Posted on 07/22/2002 3:17:13 PM PDT by vannrox
|
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research Vol. 65, pp.122-137 (2001)
EXPERIMENTS ON THE SENSE OF BEING STARED AT:
|
Table 1
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Blindfold |
(65%) |
|
(50.5%) |
|
(57.8%) |
|
|
|
|||||||
No Blindfold |
(63.3%) |
|
(54.6%) |
|
(58.9%) |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
||||
Blindfold |
|
|
|
||||
No Blindfold |
|
|
|
||||
|
|||||||
Blindfold |
|
|
|
||||
No Blindfold |
|
|
|
||||
B Accuracy of guesses (40 subjects blindfold (b); 38 subjects not blindfolded (nb)) |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More right |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More wrong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
||||
Blindfold |
|
|
|
||||
No Blindfold |
|
|
|
Third, the numbers of right and wrong guesses were compared using the paired-sample t-test, with the numbers of right and wrong guesses for each group in each session as the paired sample. The null hypothesis was that the numbers of right and wrong guesses would be the same.
For the comparison of two sets of scores (for example the scores with and without blindfolds ) 2 x 2 contingency tables were used (Campbell, 1989), with the null hypothesis that the proportions of right and wrong guesses in both sets were equal.
RESULTS
Experiment 1, With and Without Blindfolds
In this experiment, all subjects were given feedback.
As in previous experiments on the sense of being stared at (Sheldrake, 1999), subjects scored considerably above the chance level of 50% in the looking trials: 65.0% correct with blindfolds (p= 0.005 by the paired-sample t test) and 63.3% without (p=0.0008). By contrast, in the not-looking trials, their guesses were not significantly different from the chance level of 50% (Table 1A). The total scores, combining the results from the looking and not-looking trials, were also significantly above chance levels: 57.8% correct with blindfolds (p= 0.01 by the paired-sample t test) and 58.9% without (p= 0.001) (Table 1A).
Using the alternative system of scoring the results, according to which each subject is scored "+" if they more often right than wrong and "-" if they more often wrong than right, the overall scores were 24+ 11- with blindfolds (p= 0.03 by the chi-squared test) and 26+ 8- without (p= 0.003) (Table 1B).
Thus blindfolds had little effect on the subjects' performance. There was no significant difference between the scores with and without blindfolds.
Experiment 2, With and Without Feedback
In this experiment all subjects wore blindfolds.
The general pattern of results showed, as usual, that there were significantly more correct than incorrect guesses in the looking trials: with feedback 59.8% were correct (p= 0.001 by the paired sample t test) and without feedback 60.2% (p= 0.01) (Table 2A). Likewise, the subject-by-subject scores showed a significant excess of people who were more often right than wrong both with feedback (31+ 11- ; p= 0.002 by the chi-squared test) and without feedback (28+ 15- ; p= 0.05) (Table 2B). By contrast in the not-looking trials the scores were at chance levels. (Table 2A and B).
Thus giving the subjects feedback made very little difference to their performance. Overall, there was a slightly higher percentage of correct guesses without feedback (54.9%) than with feedback (53.6%), but this difference was not significant.
In general the scores were lower than in experiment 1. The subjects given feedback in experiment 2 were tested under the same conditions as the blindfolded subjects in experiment 1, that is to say they were blindfolded and given feedback, but their scores were lower (in total, 53.6% correct guesses as opposed to 57.8%; Tables 1A and 2A).
Table 2
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Feedback |
(59.8%) |
|
(47.4%) |
|
(53.6%) |
|
No Feedback |
(60.2%) |
|
(49.6%) |
|
(54.9%) |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|||
Feedback |
|
|
|
|||
No Feedback |
|
|
|
|||
|
||||||
Feedback |
|
|
|
|||
No Feedback |
|
|
|
|||
B Accuracy of guesses (46 subjects given feedback (f); 47 subjects not given feedback (nf)) |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More right |
|
|
|
|
|
|
More wrong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|||
Feedback |
|
|
|
|||
No Feedback |
|
|
|
Do Subjects Improve with Practice?
