HOW EXPERIENCES ARE FORMED AND WHAT ESP HAS TO DO WITH IT

1. HOW EXPERIENCES ARE FORMED AND WHAT ESP HAS TO DO WITH IT Jim Carpenter Christine Simmonds-Moore Steve Moore Supported by the Bial Foundation Approved by Committees for Ethics of the Rhine Research Center and Liverpool-Hope University

2. OR MYSTERIOUS INFLUENCES ON WHY WE LIKE SOMETHING

3. and HOW ESP IS PART OF THAT

4. A STUDY IN THE FIRST SIGHT MODEL OF PSI • The model says that all perception is constructed by unconscious processes • Current stimuli are important, but not the whole story • ESP is one of those unconscious processes • This is the primary, everyday function of ESP • ESP is not knowledge • It is an aspect of our unconscious participation in a universe of indefinite extent

5. IF ESP IS UNCONSCIOUS, HOW CAN WE STUDY IT? • We can ask people to make guesses – but also: • We can examine its contribution to everyday psychological processes • Memory, perception, judgment – in fact all aspects of experience – seem to involve ESP • This is implied by almost all of the psychological research on ESP

6. ESP IS NOT THE ONLY UNCONSCIOUS PROCESS CONTRIBUTING TO EXPERIENCE • Incidental or subliminal perception participates, as does • Memory, and • The requirements of the moment, and • The person’s goals and values

7. IN OTHER WORDS • Each experience is a product, not just a given. • It is constructed unconsciously • The construction process is motivated • Motives are personal for each organism • ESP is part of this, presumably the initiating part, since it is available prior to sensation • Hence it is “First Sight”

8. TWO META-LEVEL ASSUMPTIONS MADE BY THE FIRST SIGHT MODEL • The organism actively pursues the construction of its experience in a motivated way (as opposed to its being passively caused by stimuli and mechanical bio-chemical processes). • The organism pre-consciously responds to a large environment of indefinite extent (as opposed to being locally bound in time and space).

9. Both of these assumptions depart from those that are made by most psychologists and neuro-psychologists.

10. PSYCHOLOGISTS STUDY MANY PRECONSCIOUS PROCESSES FOR EXAMPLE: • Incidental memory • Blind sight • Implicit learning • Subliminal (suboptimal) perception • Unconscious biases • Parapsychologists add Psi Processes

11. ACCORDING TO OUR THEORY • We assume that at every moment the mind strives to bring the most useful experience to consciousness. • We may try to understand how it does this by using conscious processes in an analogical way. • This is surely imprecise, but it is the best we can do.

12. First, something like a decision must be made as to how relevant or important something is. • Then, if something is understood to be relevant/important, something like another decision must be made as to whether to express that content positively by including it in the experience, or negatively by excluding it from the experience.

13. ASSIMILATION AND CONTRAST • Contextual material (like suboptimal and extrasensory information) may enter into a perception (like a preference judgment) in either of two ways: • Reference to the material may be made in the perception (ASSIMILATION), or • Reference to the material may be avoided in the perception (CONTRAST).

14. ASSIMILATION AND CONTRAST • In parapsychology, we have called these effects PSI-HITTING and PSI-MISSING, respectively. • ASSIMILATION is expressed by an above-chance reference to the content in the response. • CONTRAST is expressed by a below-chance reference to the content.

15. WHAT DETERMINES WHICH WILL OCCUR? • Our model says that extrasensory material should follow the same psychological patterns as other pre-conscious material. • If the material is understood pre-consciously to be pertinent to the GOAL of the perception, it will be ASSIMILATED. • If it is understood to be contrary to the GOAL it will be subjected to CONTRAST and suppressed. • These processes have been studied in recent years by cognitive psychologists.

16. What is the GOAL of a perception? • To be true and useful, and congruent with other personal goals of the organism. • More specifically, material is more likely to be assimilated: • If it is congruent with the task (e.g. evaluative material if the task is evaluative or colored material if the task is identifying colors). • If it or its source is understood to be possible, or not too unlikely.

17. If it is emotionally acceptable to the organism. • If it is congruent with most of the other evidence available pre-consciously and consciously. • If it comes from an acceptable source (a source seen as reliable, appropriate and valid). • If it is important in terms of the goals-of-the-moment (e.g. forming an esthetic judgment that is reasonable) • If it is important in terms of more stable goals (e.g. safety, approval, need for achievement, avoidance of things similar to former traumas, etc.)

