER, M., & PHILLIPS, P. R. (1982). Some investigations
of claims of PK effects on metal and film by Masuaki Kiyota: II.
The St. Louis experiments. Journal of the American Society for
Psychical Research, 76, 233–236.
SIDGWICK, E. M. (1884). On vision with sealed and bandaged
eyes. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 1,
84–86.
SIDGWICK, MRS. H. [E. M.]. (1886). Results of a personal
investigation into the physical phenomena of Spiritualism: With
some critical remarks on the evidence for the genuineness of such
phenomena. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical
Research, 4, 45–74.
SIDGWICK, [H.] (1894). Disinterested deception. Journal of
the Society for Psychical Research, 6, 274–278.
SINGER, P. (1987). An Analysis of the Relationship Between
Anthropology and Other Sciences to “Psychic Surgery” as a
Parapsychological Psi Phenomenon. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
SINGER, P., & ANKENBRANDT, K. W. (1980). The ethnography of
the paranormal. Phoenix, 4(1/2), 19–34.
SOAL, S. G. (1959). Letter to the editor. Journal of the
Society for Psychical Research, 40, 200–203.
SOAL, S. G. (1960). The Jones boys; the case against cheating.
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 40, 291–299.
SOAL, S. G., & BOWDEN, H. T. (1960). The Mind
Readers. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
A spiritualistic expose—II. (1885, April 20). Pall Mall
Gazette, pp. 4–5.
[STANFORD, R. G.]. (1986). Dr. Stanford replies . . .
Parapsychology Review, 17(6), 14–15.
STEIGER, B. (1971). The Psychic Feats of Olof Jonsson.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
STEINER, R. A. (1986). Confessions of a magician. Skeptical
Inquirer, 77(1), 10–11.
STEPHENSON, C. J. (1966). Further comments on Cromwell Varley’s
electrical test on Florence Cook. Proceedings of the Society
for Psychical Research, 54, 363–417.
|
78
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
STEVENSON, I., COOK, E. W., WERNER, C. A., DENNIS, M., &
KEIL, H. H. J. (1987). Dr. Stevenson and colleagues reply.
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 81,
90–91.
STEVENSON, I., COOK, E. W., WERNER, C. A., DENNIS, M., KEIL, H.
H. J., & PHILLIPS, P. (1985). On Masuaki Kiyota. Journal of
the American Society for Psychical Research, 79, 294–296.
STEVENSON, I., PASRICHA, S., & SAMARARATNE, G. (1988).
Deception and self-deception in cases of the reincarnation type:
Seven illustrative cases in Asia. Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research, 82, 1–31.
STEVENSON, I., & PRATT, J. G. (1968). Exploratory
investigations of the psychic photography of Ted Serios.
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 62,
103–129.
STEVENSON, I., & ROLL, W. G. (1966). Criticism in
parapsychology: An informal statement of some guiding principles.
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 60,
347–356.
STEWART, D. (1988, March). Spy tech. Discover, 9(3),
58–65.
STEWART, J. L., ROLL, W. G., & BAUMANN, S. (1986). Hypnotic
suggestion and RSPK. Proceedings of Presented Papers: The 29th
Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association,
205–224.
STEWART, J. L., ROLL, W. G., & BAUMANN, S. (1987). Hypnotic
suggestion and RSPK [Summary]. In D. H. Weiner & R. D. Nelson
(Eds.), Research in Parapsychology 1986 (pp. 30–35).
Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
STOKES, D. M. (1982). Review of Out-of-Body Experience
[sic]: A Handbook by J. L. Mitchell. Parapsychology
Review, 7J(5), 22–24.
TADDONIO, J. L. (1976). The relationship of experimenter
expectancy to performance on ESP tasks. Journal of
Parapsychology, 40, 107–114.
TARG, R., & PUTHOFF, H. (1974, November 7). Geller:
Experimenters reply. New Scientist, 64, 443.
TARG, R., & PUTHOFF, H. E. (1977). Mind-Reach:
Scientists Look at Psychic Ability. New York: Delacorte
Press/Eleanor Friede.
TART, C. T. (1968). A psychophysiological study of
out-of-the-body experiences in a selected subject. Journal of
the American Society for Psychical Research, 62, 3–27.
TART, C. (1982, September). Unlucky winner. Omni, 4(12),
119.