When subjects are given feedback, there is the possibility that can improve their sensitivity with practice. Since all subjects in the experiments of series 1 were given feedback, such an effect should be detectable by comparing the results of phase I of the experiment, in which subjects were tested for the first time, with phase II, in which the same subjects were tested again. In fact, in phase II, the scores did improve: the percentage of correct guesses rose from 55.6% to 62.1%. This increase was statistically significant (p=0.02 by the chi-squared test using two-way contingency tables).
Another way of evaluating improvement is to compare the first 10 trials with the second 10 in each set of 20 trials . In the experiments in series 1, there was a slight overall improvement, from 57.2% to 59.1%, but this difference was not statistically significant.
In series 2, with and without feedback, there was no improvement in scores from phase I to phase II: the percentage of correct guesses was 53.5% in both. When the first 10 trials in each set were compared with the second 10, there was a slight decline in the percentage of correct guesses, from 54.7% to 52.1%, but this was not statistically significant.
Experiments in Irish Schools
In the experiments carried out in Irish schools by Susan and Jennifer Brodigan, all subjects wore blindfolds and none were given feedback.
The results showed the now-familiar pattern whereby scores were well above chance in the looking trials with a total of 56.7% correct, and with subjectwise scores of 114+ and 52- (p=2x10-6 by the chi-squared test). By contrast, the scores were at chance levels in the not-looking trials (Table 3). A similar pattern was apparent in all the sets of data.
There was a tendency for the scores to be higher with the children who were related (overall 55.1% correct guesses) than with those who were unrelated (overall 52.4% correct), but this difference was not statistically significant.
Table 3
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrelated |
|||||||
Total |
(55.9%) |
|
(49%) |
|
(52.4%) |
|
|
Related |
|||||||
Siblings |
(54.3%) |
|
(50.3%) |
|
(52.3%) |
|
|
Identical |
(58.1%) |
|
(50.6%) |
|
(54.4%) |
|
|
Non-identical |
(65.5%) |
|
(53.0%) |
|
(59.3%) |
|
|
Total |
(58.6%) |
|
(51.2%) |
|
(54.9%) |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Grand Totals |
(56.7%) |
|
(49.6%) |
|
(53.1%) |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Group |
|
|
|
||||
|
|||||||
Unrelated |
|||||||
Total |
|
|
|
||||
Related |
|||||||
Siblings |
|
|
|
||||
Identical |
|
|
|
||||
Non-identical |
|
|
|
||||
Total |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Grand Totals |
|
|
|
||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Among the related children, the untwinned siblings did no better than unrelated children (overall 52.3% correct, as opposed to 52.4%). The non-identical twins did better than the identical twins, with 59.3% and 54.4% correct guesses respectively (Table 3), but these differences were not statistically significant.
DISCUSSION
Blindfolding subjects made no significant difference to their ability to tell when they were being looked at from behind (Table 1). The type of blindfolds used in these experiments effectively eliminated peripheral vision. Even if were to be argued that these blindfolds allowed for some vision by looking downward along the nose, they could not have allowed the subject to see what was going on behind them unless they turned their head around and tilted it backwards. No subjects were observed to be doing this. The fact that the blindfolds made no significant difference to the results shows that the effect detected in these experiments did not depend on visual clues.
There was also no significant difference between the scores with and without feedback (Table 2), showing that the ability of subjects to detect when they were being looked at did not depend on receiving feedback.
A puzzling aspect of the data is the fact that the scores were generally higher in experiment 1 than in experiment 2. Even when the conditions were identical, as they were for blindfolded subjects in experiment 1 (who were given feedback) and subjects given feedback in experiment 2 (who were blindfolded), the subjects in experiment 1 had higher scores than in experiment 2. Why?
