British Journal of Psychology (1990), 81, 455-468 Printed in Great Britain 455 © 1990 The British Psychological Society A ‘sheep-goat effect’ in repetition avoidance: Extra-sensory perception as an effect of subjective probability ? Peter Brugger*, Theodor Landis and Marianne Regard Newrapsycholegy Unit, Department of Nenrology, University Hospital, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland Performance on extri-sentory perception (ESP) and on subjective random generition (SRG) has been shown independently to differ along 2 number of personality dimensions. One of the variabies known consistently to influence ESP performance but not studied yet in SRG experiments is belief in the paranormal. We report three experiments on subjective randomness as a fanction of belief in ESP: (1) a retrospective analysis of randomness in multiple choice answers of a telepathy experiment revealed chat believers in ESP (‘sheep’) avoided repetitive responses significantly more than non-believers (‘goats’); (2) in an experiment where subjects had to produce random strings of the digits 1-6, sheep avoided repetitions significantly more than goats; (3) in an experiment where subjects had to compare equiprobable short random sequences, sheep underestimated the number of mathematically expected repetitions significantly more than goats. Inall thee eapeiment tronger bles aginst the Incidence of dre repetitions ‘was found for subjects believing in ESP than for those denying its possibility. This may indicate that believers are more prone to an illusion of causality in the face of everyday coincidences. We suggest that effects of subjective probability and, particularly, of subjective randomness should be considered in future studies concerned with individual differences in ESP scoring. ‘A vast body of experiments on subjective random generation (SRG) has shown that subjects do not generate true random sequences even when explicitly instructed to do so (see Budescu, 1987; Wagensar, 1972; for overviews). The most frequent bias in the production of subjective random series is the avoidance of direct repetitions of the same element. The same bias is found in the subjective appreciation of a random process, best known as the ‘gambler’s fallacy’, i.e. the roulette player’s erroneous assumption that the probability of a red number appearing would incresse after 2 Jong run of black numbers (Falk, 1981; Lopes & Oden, 1987; Wagenasr, 1970). The implicit request to generate random series was also found in another context. In extra-sensory perception (ESP) experiments, subjects are usually led to believe in the randomness of the sequence of symbols they are asked to guess, and are thus encouraged to distribute their guesses randomly. Indeed, the distribution of guesses in such experiments shows the same non-random sequencing as the subjective random series produced in other contexts (Poppel, 1967; Pratt & Soal, 1952). Since the target sequences in such experiments are pseudo-random as well, it has been’ + Requests for reprints.Peter Brugger and others 456 sjoniuos aarssordop ump paserq 21ow sauoped pamiur-oreig, sjonuos [euzou usp passiq sjonu0> yewuOU uBys 133199 agow sauoued pasniul-viesg — 756) “SOPprwyss OPO squamed pasnful urerg Sanlu ureag malAsono [eOOED 10} '7961 ‘s9WIeg stoalqns inydugips x 1 sjosiuo3 yeuz0u ‘E261 ‘ORY ohomnau y8ry uBip 33339q '€261 ‘6964 IPING «RYE poeeIq OW sonOIaN §— > [UEMMIBUEY uUOHIad sq20/qns nOMIU MO] £965 "20ABA, 1961 ‘Tysuhzs098, “9961 ‘ssrom ‘R961 “wsinypeoag > Aosurey maias2a0 [eOnED 2961 H9x20UITW, Bonuoo juniou 20) quot ‘oud sjoruos ump E261 “BPANEA URL paseiq azou soruarydozTyIG 4auaq word sotuasydoziyag sapsosip aureIyaAsg 8961 Suaaonur 403 1961 aBzes suaaonuy osunypeosg 79 Sosurey = ueyp pase ssow susnenxy §—:1¢6] ‘harydump, —ueys soneq uuopad susaeay, worsen 8261 ‘MpUIds 4 PSG) “TRSUEH snpe {motaz340 105 saynps 78 vaqo) 16961 SPPIG ‘Ue PEseIG B30W wasp — ORL “SOUIDNIG —UA JONIIq WAOJsad UDIPTIYD aay soussyey SBI asuodsas UO 3395 “DUS spay = sounmopred uo say :aSH aqeBe A, (US) vonessue8 wopues aanzalqns pus (gga) Uondsosed Asosuss-wIx9 YIoq BuNIIYE se PaqUoSp SIqEUEA “T F1G¥L457 Exctra-sensory perception ‘9861 ‘98uLNON feg61 ‘ueudy 7p O4eEY 1961 “smears [rasou 205 96 SH ust ‘sermon somusaydoznyps 208 303 “4961 ‘S812 61 “7? 4 SAFOIS SHL6L ‘Snyduowrs 7 OH 9461 “72 40 suai, 9161 “79 10 sual, ZL6L “7? 