TAYLOR, J. (1975). Superminds. New York: Viking.
TAYLOR, J. G. (1977). A comment. Psychoenergetic
Systems, 2, 139.
TAYLOR, J. G., & BALANOVSKI, E. (1979). A critical review
of explanations of the paranormal. Psychoenergetic Systems,
3, 357–373.
THALBOURNE, M. A., & SHAFER, M. G. (1983). An ESP drawing
experiment with two ostensible psychokinetes [Summary]. In W. G.
Roll, J. Beloff, & R. A. White (Eds.), Research in
Parapsychology 1982 (pp. 62–64). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow
Press.
THOULESS, R. H. (1961). Were the Jones boys signalling by Morse
code? Journal of the American Society for Psychical
Research, 55, 24–28.
|
Deception by
Subjects
79
THURSTON, H. (1910, May 14). Believes in
Palladino: Magician Thurston offers $1,000 if it be shown she
depends on fraud. New York Times, p. 2.
TIETZE, T. R. (1973). Margery. New York: Harper &
Row.
TRAUGOTT, M. W., & KATOSH, J. P. (1979). Response validity
in surveys of voting behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly,
43, 359–377.
TRUZZI, M. (1983, June 16). Reflections on Conjuring and
Psychical Research. Unpublished manuscript.
TRUZZI, M. (1984). The role of conjurors in psychical research
and parapsychology [Summary]. In R. A. White & R. S. Broughton
(Eds.), Research in Parapsychology 1983 (pp. 120–121).
Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
TRUZZI, M. (1987). Reflections on “Project Alpha”: Scientific
experiment or conjuror’s illusion? Zetetic Scholar, Nos.
12/13, 73–98.
UPHOFF, W. H. (1987a). More on Masuaki Kiyota. Journal of
the American Society for Psychical Research, 81, 87–90.
UPHOFF, W. H. (1987b). Uphoffs reply to Stevenson and
colleagues and Phillips. Journal of the American Society for
Psychical Research, 81, 92–93.
VERRALL, H. DE G. (1914). The history of Marthe Beraud (“Eva
C.”) Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 27,
333–369.
WALLACE, A. R. (1891). Mr. S. J. Davey’s experiments.
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 5, 43.
WALLACE, A. R. (1893). The late Mr. S. J. Davey’s experiments.
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 6, 33–36.
WARREN, C. A., & DON, N. S. (1986). Event-related
potentials as clairvoyant indicators in a single-subject design,
forced-choice task. Proceedings of Presented Papers: The 29th
Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association, 71–87.
WARREN, C. A., & DON, N. S. (1987). Event-related brain
potentials as clairvoyant indicators in a single-subject design,
forced-choice task [Summary]. In D. H. Weiner & R. D. Nelson
(Eds.), Research in Parapsychology 1986 (pp. 56–61).
Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
WEINER, D. H., & ZINGRONE, N. L. (1986). The checker effect
revisited. Journal of Parapsychology, 50, 85–121.
WENDLANDT, 0. J. (1935). Fake photography remarkable
demonstration at Shefield. Quarterly Transactions of the
British College of Psychic Science, 13, 320–321.
WEST, D. J., & FISK, G. W. (1953). A dual ESP experiment
with clock cards. Journal of the Society for Psychical
Research, 37, 185–197.
WOLMAN, B. B. (ED.). (1977). Handbook of Parapsychology.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
YOUNG MENTALIST AMAZES HIS AUDIENCES. (1978, December 17).
Herald-Star [Steubenville, OH], p. LL-1.
ZENHAUSERN, R., STANFORD, R. G., & ESPOSITO, C. (1977). The
application of signal detection theory to clairvoyance and
precognition tasks
|
80
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
[Summary]. In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, & R. L. Morris
(Eds.), Research in Parapsychology 1976 (pp. 170–173).
Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
ZORKA, A. (1976). Official report: Society of American
Magicians, Assembly 30, Atlanta chapter. In C. Panati (Ed.),
The Geller Papers (pp. 157–167). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
ZUSNE, L., & JONES, W. H. (1982). Anomalistic
Psychology: A Study of Extraordinary Phenomena of Behavior and
Experience. Hilisdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Princeton Arms North 1
Apartment 59
Cranbury, New Jersey 08512
|
|
|
