The Effects of Chronological Age on GESP Ability

– Ernesto Spinelli –

ABSTRACT

It was hypothesized that the ability to perform successfully in a GESP task declines as the human being matures and develops. Generally, then it would be expected that the lower the chronological age of the subjects, the better their ability to perform in a GESP task.

In the two experiments reported, a large number of subjects aged between 3 and 70 years of age were divided into ten chronological age groups and tested for GESP ability. Results obtained showed very highly significant scores by age groups composed of subjects between 3 and 8 years of age, but only chance level scores obtained by subsequent age groups. Results obtained also indicated that within the three age groups that scored at above chance levels, the youngest age group scored at significantly greater levels than the two other age groups and that the second youngest age group scored at levels significantly greater than the third age group. No significant differences between male and female scores in any of the 10 age groups were obtained.

This work is part of the author’s PhD thesis under the supervision of Professor T.R. Lee of the psychology department at the University of Surrey, England. Both the Parapsychology Foundation and the Society have financially supported the work for Psychical Research.

INTRODUCTION

For the past three years, and with the financial assistance of both the Parapsychology Foundation and the Society for Psychical Research, I have been conducting experiments using the telepathy paradigm as part of my PhD research thesis at the University of Surrey, England, under the direct supervision of its professor of psychology, Professor, T.R. Lee.

The experiments I shall be discussing tonight are the first two of a completed series dealing with my theoretical proposal that GESP can be best seen and understood as an alternative system of cognition.

The two experiments I shall be discussing tonight are concerned with some of the developmental aspects of this proposal. Specifically, I’ve hypothesized that the ability to employ GESP declines as the human being learns more and more to employ and generate individually specific cognitive relations. Speaking very generally, we could say that once the child’s ‘ego’ matures or, to use a Piagetian framework, once the child enters the concrete operational stage wherein he can make real internaised connections then his ability to employ GESP should fall, and that given a GESP experiment his results should generally be along chance lines.

What this means experimentally, of course, is that were one to give a large group of subjects of various ages the same GESP task then, generally, subjects up to about the age of 8 (for that is when the Piagetian stage we mentioned is reached by most Western people), should obtain scores above chance, whereas those following this age should obtain GESP scores at chance levels. What it also means is that within the various subjects aged up to 8 years, the younger the subjects’ chronological age, the higher should be their GESP score.

The experiments I shall talk about now are directly concerned with these two hypotheses.

OUTLINE OF THE INVESTIGATION

A total number of 1000 subjects were tested in the first experiment. These were divided into 10 age groups. Chart 1 gives the breakdown of these groups.

CHART 1 GROUP BREAKDOWN

The schools from which the 4 youngest Age Groups were taken were unstreamed. Experimental pairs of subjects from each age group were taken from two different classrooms on a random basis although strong attempts were made to match each pair of subjects on the basis of intelligence and vocabulary test scores where possible, or, alternatively by means of the assessments of class teachers and head teachers.

Thus, although chronological age was the independent variable, pairs of subjects within each group were matched on intelligence as closely as possible

PROCEDURE

Subjects were tested in teams of two. Upon being introduced to the experimental room each subject was greeted by the experimenter and two assistants and then shown by one of the latter into one of three alternative experimental settings¹ where he was given a set of either “sender” or “receiver” instructions. With groups A, B, C, and D, a brief puppet sketch preceded these instructions and puppets were used throughout to teach the subjects how to “play the guessing game”.

The purpose of the puppets was two-fold: they removed much of the tension generated in young children when being called upon to perform tasks by a group of strangers; and they made the learning of instructions much easier and more interesting.

Subjects in groups A, B, C, and D were also given “thinking caps” (cone-shaped cardboard hats covered with tin foil and wire and padded inside around the ear area) which they wore throughout the experiment.

There was also a two-fold purpose to the thinking caps: they helped to authenticate the experimenter’s claim that the subjects would be playing a game; and they partially attenuated incoming sounds.

Subjects in the remaining age groups were given straightforward instructions.

Once each subject entered his booth or experimental area he was shown his stimulus choice machine (these were called “guessing boxes” by way of explaining their function to the subjects).