4 Uspsteg eq Jo vorDamp sigs yseqposy [wH3-Aq-1613,1, (iL6t ‘seeuaBeyy, 299 ‘sauass vonEnp 358) Ur DseOIOUT YITA sBIq JO 9e8Dz9Uy vopemp 450 Uf 2erarUT IPM sei Jo 9¢82I9q] eeseaicece Gna Fane 2h sSnup Supepos pus Sunvanse 103 soeeq a1ys0ddo auyeseq ump paserq sso :Supepag auypeeq usw poser as0ur : Supeapoy (saiqqes) sjos1u0o usp poserq sous :Zunsansy Za6t “TIA, |AZIAO 105 oust” pw a sorsaro0y speqpasy eed TL 8961 “SIPPEPS 205 6961 “PON vopemp sm Suses9u {291 ‘wemoaiy © wpm sourunoyred Buiseas9q orssn3sip vonssaqijap arqenye snopsuoo ya DEA 203 9961 ‘31YM —=«-apour asuodsar snosuIuods ‘Bp6l ‘3u9q>g pve souwuwoyzad san0g BOW UMp sy8ry L161 “3028305, Sopepes ‘samo; Sunsansy auyareg we £561 SaIOpey —»29uFMOysad somo] : SupEpog sjonuos uss 9161 ‘onsuQ — s0UsUNIOJIOd 1oNIOq :SuEARIY 1961 auyperq we “ye 4 ypumqng — soveuoysed asneq :Buneansy vopenp 4seJ, Surpuodsas jo Auaunuods s8nup Sunse Aqjenuso Jo vonsnisonmpy458 Peter Brugger and others repeatedly suggested that ESP phenomena may be the result of matching wo series, both from biased sources (Brown, 19532, Gatlin, 1977: Goodfellow, 1938). As consequence, tests for randomness of target series have become a part of every serious experimental investigation. Marked deviations from independence have been described for randomization by card shuffling (e.g. Mischo, 1975; Nicol, 1959}, by the use of random number tables (Hardy, Harvie & Koestler, 1973; Nicol, 1955), well as for computer-generated pseudo-random numbers (Boller, 1988; Gatlin, 1979). In fact, outside the context of ESP, even random number generators based on natural random processes (c.g. radioactive decay or thermal noise) have been shown to suffer from the same non-random features (von Hoerner, 1957} as thuse relying un algorithmic procedures ~ they produce *music rather than noise’ (Peach, 1961). Although, in some instances, target distributions used in pacapsychological experiments have passed several tests (e.g. Radin & Bosworth, 1985), the problem of testing pseudo-random sequences is a logical one: it is essentially impossible to prove randomness ~ instead one has to disprove non-randomness (see Chaitin, 1975). Thus, the addition of one more randomicity test can sometimes even detect a strony bias in a sequence considered to be random on grounds of tests previously passed (for examples, see Gatlin, 1979). ‘A more proper procedure to avoid the pitfalls of randomness is to “cross-check* subjects’ response series, i.e. to match the responses to a pseudo target list deriving from the same randomization source as the real target sequence. Thus, any global bias intrinsic to a specific random generator would be expected to give rise t extra chance matching in both direct and control checks. The fact that on some occasions extra chance results were only found for direct but not for cross-checks (references in Brown, 19536, also to exceptions) was taken us evidence for a yenuine paranormal information transmission, However, the method of cross-checking does not address the problem of local bias: every random series, including ideal ones, necessarily shows deviations from independence over short periods, the Huctuation between these periods being most pronounced for algorithmically generated pseudo-random number sequences (see Kauth, 1981, also fora valuable discussion of local vs. global bias). Thus, the method of cross-checking short runs of guesses should be accompanied by tests for local bias in both real and cross target series. Such 4 combination would allow at least a qualitative judgement of the correlation between target bias and ESP performance. However, parapsychology’s main argument against the interpretation of ESP asa phenomenon of sequential response bias is the finding that between-group differences in ESP test performance is due to experimental or to subject variables. On first consideration, this is of course a crucial argument for the view of ESP as a phenomenon of information transmission, since the variables referred to are known also to affect normal sensory capabilities. However, a closer look reveals that very similar or identical parameters have also influenced qualitative aspects of SRG in non-ESP settings. A summary of the parameters found to affect ESP performance ax well as SRG is presented in Table 1. ‘The behavioural and experimental variables studied in ESP