RESEARCH ON THE SENSE OF BEING STARED AT

the author's site ^ | December 2000 | Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D.

[unspun]

Randomized Instruction Sheets
A set of 20 Randomized Instruction Sheets for use with these experiments is now available:
Click here for html version

If you want to print the sheets, click here for the pdf version
You will require Acrobat Reader for the pdf version.  

Introduction

The feeling of being looked at from behind is remarkably common.   So is the experience of looking at someone from behind and finding that they turn round.  Surveys show that about 90% of the population have personally experienced these phenomena. 

If people really can tell when they are being looked at from behind, this suggests that an influence somehow reaches out from the looker.   If this influence cannot be explained in terms of normal sensory information, the implications are very far-ranging.   But there has been remarkably little research on this subject so far. 

I discussed the background to this research in Chapter 4 of my book Seven Experiments That Could Change The World (Fourth Estate, London), gave preliminary results of my own experiments and described a simple experimental procedure that could be carried out at practically no cost.   Since my book was published, staring experiments have been conducted at more than 60 schools in Britain, America and Germany, and also by more than 20 other groups.   The results of these experiments have been positive in practically all cases.  The statistical significance of the staring effect in all the experiments taken together is overwhelming.   Currently, the odds against the positive results being due to chance are billions to one. 

In the light of the results obtained so far, and as a result of recent research that I have carried out myself in schools in London, I have now developed improved methods for doing this research.   Below, I suggest several simple procedures that can be used with groups of adults, in family experiments at home and in classes in schools.  I have found these experiments can be carried out successfully with children as young as 8, and it may well be possible to do these experiments with children even younger. 

I hope that it will be possible to repeat these experiments in a variety of schools and other settings because the results will be of much value for this research programme.  They are also fun to do, and provoke interesting discussions.   I would much appreciate receiving copies of the results and give my address at the end of this paper.  

 

New: Online Method   Online Staring Experiment

 

Method 1.   Experiment with lookers and subjects within the same room.

This experiment involves people working in pairs, one the looker and the other the subject. The subject sits with his or her back to the looker, and wears a blindfold (or if this is not possible keeps his or her eyes closed).   I have found it convenient to use blindfolds of the kind used on airlines and have been given some for my own research by Virgin Atlantic Airlines.  

Lookers either look or do not look at the subjects in a series of 20 trials according to a random sequence. 

This random sequence can be generated most simply by tossing a coin before each trial.   Heads means "look"; tails means "don't look".    Alternatively, random number tables or a random number generator on a calculator or computer can be used. A set of 20 randomized instruction sheets are available Click Here for the link. The instruction sheets give a sequence of randomized instructions telling you what to do in a series of 20 trials:   Even numbers mean "look", odd numbers "don't look".

Each looker should keep a record on a sheet of paper, writing at the top the name of the looker and of the subject.  Then on the left there should be a column with the number of the trial, from 1 to 20; then a column saying what happened, "look" or "no", and then a tick or cross to indicate whether the subject's guess was correct or not, e.g.

 

1. Look 

a

2. No

r

3.  No

a

4. Look

a

and so on .

 

Procedure

The looker sits at least 1 metre behind the subject's back, and either looks or does not look at the subject in accordance with the random sequence of trials.   The lookers write their names on the score sheet and also the names of the subjects. 

To signal the beginning of each trial, two methods are possible:

Either Each looker has a clicker, bleeper or other mechanical signal to indicate when the trial begins.   (Mechanical signals are necessary, rather than the voice, to ensure than no subtle clues are given consciously or unconsciously)   Immediately after the signal has been given the looker either looks at the back of the neck of the subject, or looks away and thinks of something else. 

Or   Instead of lookers proceeding at their own speed and giving their own signal, the teacher or experimenter can give a signal to the entire class, so that all trials are performed simultaneously.  This can be done by means of a bell, buzzer or simply by saying "Trial one: begin".  (Since all lookers are following different random sequences of instructions, the teacher's voice can give no relevant clues to the subjects). Then for the next trial saying, "Trial two: begin".  And so on. 

