Security measures in an automated ganzfeld system

Journal of Parapsychology, The, June, 1996 by Kathy S. Dalton, Robert L. Morris, Deborah L. Delanoy, Dean I. Radin, Robin Taylor, Richard Wiseman

DISCUSSION

In our efforts to set up appropriate automated ganzfeld procedures from which to attempt replication of the PRL's successful series of ganzfeld trials, we feel that we were moderately successful. Obviously, ganzfeld systems and their particular designs will vary from lab to lab. This description of the Koestler Chair facility is in no way to be construed as the perfect design for all automated ganzfeld systems, but we hope that the precautions we have outlined here will aid in the continued development of such systems.

Although currently the electromagnetic shielding on the receiver's room is not completely adequate to shield out the full range of electronic signalling equipment, we feel that electromagnetic shielding of the receiver's room is necessary in order to reduce the possibility that readily available electronic signalling systems may be used. In addition, in laboratories where the sender is not located within the direct sight of the experimenter, installation of surveillance cameras, hidden or otherwise, in hallways and in appropriate sending and receiving rooms make it possible for experimenters to monitor these areas without physically being present. However, the psychological drawbacks to such cameras, which may give participants the feeling that "big brother" is "watching" them and make them feel uncomfortable and self-conscious, has led current experimenters at the Koestler Chair to rely instead on door-mounted signalling systems and monitoring of the environment by lab members during experiments. Honorton himself cautioned against the use of cameras inside the sender and receiver rooms (C. Honorton, personal communication, 1992). In addition, in situations in which sound leakage from the sender's room is possible and the sender has been asked to remain silent throughout the session, the use of a voice-activated tape recorder in the sender's room would indicate whether senders verbalized aloud during sending.

Given that we have experimenter effects in parapsychology as in other sciences, additional effort can be made to explore differences between those experimenters who are successful and those who are unsuccessful (e.g., Schlitz, 1986; Schmeidler & Maher, 1981) with an eye toward identifying talented experimenters and appropriate experimenter training techniques. It is also important to identify procedures that are more resistant to experimenter effects as well as participants who may be less affected by differences among experimenters.

It is our view that the physical environment in which the ganzfeld takes place must be held as constant and secure as possible to aid in our understanding of psi phenomena. We acknowledge that there is no such thing as a single absolutely fraud-proof experiment, and we would not claim otherwise. However, it is vital that experimental protocol that provides a high measure of security be coupled with the type of warm, encouraging, and friendly environment that psi seems to demand. In this way all parties concerned can proceed comfortably with the business of doing research and learning from each session.