18. TAKE THE EXPERIENCE OF PREFERENCE – WHAT INFLUENCES IT? • There are conscious factors, such as explicit goals and values • There are qualities of the stimulus, such as beauty, or ugliness, or utility, or familiarity. • There are also many unconscious contributors, such as forgotten experiences, implicit motives, familiarity, novelty, situational constraints, and • Even a past unconscious exposure to something contributes

19. IS THIS BEAUTIFUL?

20. OR THIS?

21. OR THIS?

22. Clearly • The stimulus itself accounts for a lot of the preference. • Most people would agree that the mountaintop is more appealing than the snarling dog, and the umbrella is in between. • But what about more subtle differences? • It is with these more subtle differences that other influences can be seen.

23. IS THIS ONE APPEALING?

24. THAT WAS QUICK • In a typical suboptimal perception study, the exposure is much briefer • 1/1000 of a second is typical • Such fast exposures are not possible with computer monitors • 1/100 of a second is more feasible, and is normally unconscious, if it preceded and followed by distracting “masks.” • This permits the study of preconscious sensory experiences.

25. THE MERE EXPOSURE EFFECT (MEE) • It has been known for some time that our liking for something tends to be increased simply by being exposed to it • Perhaps surprisingly, this effect is strongest if the exposure is not conscious!

26. This effect is measured by presenting suboptimal exposures of something. • Then showing that thing consciously, • And asking the person how much he or she likes it. • Pre-exposed material is compared to equally likable material not pre-exposed. • Even though the exposure was never conscious, the exposed material tends to be preferred.

27. OUR STUDY ATTEMPTED TO REPLICATE THE MEE • Our exposures used a computer and monitor, and were 1/100 second in duration. • We also measured some things that have been found to affect MEE. • And tested some other things that we thought might affect it.

28. WHAT ABOUT ESP? • We also very briefly presented material that was completely covered by a black screen. • This was analogous to the older technique of enclosing a card inside an opaque envelope. • These were our ESP targets. • Can merely defining hidden material as an ESP target elicit an MEE?

29. LIKE THIS, BUT MUCH FASTER

30. A MANIPULATION OF UNCONSCIOUS ATTITUDE • Half our participants were also flashed suboptimal exposures of the message: Mommy and I are one. The other half saw: Mommy is leaving. • “Mommy and I are one” (MIO) was intended to evoke a mood of greater openness to other material. • “Mommy is leaving” was intended to induce a mood of less openness.

31. MIO • This has been studied fairly extensively. • Arose out of psychoanalytic theory. • Has been found to have many beneficial effects (when the number of subliminal exposures is small). • We wondered how it might influence subliminal MEE and extrasensory MEE.

32. OTHER VARIABLES WE MEASURED • Personality variables. We take these as indicating stable, consciously accessible, patterns of motivation. We used: • the NEO-PI (5 factors with 30 facets) • A test of Need for Cognition • A measure of boredom-proneness • A test of Need for Structure • A test of Boundary Thinness • A sheep-goat question • Other assorted questions of possible interest

33. We also assessed current mood • We asked each participant to recount their earliest memory. These were scored for negative-positive affect and used as an implicit measure of mood • As an explicit (or self-report) measure of mood we asked each person to rate themselves on the scales of Happy-Sad, and Upbeat-Downhearted; then averaged these ratings

34. We used these mood ratings to check the effectiveness of the MIO variable • Based on prior research, we expected that the implicit measure would be a more sensitive indicator of this effect than the explicit measures • Participants were expected to express more positive moods in the MIO than in the ML condition.

35. TO TEST SUBLIMINALITY • We flashed a series of ten pictures at 1/100th second. • Following each flash, four pictures were presented on the screen • One of these was the picture that had just been flashed, the other three were decoys. • The participant tried to guess the one that had been flashed (chance = 2.5)

36. OVERVIEW OF DESIGN • 78 ADULT PARTICIPANTS WERE TESTED. • 75 WERE STUDENTS AT LIVERPOOL-HOPE UNIVERSITY, 3 WERE RRC VOLUNTEERS. • SEVENTEEN EXTRA PEOPLE TOOK PART BUT HAD TO BE EXCLUDED BECAUSE OF COMPUTER MALFUNCTIONS THAT LED TO STIMULUS EXPOSURE TIMES LONGER THAN 1/100TH SECOND.