experiments have been shown to affect sequential bias in u consistent manner, yet their possible influence on guessing bias was not addressed in the respective ESP studies (in spite ofExxtra-sensory perception 459 recommendations to do so by Blackmore, 1984). In retrospect, this may well have been a difficult task. The results of different SRG experiments are not easily compared with each other: they differ in the kind and number of alternatives to randomize, in the length of the series, in the measures of bias used and in the precise instructions given to subjects. Since the same holds true for ESP experiments, a direct comparison of SRG and ESP findings might be even more questionable. Nevertheless, some trends seem evident. As shown in Table 1, variables found to increase ESP performance in parapsychological studies normally increased the deviation from true randomness in SRG experiments. Especially striking is the inconsistent effect of one variable in both SRG and ESP literature: variations in task duration are reported to affect response bias as well as ESP performance in quite opposite ways. Furthermore, in the case of administration of centrally acting drugs, activating and sedating drugs are described as having opposite effects on response bias (repetition avoidance and response perseveration, respectively: Douglas & Isaacson, 1966; Truijens, Trumbo & Wagenasr, 1976). Again, the same holds for ESP performance — activating and sedating drugs tend to lead to opposite scoring rates relative to mean chance expectation (‘PSI missing” and ‘PSI hitting’, respectively: Sargent, 1977). On the other hand, there is at least one variable which seems to go against a positive correlation of ESP success and strength of sequential response bias: though the subjective random scrics of neurotic subjects quite consistently show more pronounced biases than those of normal controls (e.g. Kuhl & Schénpfiug, 1974), a subject’s ESP scores are usually negatively correlated to their scores on neuroticism scales (Palmer, 1982, for review). However, as Palmer (1982, p. 59) himself concludes, ‘the situation is not as clear as one would like’ — often neuroticism is found to interact with other personality variables (e.g. Mischo & Wittmann, 1981) and Haight, Kanthamani & Kennedy (1978) have reported a positive correlation between neuroticism and ESP performance. Perhaps the most intensely studied variable known to affect ESP performance is belief in ESP. Believers in ESP are commonly termed ‘sheep’ and disbelievers “goats’ (Schmeidler & McConnell, 1958). On pseudo-random target series sheep usually score above mean chance expectation (MCE), while goats show a tendency to score below. This finding, known as the ‘sheep-goat effect’, is probably the most consistent finding in experimental parapsychology (Palmer, 1971, for a review). The fact that believers and non-believers consistently diverge in their ESP performance has been taken by some authors (e.g. Mischo, 1979; Wassermann, 1956) as evidence against the view that ESP represents merely an effect of individual guessing habits. However, in order to support or refute this view, one would have to know whether or not sheep and goats also diverge in their subjective randomness. Such differences are indeed suggested by an eatly observation of Smith & Canon (1954) who found the trend for sheep and goats differed in their response behaviour independent of their ESP performance. More recently, Blackmore & Troscianko (1985) explicitly investigated the response bias of sheep and goats, and found sheep to be more biased in tasks demanding probability judgements but not in the generation of a random process. In the study described here we addressed the question whether or not sheep and goats differ in their subjective randomness, as measured by the individual avoidance460 Peter Brugger and others of repetitions. (A lack of direct repetitions has not only been found in HSP guesses, but also in ESP target series: see Nicol, 1959, and Mischo, 1975, for shuffled cards: Kennedy, 1980, for an electronic random generation device.) Two experiments were designed to examine the generation of random sequences and another to investigate the appreciation of randomness; in all three, performance was measured as a function of belief in ESP. Experiment 1: Extra-sensory perception We retrospectively