This difference could just be a matter of chance. Perhaps the children in experiment 1 just happened to be more sensitive than the children in experiment 2. But there could be a more interesting reason for this difference. Perhaps in experiment 2 the participants were generally more self-conscious about their performance. Subjects received feedback in some sets of trials, while in others they did not, which could have made them anxious about how they were performing, with the effect of reducing their sensitivity. But in the absence of further research this can be no more than a speculation.
The relatively low scores in the experiments with and without feedback do not, however, alter the main conclusion that sense of being stared at is still detectable without feedback.
After completing the experiments described in this paper, I arranged for further experiments on the sense of being stared at to be conducted without feedback in schools in Connecticut, USA, following an earlier series with feedback (Sheldrake, 1998). There were highly significant positive scores without feedback, just as there had been with feedback. Tests were conducted in 8 schools. In a total of more than 5,000 trials the overall proportion of correct guesses was 55.3%. Subjectwise the scores were 149+ 74-, in other words 149 subjects were more often right than wrong, compared with 74 who were more often wrong than right (p= 5x10-7 by the chi-squared test) (Sheldrake, 1999).
These experiments confirmed that positive scores in these experiments were not dependent on feedback. But they did not did not involve the use of blindfolds. In the experiments in Irish schools described in this paper (Table 3), the subjects not only received no feedback but were also blindfolded. The results confirm that the effect detected in these experiments depends neither on visual clues nor on feedback.
The positive results of these experiments with blindfolded subjects deprived of feedback shows that they do not arise from artefacts due to visual clues. Nor are they due to implicit learning dependent either on sensory clues, or on the detection of subtle patterns in the randomization of trials.
The experiments reported in this paper do not, however, eliminate the possibility of auditory or even olfactory clues, because the lookers and subjects were in the same room and only 1-2 metres apart. However, any hypothesis that proposes that such clues were involved would have to explain why they worked only in the looking trials but not in the not-looking trials. Most conceivable clues of this kind (including deliberate attempts to cheat, for example by the looker whispering to the subject) would be expected to elevate the scores in both looking and not-looking trials. But this is not what happened.
Nevertheless, a sceptic might propose that there were clues present only in the looking trials that the subjects were intermittently and unconsciously aware of. The only way of answering this argument definitively is through experiments in which lookers and subjects are separated by soundproof barriers. I have carried out such experiments through closed windows, and again the results showed a significant positive effect, with the usual difference between looking and not-looking trials (Sheldrake, 2000a).
Moreover, in the experiments of Colwell et al. (2000), discussed in the Introduction to this paper, the subjects were looked at through a one-way mirror, which served as a barrier to auditory and olfactory cues. With a graduate student as looker, subjects scored very significantly above chance, with the usual pattern of highly significant positive scores in looking trials and non-significant scores in not-looking trials. And in most of the experiments carried out through CCTV there were significant positive results under conditions where there was no possibility of the transfer of any auditory or other sensory clues (Braud, Shafer & Andrews 1990, 1993a, 1993b; Schlitz & LaBerge, 1994, 1997). The exceptions were experiments in which sceptics themselves were the lookers, as discussed in the introduction to this paper, and may well have involved an experimenter effect of the kind reported by Wiseman & Schlitz (1997).
The pioneering research of Susan and Jennifer Brodigan suggests that twins, both identical and non-identical, perform better than non-twinned siblings or unrelated children; but further research with larger samples would be necessary to reach a firm conclusion on this question.
The sense of being stared at does not seem to be explicable in terms of normal sensory information. It must therefore depend on causal factors at present unknown to science. Some possible explanations have been discussed by Abraham, McKenna & Sheldrake (1992) and Sheldrake (1994).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to all the people who took part in these experiments, to John Hubbard and Mark Albini for helping me to do the tests in their classes, and to Jennifer and Susan Brodigan for sending me their results and agreeing to their publication in this paper. I thank the Institute of Noetic Sciences, Sausalito, CA, the Lifebridge Foundation, New York and the Bial Foundation, Portugal, for financial support.