The subject then says "looking" or "not looking", and the looker puts a tick or a cross against that trial depending on whether the subject is right or wrong.   The subject should not spend long thinking about it, but guess quite quickly; 10 seconds are long enough.   The looker records the subject's guess and then proceeds to the next trial.  The same procedure is repeated for all 20 trials.

These trials are more interesting for the subjects and generally give higher success rates if feedback is given to the subject after each guess, in other words if the subject is told immediately each guess if it is correct or incorrect.

After the series of 20 trials has been completed, the lookers hand in their score sheets.   The lookers and subjects then change places. Each new looker starts with a new sheet, and writes the looker's and subject's names at the top.  Obviously if pre-randomized sheets are used, the sheet should not be given to the looker until the subject is seated and has already got the blindfold on, so he or she cannot see the sequence in which the trials will be conducted.

If more time is available then a third session can be conducted in which the looker becomes the subject again and the subject the looker, and so on.

I have found by experience that it is possible to explain this experiment and carry it out with two sessions in about 45 minutes.  If a longer period is available, then more sessions are possible.  

 

Method 2.   Experiments involving looking through windows.

The experiment described above eliminates the possibility of the subjects knowing when they are being looked at through visual clues, especially if blind-folds are used.   But it is still possible that there is some leakage of information through sounds which may be given consciously or unconsciously by the looker.  Therefore a more rigorous form of this experiment is to do it under conditions in which sounds can be eliminated as well.  

As in Method 1, the participants work in pairs, one the looker and the other the subject. The lookers look at the subjects through windows.    The lookers are inside, and have a list of instructions for the 20 trials.  The subjects are outside, sitting with their backs to the window and wearing blindfolds (or if no blindfolds are available with their eyes shut).  

As described above for Method 1, the lookers either carry out the randomization themselves trial by trial by tossing a coin. Alternatively, a set of 20 randomized instruction sheets are available Click Here for the link. The instruction sheets give a sequence of randomized instructions telling you what to do in a series of 20 trials: either look ("look") or don't look ("no").  Each looker has a different random sequence of instructions.  

The subjects sit outdoors with their backs to the window, wearing blindfolds if possible.   Each is given a score sheet which simply has numbers from 1 to 20 on it for each of the trials.   A specimen score sheet is shown below.   (Before the session begins, it is important to ensure that each subject has a book or other hard surface on which to rest the score sheet and a pen or pencil with which to record their guesses).   

Before the session begins, each looker and subject writes his or her name and that of their partner on their sheet they have been given.  

The subjects sit in a row with their backs to the windows, and the lookers are in a row indoors in the same order so that they are looking through the windows directly at their  partner.   

For this experiment it is most convenient to have two adults supervising.   One is inside with the lookers, the other outside with the subjects.  When both lookers and scorers have written their names on their sheets and everyone is ready, the trial begins.  The teacher inside says 'Trial 1. Ready. Go' and at that stage signals to the teacher outside by tapping on a window, or by means of a bell or buzzer.  To avoid any possible confusion about the trial number, the teacher indoors can hold up to the window a piece of paper with a large number 1 written on it.   The teacher outdoors, who is the only person facing the window, then calls out to the subjects and scorers "Trial 1. Begin".    Alternatively, the signal can be given by means of a walkie-talkie type intercom, over which the teacher indoors can say the trial number.

After 10 seconds, the teacher outdoors then tells the lookers to write down their guess.   To do this they push up their blindfolds, write "yes" if they think they were being looked at, or "no" if they think they were not, and then put their blindfolds back in place.   They should not at any stage turn around.

When all are ready, the adult outdoors gives a thumbs up signal to the adult indoors who then says, "Trial 2. Ready. Begin", signalling with a bell, buzz, tap or intercom to the teacher outdoors that the trial is beginning, and which trial it is. And so on.  This procedure is repeated until all 20 trials have been completed.   The lookers then go outdoors to their partners,   and the two sheets from each group are collected by the supervising teacher and stapled together so that they can be scored later to see how many of the guesses were right and wrong.