analysed the avoidance of repetitions in an experiment in telepathy run by experimenters (psychology students under supervision of a senior psychologist) naive to the tested hypothesis (Langohr, 1986). Method Subjects, Sixty-two undergraduate paychology students (19 males, 43 females) served as subjects. They ‘were tested in groups of 4-6. Pracedare. During 2 30-second ‘sending period’ one experimenter looked at a sequence of five symbols (Circle, cross, star, wavy lines of square) which were constructed for each subject group with the aid ‘of computer-generated random numbers. Subjects were sitting in an adjacent fully darkened room. Each subject sat in front of an answet-sheet containing 10 identical horizontal rows each showing the five ‘symbols in the above-mentioned order from left to right. After the sending time, the lights in the testing room were tumed on for a few seconds by a second experimenter allowing subjects to mark the symbol they thought the first experimenter had been looking at. This procedure was repeated 10 times, and each time subjects marked a symbol in the following, lower row. Thus, a vertically arranged sequence of 10 response marks was obtained for each subject. Immediately after the experiment, subjects had to rate theie belief in ESP on a six-point scale, ranging from strong belief (= 1) to strong disbelief (= 6). Scoring. Each subject’s responses were considered as a vertically arranged sequence of spatial directional decisions, since on each trial subjects had to decide whether to mark « symbol to the left, to the right or in the same column 4s in the previous row. In order to obtain « binary code, we scored only directional decisions to the left or to the right of the previous choice. A mark placed in the same column was considered s repetition of the directional choice of the previous row. The total number of repetitions of directional choices was recorded. Results Three subjects had to be discarded from the analysis because of incomplete response sheets. Of the remaining 59 subjects, 28 were considered sheep (rank 1 or 2), 14 indifferent (rank 3 or 4) and 17 goats (rank 5 or 6). (It had been planned in advance to compare the performances of ‘strong’ sheep with that of ‘strong’ goats and we had no prediction concerning the performance of the indifferent subjects.) There was an overall repetition avoidance of directional responses. The mean number of directional repetitions for all subjects was 3.0, significantly less than the mean chance expectation of 4.5 (Wilcoxon z = —5.58, p <.001). The results of the three subgroups (sheep, goats and indifferent subjects) are shown in Fig. 1.4. Sheep (mean = 2.6, SD = 1.4) showed less directional repetitions than goats (mean = 3.6, SD = 1.1) (f= 2.3, p < .02 one-tailed). The mean number of repetitions for thoseExtra-sensary perception 461 indifferent as to belief in ESP fell between these results (mean = 3.1, SD = 1.4). Matching of responses to targets was at chance for the group as a whole (mean = 2.1, SD = 1.4), and sheep (mean = 2.0, SD = 1.2) did not score differently from goats (mean = 23, SD = 1.8) (¢= 0.7, p > 0.4). Experiment 2: Subjective random generation ‘This experiment investigated differences in repetition avoidance between sheep and goats in a context of response production not involving ESP. Method Subjects, Forty-eight medical and biology students (24 women, 24 men, age 20-40) from the University of Zasich were individually tested. Procedere. Subjects had to mimic the rolling of 2 dice. They were asked to say the digits from one to six randomly so 8s ‘to make the resulting sequence as indistinguishable as possible from that of an sctually rolled dice’. The responses were paced by a metronome (one response/s). A sequence of 66 ‘was recorded for each subject. ‘After the completion of the last experiment (Expt 3) subjects rated their belief in ESP on a six-point seale as did the subjects in Expt 1. Furthermore, they rated the frequency of personally coincidences in daily life on 2 six-point scale from very rare (= 1) to very frequent (= 6). Scoring, The score for each subject was the number of consecutive repetitions of the same digit. Results The mean number of consecutive repetitions of the same digit for all subjects (mean = 5.9, SD = 3.7) was significantly smaller than the mathematically expected 10.8 consecutive