◆ SpookStack

against eventual replicability. In the Maimonides se- ries, likewise, three successive replications (Lines C, D, and E in Table 1) yielded no significant result, yet they are part of a program yielding highly significant overall results. — If results of such potentially great interest and scientific importance as those of the Maimonides program had been reported on a more conventional topic, one might expect them to be widely and ac- curately described in reviews of the field to which they were relevant, and 10 be analyzed carefully as a basis for sound evaluation of whether replication and extension of the research were indicated, or of whether errors could be detected and understood. What has happened in this instance of anomalous research findings? Representation of the Maimonides Research in Books by Psychologists It is appropriate to begin with E. M. Hansel’s 1980 revision of his earlier critical book on parapsychology. As part of his attempt to bring the earlier book up to date, he included an entire chapter on experiments on telepathy in dreams. One page was devoted to a description of the basic method used in the Maimon- ides experiments; one paragraph summarized the im- pressive outcome of 10 of the experiments. The rest of the chapter was devoted mainly toa specific account of the experiment in which psychologist Robert Van de Castle was the subject (the outcome is summarized in Line G of my Table 1) and to the attempted rep- lication at the University of Wyoming (Belvedere & Foulkes, 1971), in which Van de Castle was again the subject. Another page was devoted to another of the Maimonides experiments that was also repeated at the University of Wyoming (Foulkes et al., 1972). Hansel did not mention the replication by Globus et al. (1968), whose authors felt that the results encour- aged further exploration. Hansel gave more weight to the two negative outcomes at Wyoming than to. the --sunrof the Maimonides research, arguing that sensory. “TUES SUppusedly ‘permitted by the procedures at Mai- monides, not possible because of greater care taken by the Wyoming experimenters, were responsible for the difference in results. He did not provide, of course, the full account of procedures presented in the original Maimonides reports that might persuade many read- ers that Hansel’s interpretation is far from compelling. . Nor did he consider why some of the other experi- ments at Maimonides, not obviously distinguished in the care with which they were done from the two that were replicated (e.g., those on Lines E, M, and O of Table 1) yielded a close-to-chance outcome such as Hansel might have expected sensory cuing to prevent. Hansel | exaggerated the opportunities for sensory cuing—that is, for the percipient to obtain by ordinary “sensory means some information about the target for Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 the night. He did this notably by misinterpreting an ambiguous statement in the Maimonides reperts, not mentioning that his interpretation was incompatible with other passages; his interpretation was in fact er- roneous, as shown by Akers (1984, pp. 128-129). Furthermore, Hansel did not alert the reader to the great care exerted by the researchers to eliminate pos- sible sources of sensory cuing. Most important is the fact that Hansel did not provide any plausible ac- count—other than. fraud—of how the opportunities ‘for sensory cuing that ‘he ‘claimed existed would be likely to lead to the striking findings of the research. For example, he seemed to consider important the fact that at: Maimonides the agent could leave his or her room during the night to go to the bathroom, whereas in Wyoming the agent had a room with its own bathroom, and the outer door to the room was sealed with tape to prevent the agent from emerging. Hansel did not attempt to say how the agent’s visit to the bathroom could have altered the details of the percipient’s dreams each night in a manner distinc- lively appropriate to that night's target. The only plausible route of influence on the dream record seems to be deliberate fraud involving the researchers and their subjects. The great number and variety of personnel in these studies—experimenters, agents, percipients, and judges—makes fraud especially un- likely as an explanation of the positive findings; but Hanse} did not mention this important fact. lt_appears to me that all of Hansel’s criticisms ; of the Maimonides experiments are relevant only on thé hypothesis of fraud (except for the mistaken crit- icism I have mentioned above). He said that uninten- tional communication was more likely but provided no ¢vidence either that it occurred or that such com- munication—in any form in which it might have oc- curred—could have produced such consistent results as emerged from the Maimonides experiments. ] infer that Hansel. was merely avoiding making explicit his unsupported accusations of fraud. Fraud is an inter- pretation always important to keep in mind, and it is one that could not be entirely excluded even by pre- cautions going beyond those used in the Wyoming studies. But the fact that fraud was as always, theo- retically possible hardly justifies dismissal of a series of carefully conducted studies that offer important suggestions for opening up a new line of inquiry into a topic potentially of great significance. Especially re- grettable is Hansel's description of various supposed defects in the experiments as though they mark the experiments as being carelessly conducted by general scientific criteria, whereas in fact the supposed defects are relevant only if one assumes fraud. A reader who is introduced to the Maimonides research by Hansel’s chapter is likely to get a totally erroneous impression of the care taken by the experimenters to avoid various possible sources of error. The one thing they could November 1985 * American Psychologist Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 1225