After the first session of 20 trials has been completed, the children change places, with the subject becoming the looker, and the looker the subject.  

Each session need last no more than 10-15 minutes, and so with an initial period for explaining the experiment, the time needed for handing out sheets, moving chairs outdoors and changing over between sessions, I have found that the entire procedure need take no longer than one hour, during which time two sessions can be completed.  If more time is available then additional sessions are of course possible.

With this experimental method, it is not possible to give immediate feedback to the subjects as to whether their guesses are correct or incorrect.   Generally speaking, subjects do not perform as well without feedback.   So if you want to compare Method 1 and Method 2,  Method 1 should also be carried out without feedback.  

 

Using computers

A more sophisticated way of doing these tests is to have the randomized instructions appear on the screen of a computer, together with spaces for filling in the names of the subject and looker and for recording the guesses.   In Method 1, the looker directly records the subject's guesses trial by trial on the computer.  For Method 2, these would have to be entered after the series of 20 trials from the subject's record sheet, unless the subjects are equipped with a remote keyboard on which they can key in their "yes" or "no" guesses trial by trial, which are then   recorded automatically on the looker's computer.   Additionally, if subjects have a computer monitor in front of them as well as a keyboard, they can be given immediate feedback about their guesses through the monitor.  Several people have already carried out staring experiments of this kind using computers, with positive and significant results.   

 

Adding up the scores

For each score sheet, the number of correct and wrong guesses in the looking trials is added up, the same is done for the not looking trials, and these subtotals are added together to give the totals.  The results for each subject can then be tabulated as follows:

 

Looker/subject	Looking right	Looking wrong	Not looking right	Not looking wrong	Total right	Total wrong
NL/PJ	7	3	5	5	12	8
PJ/NL	5	4	5	6	10	10
JR/SW	8	2	6	4	14	6
SW/JR	6	4	5	5	11	9
AD/HK	5	6	4	5	9	11
Totals	31	19	25	25	56	44

All the columns of figures are then added up to give the totals for a given group of subjects.  Examples of data tabulated in this way from my own experiments, and from many independent experiments in colleges and schools are given in my recent papers on the sense of being stared at:  The sense of being stared at: Experiments in schools (1998) and The "sense of being stared at" confirmed by simple experiments (1999).

 

These papers also give examples of different methods of statistical analysis of the data.

In my research so far, I have found that there is a characteristic pattern of results that seems remarkably repeatable.  The score in looking trials is usually above the 50% chance level, often as high as 60%, whereas that in not-looking trials is close to the chance level of 50%. 

If you are interested in analyzing your own results  statistically, I recommend the use of the chi-squared test.   This can be applied to the total numbers of correct and incorrect guesses in the "looking", "not looking" and "total" columns, taking the result expected on the null hypothesis to be that the number of correct and incorrect guesses should be equal.  

In addition, the data can be analyzed by another simple but effective method that also employs the chi-squared test.   For the looking trials, not-looking trials and totals, each subject is scored + if the number of correct guesses exceeds the number of incorrect guesses, = if the number of correct and incorrect guesses is the same, and - if the number of incorrect guesses is more than the number of correct guesses.   An example of this system of scoring is given in the specimen Table below,   using the same data as in the Table above:

 

Looker/subject	Looking right	Looking wrong	Looking +/-/=	Not looking right	Not looking wrong	Not looking +/-/=	Total looking right	Total looking wrong	Total looking +/-/=
NL/PJ	7	3	+	5	5	=	12	8	+
PJ/NL	5	4	+	5	6	-	10	10	=
JR/SW	8	2	+	6	4	+	14	6	+
SW/JR	6	4	+	5	5	=	11	9	+
AD/HK	5	6	-	4	5	-	9	11	-
Totals	31	19	4+1-0=	25	25	1+2-2=	56	44	3+1-1=

 

The total numbers of + and - scores are then compared using the chi-squared test, taking the null hypothesis to be that there is no difference between the + and - scores.  For the purpose of this analysis the = scores can be omitted.  