Abraham, R., McKenna, T. & Sheldrake, R. (1992) Trialogues at the Edge of the West. Santa Fe: Bear & Co.
Baker, R. (2000) Can we tell when someone is staring at us from behind? Skeptical Inquirer (March/April), 34-40.
Braud, W, Shafer, D. & Andrews, S. (1990) Electrodermal correlates of remote attention: Autonomic reactions to an unseen gaze. Proceedings of Presented Papers, Parapsychology Association 33rd Annual Convention, Chevy Chase, MD, pp14-28.
Braud, W, Shafer, D. & Andrews (1993a) Reactions to an unseen gaze (remote attention): A review, with new data on autonomic staring detection. JP 57, 373-90.
Braud, W, Shafer, D. & Andrews (1993b) Further studies of autonomic detection of remote staring: replications, new control procedures, and personality correlates. JP 57, 391-409.
Campbell, R.C. (1989) Statistics for Biologists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Colwell, J, Schröder, S, & Sladen, D. (2000) The ability to detect unseen staring: A literature review and empirical tests. British Journal of Psychology 91, 71-85.
Cottrell, J.E., Winer, G.A. & Smith, M.C. (1996) Beliefs of children and adults about feeling stares of unseen others. Developmental Psychology 32, 50-61.
Dossey, L. (1997) Lessons from twins: of nature, nurture and consciousness. Alternative Therapies 3 (3), 8-15.
Eason, C. (1994) The Psychic Power of Children. London: Foulsham.
Marks, D. and Colwell, J. (2000) The psychic staring effect: An artifact of pseudo randomization. Skeptical Inquirer (September/October), 41-49.
Palmer, J. (1989a) Confronting the Experimenter Effect. Parapsychology Review 20 (4), 1-4.
Palmer, J. (1989b) Confronting the Experimenter Effect, Part 2. Parapsychology Review 20 (5), 1-5.
Rosenthal, R. (1976) Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research. New York: John Wiley.
Schlitz, M. & LaBerge, S. (1994) Autonomic detection of remote observation: Two conceptual replications. Proceedings of Presented Papers, Parapsychology Association 37th Annual Convention, Amsterdam, pp. 352-60.
Schlitz, M. & LaBerge, S. (1997) Covert observation increases skin conductance in subjects unaware of when they are being observed: a replication. JP 61, 185-195.
Sheldrake, R. (1994) Seven Experiments that Could Change the World. London: Fourth Estate, Chapter 4.
Sheldrake, R. (1998). The sense of being stared at: experiments in schools. JSPR 62, 311-323.
Sheldrake, R. (1999). The 'sense of being stared at' confirmed by simple experiments. Biology Forum 92, 53-76.
Sheldrake, R. (2000a). The 'sense of being stared at' does not depend on known sensory clues. Biology Forum 93, 209-224.
Sheldrake, R. (2000b). Research on the feeling of beng stared at. (submitted to Skeptical Inquirer).
Wiseman, R. & Schlitz, M (1997) Experimenter effects and the remote detection of staring. JP 61, 197-207.
Wiseman, R. & Smith, M. (1994) A further look at the detection of unseen gaze. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association 37th Annual Convention. Parapsychological Association. 465-478.
Wiseman, R., Smith, M.D., Freedman, D., Wasserman, T. & Hurst, C. (1995) Examining the remote staring effect: two further experiments. Proceedings of Presented Papers, Parapsychology Association 38th Annual Convention, pp. 480-490.
Rupert Sheldrake
20 Willow Road
London NW3 1TJ
England
I have no idea how we do it though.
I've read a lot of your posts. They are all quite interesting.
How is it you know the telephone is going to ring before it actually rings? Maybe it's the same thing: Someone is staring at you.
;)
Is this a skill? I have no idea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.