repetitions in a sequence of 66 dice rolls (Wilcoxon z= 5.7; P< .001), Of the 48 subjects, 25 were rated sheep, nine indifferent, and 14 goats. The results of the three subgroups are shown in Fig. 16. Sheep (mean = 5.2, SD = 3.9) showed significantly less repetitions than goats (mean = 7.4, SD = 3.7; #= 1.8 p <.05). The mean number of repetitions of the indifferent subjects (mean = 5.9, SD = 2.9) was in between. There was a moderately positive correlation of belief in ESP and frequency of personally meaningful coincidences in daily life (Spearman r = .27, p < .05). Experiment 3: Appreciation of randomness This experiment was designed to look for differences in repetition avoidance between sheep and goats in the appreciation of random events in a context not involving ESP. Method Procedure. After Expt 2, each subject was shown a pair of sequences of dice faces. This was repeated six times with different sequences. Each sequence contained six dice faces. One sequence of the pair always contained more repetitions than the other. Subjects were told that each sequence represented six consecutive dice rolls. They were asked to imagine a situation in which they had to wait for one of the462 Peter Brugger and others two sequences to occur. Then they were asked co estimate which of the two sequences was more likely to appear first. They had to mark one of the three choices: (1) sequence 1 occurs first; (2) sequences Yond 2 are equally key to appear first, and (3) sequence 2 appears first. ‘Scoring. Since the mathematical probability of both sequences occurring was equal, the correct answer for all pairs was the second choice. The total number of correct answers per subject was recorded. Results For each of the three subgroups, the mean number of correct responses is shown in Fig. 1c. Sheep (mean = 2.2, SD = 1.6) answered significantly less correctly than goats (mean = 3.9, SD = 1.7) (¢ = 2.8; p < .005). In none of the six pairs did sheep perform better than goats. The mean number of correct responses of the indifferent subjects (mean = 2.8, SD = 1.4) was in between. Whenever subjects made errors, they felt that the sequence of the pair containing less repetitions should appear first. irrespective of their belief in ESP. 1. Performance of the three groups: believers in ESP or sheep (S), indifferent subjects (1), and Expt 1: mean qumber of repetitive guesses to ESP targets: (6) in a subjective random generation task: (c) Expt 3: correct responses in a randomness appreciation task. Discussion ‘The effect of a general bias in humans against repetitions has long been known from the literature on subjective random generation (c.g. Budescu, 1987) as well as from parapsychological studies (e.g. Pratt & Soal, 1952). Repetition avoidance may well be a basic biological effect, since it is also found in animals, where it is referred to as ‘spontaneous alternation behavior’ (see Carr, 1917; Dember & Fowler, 1958; for reviews). “Tus ease behavioural non-randomness has been used to explain ESP phenomena as a consequence of matching series from biased sources (e.g. Brown, 19534; Gatlin, 1977; Goodfellow, 1938). Rather than being a perceptual phenomenon, ESP would indeed be ‘extra-sensory ’, in that it would be purely response determined. However, the existence of consistent between-group differences in ESP performance in relation to individuals’ belief in ESP, the well-known ‘sheep-goat effect’ (Palmer, 1971:Exctra-sensory perception 463 Schmeidler & McConnell, 1958), has been taken as evidence against this interpretation (e.g. Mischo, 1979; Wasserman, 1956). In these cases, it was tacitly assumed that the sequential response bias was independent of paranormal belief. ‘The main purpose of our study was to address this controversy. In three experiments we investigated the question whether sequential response behaviour varies as a function of belief in ESP. Although our method of assessing belief was brief compared with the more sophisticated questionnaires normally used in parapsychology (sce Irwin, 1985, for overview), we found a strong and consistent ‘sheep-goat effect’. In the experiment on telepathy and the experiment where subjects had to mimic the rolling of a dice, the purpose was to generate a subjective random series. In both experiments subjects avoided consecutive repetitions of the same response. Sheep (believers in