The sender was told that once the red indicator light on his “guessing box” went on, he should pick up the top card in a pile of twenty (20) cards and slot it into his machine. He would see that the card contained five (5) different pictures on it, each of which was positioned so that a button from the guessing box would appear beneath it. The sender was to look at each of the five pictures and then choose the one he wanted to “transmit” to the receiver. Pressing the button underneath the chosen picture would make this choice. This done, a light would go on beneath his choice so that he could be certain of the picture he had picked and he could concentrate or relax² with that picture in mind. If a CHIME rang, then that meant the receiver had guessed the sender’s choice correctly; if nothing happened, then the sender was to wait for the red indicator light to go on again and move on to the next card in his pile.

The receiver was given very similar instructions with the obvious difference that his role was to “try to guess” which of these pictures the sender had chosen and was transmitting to him.

Subjects went through a total of twenty (20) cards throughout the experiment. At the end of the tenth trial, roles were reversed so that each subject acted as sender and receiver.

Subjects were told just before their last trial that it was, in fact their last trial, so they could “try extra hard to guess correctly”.³

Throughout the experiment a ten-track pen recorder recorded:

(a) sender’s choice (ink-lines 1 – 5).

(b) receiver’s choice (ink-lines 6 – 10).

(c) correct hits (ink-lines 5 and 6 appearing simultaneously along with the choices).

The subjects were therefore given only positive feedback of the chime. At no time were they blamed or punished in any way for errors.

The pictures employed in the experiment were either vocabulary test pictures or pictures of abstract shapes designed by the author. 50 different vocabulary test pictures and 50 different abstract shape pictures were used in all to go onto the 20 cards. Each card was made of either 5 different vocabulary test pictures or 5 different abstract shape pictures. No one picture was ever repeated throughout the run. All pictures were of the same size and were in black and white.

Although obviously the same pictures were presented to the sender and receiver during each trial, the positional arrangement was altered so that any effects due to a positional bias would be controlled for.

Results

Charts Two and Three indicate the results obtained from each of the 10 age groups tested. Simple analysis of the data revealed that Groups A to C obtained scores significantly above chance (p. X .001). Similarly Group A scores were significantly greater than Group B scores (p. X .001) and Group C scores (p. X .001)) and Group B scores were significantly greater than Group C scores (p. X .001). There were no significant differences between male and female scores in any of the groups.

CHART 2 GROUP SCORES

CHART 3 MALE AND FEMALE GROUP SCORES

From a cursory glance at the data obtained it can be seen that the two hypotheses we made earlier are validated by the data.

Now some of you might raise the argument that such results were obtained, at least to some extent, due to the fact that subjects were allowed to choose the card they wished to ‘transmit’. The principal reason as to why choice was allowed in the first place was my expectation that there might be a crucial motivational factor in enhancing GESP ability. And since the data recorders were, in fact, recording all choices made an analysis of these choices would reveal any non-random bias on the part of the subjects. In fact, the analysis of subject choices revealed no such bias emerging. At this point, I personally was convinced that the results obtained were indicative of GESP ability. But both positive and negative criticisms soon led me to carrying out a second experiment where subject choice was eliminated and replaced by pre-randomized targets.

Personally, I was convinced that the new results obtained would be lower than the previous ones because the sender’s role became, to my mind, too passive making him prone to boredom, but, much to my surprise, the results obtained were highly similar to the previous experiments.

CHART 4 shows the results of the scores obtained in the random target experiment. In this experiment only 4 age groups were tested. These were the three youngest age groups from the previous experiment and a University group. There were 50 subjects in each group, 25 males and 25 females, giving a total number of 25 teams per age group.

Once again, the results obtained showed that GROUPS L, M, and N obtained scores above those predicted by chance (p. X .001) while GROUP P obtained chance level scores. GROUP L subjects scored at levels significantly greater than either GROUP M (p. X .001) or GROUP N (p. X .001) subjects, while GROUP M subjects obtained scores significantly greater than GROUP N (p. X .001) subjects.

CHART 4 RANDOM TARGET EXPERIMENT GROUP SCORES

CONCLUSION

The results obtained from the two experiments confirm the experimental hypothesis that GESP ability is negatively related to chronological age.

NOTES