Abstract

The authors distinguish between a random target selection procedure which, in principle, excludes sequential dependencies, and a resulting random target sequence that may contain peculiarities--especially in terms of target frequency distribution (TFD), which may correspond to a subject\'s response biases. Post-hoc corrections that adjust the hit probability are available. A correction is not needed in case of a balanced situation. The distinction is illustrated for the random target selection procedure and the resulting target sequence in the PRL autoganzfeld studies. A conservative correction results in a slight reduction of the overall significance and a reduction in differences in scoring rates on static and dynamic targets, thus weakening the firm conclusion drawn in the original paper (D. J. Bem and C. Honorton, 1994) that dynamic targets are superior to static targets. A peculiar TFD is found which cannot be explained on the basis of the target selection procedure!. Most notably, the targets 77, 78, 79, and 80 are over-represented, which results in a strong over-representation of Set 20 which contains these 4 targets. However, the reported deviations from a well-balanced TFD cannot explain the excess of hits reported for the PRL autoganzfeld study.