Follow-up on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Remote Viewing Experiments
📄 Original study ↗📌 Appears in:
Plain English Summary
Remember those CIA psychic spy programs from the Cold War? A team of mostly skeptical researchers decided to rerun those 'remote viewing' experiments with modern rigor — triple-blind protocols, over 20,000 trials, and 634 participants. They split people into believers and nonbelievers and gave them different target types. The believers viewing images scored impressively above chance, with an effect size (a measure of how big the result is) nearly double what the original CIA-funded studies found. The Bayes factor — a statistical way of weighing evidence — strongly favored a real effect. Here's where it gets really interesting: emotional intelligence, specifically the ability to process experiences intuitively, predicted about 20% of who'd succeed. People with low experiential emotional intelligence actually scored below chance. The authors carefully note that while the statistics are solid, they stop short of declaring remote viewing 'empirically verified' — a surprisingly cautious conclusion given their own strong results.
Research Notes
A skeptically-oriented team obtained positive RV results with a large sample and rigorous triple-blind protocol. Proposes the PIC (Production-Identification-Comprehension) emotional model as a mechanism for anomalous cognition. Edwin May provided declassified CIA materials. Speaks directly to the Stargate-era remote viewing debate and the question of whether individual differences predict psi performance.
A quasi-experimental forced-choice replication of the CIA-funded SAIC remote viewing experiments using 634 participants (347 nonbelievers with coordinate targets, 287 believers with image targets) across 20,288 trials. Emotional intelligence was measured via the MSCEIT. Group 2 (believers/images) scored significantly above chance (M=10.09/32, d=0.853, BF₁₀=60.5), exceeding the average SAIC effect size of d=0.447. The experiential area of EI predicted 19.5% of RV hit variance in Group 2. Participants with low experiential EI (<89) scored below chance. A triple-blind protocol with SEM invariance analysis addressed prior criticisms by Hyman (1996) and Utts (1996). Authors conclude RV is statistically but not empirically verified.
Links
Related Papers
Extends
Replication Of
Precursor
Cites
- The Experimental Evidence for Parapsychological Phenomena: A Review — Cardeña, Etzel (2018)
- Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: The Case of Non-Local Perception, A Classical and Bayesian Review of Evidences — Tressoldi, Patrizio E (2011)
- Searching for the Impossible: Parapsychology's Elusive Quest — Reber, Arthur S (2019)
- Why Most Research Findings About Psi Are False: The Replicability Crisis, the Psi Paradox and the Myth of Sisyphus — Rabeyron, Thomas (2020)
- Entertaining Without Endorsing: The Case for the Scientific Investigation of Anomalous Cognition — Schooler, Jonathan W (2018)
- Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect — Bem, Daryl J (2011)
- Failing the Future: Three Unsuccessful Attempts to Replicate Bem's 'Retroactive Facilitation of Recall' Effect — Ritchie, Stuart J (2012)
- The Capricious, Actively Evasive, Unsustainable Nature of Psi: A Summary and Hypotheses — Kennedy, J.E (2003)
- Predictive Physiological Anticipation Preceding Seemingly Unpredictable Stimuli: A Meta-Analysis — Mossbridge, Julia (2012)
- An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications — Mumford, Michael D (1995)
Companion
Also by these authors
More in Remote Viewing
Exploring the Correlates and Nature of Subjective Anomalous Interactions with Objects (Psychometry): A Mixed Methods Survey
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: The Case of Non-Local Perception, a Classical and Bayesian Review of Evidences
Remote Viewing as Applied to Futures Studies
Information and Uncertainty in Remote Perception Research
Apparent Association Between Effect Size in Free Response Anomalous Cognition Experiments and Local Sidereal Time
📋 Cite this paper
Escolà-Gascón, Álex, Houran, James, Dagnall, Neil, Drinkwater, Kenneth, Denovan, Andrew (2023). Follow-up on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Remote Viewing Experiments. Brain and Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.3026
@article{escola_gascon_2023_cia_remote_viewing,
title = {Follow-up on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Remote Viewing Experiments},
author = {Escolà-Gascón, Álex and Houran, James and Dagnall, Neil and Drinkwater, Kenneth and Denovan, Andrew},
year = {2023},
journal = {Brain and Behavior},
doi = {10.1002/brb3.3026},
}