|
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
|
|
|