By carrying out one of the experiments described above you will be able to find out whether you get results that agree or disagree with this pattern.   Either way, please let me know.

 

Questions for further research

Several important questions need to be investigated further, and you might like to consider research on one or more of the following:

1.   Given feedback, can subjects improve their performance over a number of sessions? 

2.   Do looker-subject pairs who know each other well (e.g. twins or best friends) tend to do better than those who do not know each other so well?

3.   Through repeated testing of members of pairs with relatively high scores, is it possible to identify people who are unusually sensitive as subjects or unusually effective as lookers?

4.   How are the responses affected by the distance between the lookers and subjects?

5.   Are several lookers more effective than one? 

 

Sending in the results

I would be very grateful if you could send the results of these experiments to me, so that I can combine the results of experiments in different locations and analyze them statistically.  Please include the original score sheets for each subject (or copies of them) so that I can analyze them in detail.  Please also include a description of the methods you used, including details of the randomization procedure if you used your own; whether or not you gave feedback and how you signalled the beginnings of the trials; how far apart the subjects and lookers were, and whether the subjects were wearing blindfolds or not. Also note any other details that might be relevant.  I will send a report and analysis to all those who contribute data in this way.

Rupert Sheldrake, 20 Willow Road. London NW3 1TJ. England.

[unspun]

unspun, add Dean Radin to the list of those to check into.

[js1138]

To eliminate these effects would require a strictly controlled environment. His suggestion that schoolkids carry out these trials in the classroom--and send the results to him for analysis--tells me that strict controls are not being made a high priority.

Even to suggest such a procedure borders of quackery. Those classes that have positive results will tend to report; those with negative results will tend to drop out. No one is deliberately lying or commiting fraud, but the experimental design is defective.

[Drango]

I read somewhere that military snipers are aware of this "phenomenon", real or not. In any case there is the belief that you can't watch a subject too long without some of them sensing it. Urban legend perhaps?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[dark_lord]

It is true that the "staring" experiments have been poorly controlled for methodology, but of course Sheldrake is not a practicing psychologist but rather is/was a biologist. The above article arose from this "Morphogenic field" hypothesis which rather contraversial. But there are interesting results in the field of parapsychology which have in fact met very rigorous methodological standards. I refer of course to the ganzfeld studies which go back to the mid to early 1980's.

There is an interesting discussion here which covers the meta-analyses of the ganzfeld studies. It has been determined that the ganzfeld results, even when controlling for or eliminating studies with suspect methodology, are quite satisfactory from a statistical perspective.

It is also the case that tests run in the 1990's and meta-analysis on those tests resulted in poorer results. There is a discussion of that here. At first glance this might be assumed to be caused by the application of superior and more rigorous methodology, and thus showing that earlier researchers were either biased or did poor science. That turns out not to be the case. Upon analysis of the root causes of the change in results, it was determined that the same kinds of experiments were not being performed. A relevant quotation from the 2nd link is: "Many psi researchers believe that the reliability of the basic procedure is sufficiently well established to warrant using it as a tool for the further exploration of psi. Thus, rather than continuing to conduct exact replications, they have been modifying the procedure and extending it into unknown territory. Not unexpectedly, such deviations from exact replication are at increased risk for failure. For example, rather than using visual stimuli, Willin (1996a, 1996b) modified the ganzfeld procedure to test whether senders could communicate musical targets to receivers. They could not. When such studies are thrown into an undifferentiated meta-analysis, the overall effect size is thereby reduced and, perversely, the ganzfeld procedure becomes a victim of its own success."

