Abstract

Notes that L. L. Gatlin (see record 1980-11111-001) defines the basic measurement obtained from her analysis of ESP test data as one showing the degree of patterning (nonrandomness) in the target and response series when these are considered separately. The method does not show whether these patterns are similar in detailed biases. Her findings may be relevant to data from tests in which Ss received immediate feedback after each trial, as in the C. T. Tart (1976) training study. But when the pattern analyses are extended to data from tests in which Ss did not receive immediate feedback, similar degrees of patterning in targets and responses cannot account for a significant number of matches between them ("hits"), as in the A. R. Martin and F. P. Stribic (1940) data. This is clear from the fact that the high scoring rate in these data was found only for the target order for which the S made calls; control data obtained by comparing responses to the same target sequence after a "cut" was made showed only chance hitting even though the sequential pattern remained unchanged. It is, therefore, obvious that the patterning cannot explain the S's extrachance scoring. If further investigations show a tendency for degree of patterning and ESP scoring level to be correlated, an interpretation must be sought in terms other than the "normal" one offered by Gatlin. (5 ref)