37. EACH PARTICIPANT • Prior to testing, each P filled out a NEO-PI, and the other self-report measures. • Then watched a 3-minute relaxation video. • Then watched the screen that was filled with a colored pattern while fixating upon a central point. • During the presentation of the pattern, P received exposures of suboptimal targets, ESP targets, and one of the Mommy messages, at regular intervals.

38. For each P, 25 pictures were flashed sub optimally, 4 times each (100 total suboptimal exposures). • 25 pictures that were black-masked were also flashed for .01 second, 1 time each. • One of the mommy messages was flashed 4 times. • These presentations were mixed randomly.

39. Then the participant was asked to relate his or her earliest memory, which was recorded by the Experimenter. E sometimes prompted for more details if they were lacking. • Then the participant was asked to rate his or her current mood using the three adjective-pairs (happy vs. sad, upbeat vs. downhearted, and peppy vs. lethargic –only the first two were highly correlated, so they were used).

40. At this point the participant was asked to make preference-choices between pairs of pictures. 50 pairs were presented. 25 of the pairs contained a suboptimal target along with a control picture matched for likability and intensity. 25 other pairs contained an ESP target along with a matched control picture. All of the pictures were rated as highly pleasant or moderately pleasant.

41. For example

42. Then the participant was presented with the 10 suboptimal exposures, with each one followed by an array of 4 pictures, to see if accurate guessing was possible (too high an overall score would be taken to indicate that the presentations were not adequately subliminal, or else ESP guessing was operating at a high level in this task). • Following this, each participant was told whether their Suboptimal and ESP responses showed a positive or negative effect of the exposures, and whether or not they could significantly guess the subliminal items.

43. ASSIMILATION/CONTRAST AND THE MEE • Construct has not been explicitly applied to the MEE before. • However, our model suggests that it should apply. • while positive MEE effects have been most common, null effects and negative ones have been reported too. • This suggests that ASSIMILATION/CONTRAST is going on.

44. STUDY OBJECTIVES • To see if extrasensory material can influence preference judgments in a way similar to that found with suboptimal material. • To predict the direction of influence of extrasensory as well as suboptimal influence (ASSIMILATION AND CONTRAST) by assessing stable motivations • To explore the influence of the MIO prime on both psi and subliminal effects.

45. VARIABLES EXPECTED TO INFLUENCE SUBLIMINAL MEE • Need for cognition (higher should go with more assimilation). • Need for structure (higher should go with more contrast). • Boredom proneness (higher should go with more contrast). • Creative orientation • The first three have been reported before, the last one is predicted by First Sight theory.

46. VARIABLES EXPECTED TO INFLUENCE PSI EFFECT • Openness (especially facets of openness toward fantasy, feelings and aesthetics, based upon First Sight theory, which emphasizes importance of orienting toward “marginal”, inner experiences in expressing psi). • Attitude toward the possibility of ESP being real (Sheep-Goat effect). • Need for structure (negative). • Creative orientation. • Anxiety and vulnerability (both negative).

47. ADDITIONAL PREDICTIONS USING THE BOUNDARY THINNESS MEASURES • We factor-analyzed the Boundary Questionnaire, and five factors emerged. • We called them Regression, Confusion, Need for Order, Unconscious Orientation and Interpersonal Merger • We predicted assimilation effects for Unconscious Orientation and Interpersonal Merger, on both psi and subliminal MEE. • Since Regression and Confusion have dysfunctional implications, no prediction was made for them, nor for Need for Order.

48. WE ALSO EXPECTED • An overall preference for subliminally exposed material (a subliminal MEE), based on previous findings. • A positive correlation between preference directions for the subliminal and extrasensory effects, based upon First Sight theory and previous findings on other types of subliminal and psi effects. • That is, we expected persons who tend to assimilate the influence of one source of influence should do it with the other as well.

49. THE MOMMY VARIABLE • We expected MIO to be associated with more positive mood than ML, particularly as measured implicitly by the early memories. • We were interested in seeing what effects if any this manipulation might have upon the two MEEs.

50. OVERALL FINDINGS • There was NO significant MEE for subliminal material, contrary to previous results. • Nor was there a significant MEE for extrasensory material. • The two were NOT correlated with each other.