The whole field of ganzfeld research is very interesting partially because it become a litmus test of scientific inquiry itself. I am fully in favor of strong and stringent standards, but one thing that has become glaringly evident is that when the field of psi research is compared to the fields of research of other "soft" sciences, it appears that the really stringent conditions apply ONLY to psi research. The rest of psychology, and sociology get a complete pass -- those studies are NOT subject to the same rigorous analysis. As an example of the level of rigor that is applied to psi research, see this quote: "Have the ubiquitous doubters been swayed by Honorton's experiments? Some critics of parapsychology, such as S. Blackmore, opine that Honorton has come up with best best evidence yet for telepathy; but Blackmore still has her doubts. Already experimental flaws have been pointed out in Honorton's work. For example, the researchers scoring the experiments must be completely ignorant of which film clips were used, but surreptitious peeks at the automated equipment were possible, and there could have been subliminal cues as to film-clip identities from the time periods required to rewind the tapes. Then, in the scoring conferences with the receivers, the scorers could have subconsciously led the receivers along."

Now, think about this. It is possible that the researchers could have surreptitiously peeked, and there could have been subliminal cues with which the scorers could have subconsciously influenced the experimental subjects. Yes, true -- but is that same level of rigor applied to other experiments in the soft sciences? NO!!!

From the whole area of ganzfeld research I draw 2 conclusions -- 1st, that the level of rigor in the experiments in the soft sciences needs to be increased to the level that the ganzfeld experiments are expected to follow, and 2nd, that to a lot of ganzfeld critics are like kids covering their ears, shutting their eyes, drumming their feet on the ground and saying "Nyah nyah nyah I can't hear you!".

[Physicist]

Now, think about this. It is possible that the researchers could have surreptitiously peeked, and there could have been subliminal cues with which the scorers could have subconsciously influenced the experimental subjects. Yes, true -- but is that same level of rigor applied to other experiments in the soft sciences? NO!!!

Oh, don't get me started. Forget experimental psychology; I'm highly critical of the lapses of experimental rigor in medical research, ostensibly a much harder science. I'm forever seeing the wildest conclusions confidently based upon the shakiest statistics. (Witness the power line/cancer farce, for example.)

I've only had a few minutes to read up on the "ganzfeld" experiments, but one thing struck me as odd. They have a judge look at four video clips--one of which is the target clip--and compare his impressions to the "receiver's" impressions. What perplexes me is that they refer to the three decoy clips as "controls". They are not controls; they are part of the same experiment. The probability of one of them being selected is not independent of the probability that the target gets selected. A true control would be to preselect one of the clips as the "target" clip and (unbeknownst to the other participants) NOT show anything to the "sender". I don't see where this has been performed.

As Prof. Max Gottlieb always said: "Vere iss your control? Vere iss your control?"

[Hypothesis: the "psychic"--actually, empathetic--link exists not between the "sender" and the "receiver", but between the man who selects the video clips, and the judge. Suggested control experiment: for a random sample of trials, switch the "receiver" impressions around between the trials, and see whether the effect goes away. Never reuse video clips, in any case.]

[dark_lord]

Yeah, the experiment has been performed in different ways. The basic technique is this. The subject is placed into isolation (ping pong ball cut in half, cotton ball placed into each half, one of each half placed over subjects eyes and then held down with blindfold so they can see nothing, white noise generator playing, laying in comfy reclining chair). Then the "sender" looks at a short video clip (best on a tape loop or other repeating sequence) and thinks about it for 1/2 hour. The "receiver" then verbalizes their impressions. At the end of the session, the "receiver" views 4 video clips. One of the clips is the one the "sender" was viewing. The "receiver" ranks the clips in order of best fit to what they "received".

If the experiment is done properly, random chance will dictate that the correct video clip is chosen only 25% of the time. But repeated experiments have in fact shown that the "correct" clip is chosen more often at a statistically significant rate. And then come the arguments over the experimental methodology. The better experiments are "double blind", which means that the person showing the 4 clips to the "receiver" does not themselves know which clip was shown to the "sender" -- and yes, those experiments do in fact show that the correct clip is chosen at a statistically significant rate better than chance.

The twist is -- unlike experiments with particles or inanimate objects, some "senders" and "receivers" do better than others, repeatedly. This would logically be expected, as people vary in all other skills as well. So other interesting results are also noticed. For example, some people test regularly at the random level -- no skill, just chance. But some people regularly test at a negative level -- consistently worse than chance! What psychological implications there are of this can be left to the shrinks. And some people test consistently better than chance. No one would be ordinarily surprised at this, as in basically every other kind of test applied to humans there is variation. But since psi is "voodoo" and no one wants to be associated with it (its not "respectable", unlike feminist deconstruction theories), not that many researchers care anymore.

[templar]

Experiments and speculation of this type always seem to drift toward an "esp" type of explanation. There is a distinct possibility that the phenomenon is real (I have had this and related experiences, to the extent of saving my and others lives) but do not believe they need to be explained by some psychic power type of thing. The explanation could lie in unobserved physical causes ranging from pheromones broadcast by the starer to sub audible verbalizations the starer is giving that are perceived unconsciously by the staree (so maybe I invented some new words here, the meaning is obvious). It could be that people have unconcious primitve survival mechanisms in place that make themselves almost supersensory in observational powers and that these are unconsciously active or inactive at various times. It's like the well known phenomenon of 'womens intuition' that always seems to let your wife/girlfriend etc. know when you're lying to them. Probably just an innate sense of a combination of pheromones and natural voice stress analyisis that women aren't consciously aware they are doing, just that they are aware that something's not quite right. Laboratory experiments would likely cause these things to be supressed.

[unspun]

Thank you for sharing. Hmm. Well I think Sheldrake's take on it may just include your own.

I'd be very interested in hearing about the case(s) where your sensitivity/response saved lives.

[Physicist]

Ping.

[Djarum]

If I look at someone it's about 3 out of 4 that they will immediately turn and look in my general direction, obviously looking for whatever it is that they sensed.

I have the same problem, only they sometimes comment, "Those aren't my eyes." The sense of being stared at indeed.

[betty boop]

Here's a little do-it-yourself ESP test.

Oftentimes, they will even look at you after a while!

I've been playing this game with one of my pet cats, the one who is especially "attached" to me. When she's sleeping on the sofa, I look at her intently, and repeat her name silently in my mind. Usually she wakes up, sooner or later, and looks at me; and seems to say "What do you want???".

Plus there are other things that I really can't explain that involve consciousness events, or even unconscious ones (dream states).

Once I'd been traveling in Europe for about three months, out of contact with my family. And one night, my grandmother appeared to me in a dream. She was weeping, and told me she came to say goodbye. A couple of weeks later, I learned that she had passed away the very day of the dream.

Or how about this -- which has happened on several occasions: I dream of tornadoes all night long. And the next morning, I learn from TV reports that twisters had torn through the country, literally while I slept.

Or a very recent experience, of hoping to hear from someone who'd been absent for a while. I dream of this person, a detailed dream. Next morning, I check my e-mail -- and there is the hoped-for communication.

Coincidences all??? Some, perhaps. But all? I have my doubts that these events were coincidence.

[Phaedrus]

I have my doubts that these events were coincidence.

To say the very least IMHO.

[BMCDA]

"Staring at you" placemarker

[Physicist]

Ah, good old Earl. I wrote to Max Cannon one time to ask him whether the line underneath his hairline (the complete line, not the half line) was a stray hair, or the top of his head. In other words, is it possible to "see daylight" beneath Earl's hair?

His answer was that it is an appendectomy scar. For some reason, the doctors thought it best to go in "the long way".

Another time, he used an idea I gave him for a "Johnny Lemonhead" strip.

[BMCDA]

Aw, an other RedMeat fan ;)
His answer was that it is an appendectomy scar. For some reason, the doctors thought it best to go in "the long way".

ROFL

Another time, he used an idea I gave him for a "Johnny Lemonhead" strip.

Cool, which one?

Hey, maybe I should share some ideas for "Earl" and "Milkman Dan" strips with him ;^D