ESP) consistently showed significantly more repetition avoidance than goats (non-believers). In the third experiment subjects had to compare equiprobable short random sequences. The purpose was to investigate their appreciation of randomness. The sequences containing less repetitions were erroneously considered to be the more probable. Again, sheep committed significantly more ertors than goats. ‘Thus, three main results emerge from out study. First, in accordance with the literature, we found subjective random series to be characterized by a relative lack of repetitions; second, the avoidance of repetitions is significantly stronger for sheep than for goats; and third, this sheep-goat effect of repetition avoidance holds true for the generation as well as for the appreciation of randomness. ‘A sheep-goat effect in subjective probability was first described by Blackmore & ‘Troscianko (1985). They found that sheep made more errors than goats in a number of probability tasks, but sheep did not significantly differ from goats in their avoidance of repetitions. In our experiments repetition avoidance was the main parameter to measure subjective randomness and the studies were specifically designed for this purpose. Despite the differences between our tasks, which involved the generation as well as the appreciation of random sequences, we found a stable sheep-goat effect in repetition avoidance. One might argue that, in the context of ESP, the same task involves skill for sheep but chance for goats. However, in the context of SRG, chance orientation is expected for both sheep and goats. Since the sheep-goat effect in repetition avoidance was of the same magnitude in both contexts, skill-chance orientation was not responsible for the sheeps’ stronger repetition avoidance. We conjecture that, irrespective of the experimental setting, sheep have a more biased internal representation of randomness itself than goats. Goats will more easily accept that repetitive events happen by chance, while sheep will look beyond for a causal explanation. This may explain why sheep are more prone than goats to an illusion of causality in the face of everyday coincidences. The correlation we found between frequency of remembered meaningful coincidences and belief in ESP supports this notion. Though we cannot rule out the possibility that sheep really do have more coincidences in daily life, the results of Expt 3 renders this improbable: attribution of meaning is known to make an event more readily available for recall (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Our finding of a consistent sheep-goat effect in sequential response behaviour speaks against the argument that the sheep-goat effect in ESP would disprove the404 Peter Brugger and otbers response bias explanation. The assumption that individual guessing habits are independent of belief can no longer be sustained. Given the fact that the target series in some ESP experiments have been shown to share the non-random features typical for the subjective random series they are matched with (e.g. Gatlin, 1977; Kennedy, 1980; Mischo, 1975; Nicol, 1959), the possibility of ESP being an Effect of Subjective Probability remains to be considered. However, since believers and non-believers often show opposite ESP scores relative to MCE, an explanation solely in terms of repetition avoidance is clearly not sufficient. Given a fixed target bias, the two groups would be expected also to show opposite response biases. Whilst variations in task duration and some drug effects lead either to inhibition or release of repetitions (see Table 1), this seems improbable in the case of the belief variable: it should be recalled that all subject groups in our experiments showed avoidance of repetitions though of different strength. In this case, one would have to explain opposite scoring tendencies by other kinds of biased responding. The tendency of subjects to arrange alternatives according to their natural order is well known. In attempts to randomize digits or letters, some subjects produce consistently too many, others toc few, pairs of elements adjacent in the natural scale of numbers or in the alphabet (Kuhl & Schénpflug, 1974; Luh, 1931; Rath, 1966). Strategies comparable to ‘counting’ and ‘reverse counting” have also been shown in subjective randomization of purely figural material (e.g. Lincoln & Alexander, 1955). Rabinowitz (1970) found this type of response bias to be as characteristic for subjective random sequences as is repetition avoidance. However. whether belief in ESP actually affects sequential response bias other than repetition avoidance needs further experimentation. Also, whether non-random aspects in target sequences are quantitatively sufficient to account fully for observed ESP scores will have to be established empirically. At present, this possibility cannot be ruled out on the basis of the results presented in earlier studies, unless the raw data of targets and guesses allow a reanalysis in terms of sequential bias. Particularly for studies demonstrating a sheep-goat effect, the relevant sequential properties of guesses and targets have not been analysed yet for the two groups separately. Lastly, the finding of differences in subjective randomness between subject groups has implications for other fields of experimental psychology where subjects are encouraged to make guesses. In sequential decision tasks with reduced perceptual information, subjects may pattern their responses according to their subjective representation of randomness. Non-randomly distributed responses have indeed been shown to be the rule in psychophysics (Treisman & Williams, 1984; Wagenaar, 1968), subliminal perception (Goldiamond, 1958; Williams & Parkin, 1980) and defence studies (Goldstein, 1962), as well as in psychometric questionnaire testing (Berg & Rapaport, 1954, Gaier, Lee & McQuitty, 1953). Ifthe stimuli are not presented in a truly randomized distribution in the above contexts, any sequential bias that happens to coincide with individual response tendencies will result in above chance matching based purely on mathematical grounds. Acknowledgements This work was in part supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation Grant nr. 3.821-0.87.Exctra-sensory perception 465 We thank Dr W. Bongartz and Mr K. Langohr, Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Germany for their kind permission to reanalyse their data (Expt 1), and Drs N. Foldi and N. Cook for their editorial help. References Baisden, R.H., Isaacson, R. 1, Woodruff, M.L. & Van Hartesveldt, C. (1972). The effect of physostigmine on spontaneous alteration in infant rabbits. Psyclomomic Science, 26, 287-288. Berg, I. A. & Rapaport, G. M. (1954). Response bis in an unstructured questionnaire. Journal of Prychology, 38, 475-481. Blackmore, S. (1980). A study of memory and ESP in young children. Journal of the Society for Prychical Remarch, 80, 501-520. Buckmore, S- (1984). ESP in young children, J eral of te Saciy for PobcalRanarch 82, 311-318 Blackmore, $. & Troscianko, T. (1985) ity judgements, illusory control, and the “Chane tml ship Bri owl of Poel, 76 Berets Boles, (1988). Ueberprifong verschiedener Zufallszahlengeneratoren auf deren Verwendbarkeit fir ASW Experiment ‘mit dem PSI-Recorder 80. Unpublished diploma thesis, University of Freiburg, (Germany). Breide, R. (1969). Perseveration und Himverletrung. DPhil thesis, University of Tobingen, Germany. Breidt, R. (1973). Lassen sich Perseverntionen durch Himschidigungen erkliren? Prycbiatrica Clinice, 6, 387-369, Brown, G. S, (1953s). Probability and psychical research. Natare, 172, 154-156. Brown, G. S. (19534). Letter. Nature, 172, 594-595. Budescu, D. V. (1987). A Markov mode! for generation of random binary sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Haman Perception and Prrformancr, 13, 25-39. Cadoret, R. (1953). The effect of smytal and dexadrine on ESP performance. Journal of Parapoycholegy, 17, 259-274, ‘A. (1917). The alternation problem. Joarnal of Animal Behavior, 7, 365-384, G. J. (1975). Randomness and mathematical proof. Scientific American, 232, 47-52. Coben, J. & Hansel, C. E. (19554). The idea of 2 distribution. Britith Journal of Prycholagy, 46, 111-121. Coben, J. & Hansel, C. E. (19558). The idea of independence. British Journal of Prycbology, 46, 178-190. Dember, W.N. & Fowler, H. (1958). Spontaneous alteration behavior. Prychological Bulletin, 55, 412-428. Douglas, R. J. & Isaacson, R. L. (1966). Spontancous alteration and scopolamine. Pychonomic Science, 4, 238-244, Edwards, W. (1961). Probability learning in 1000 trials. Journal of Experimental Prycbology, 62, 381-390. Eager G. J Livesey P. J. & Dewoon, RG. (1973). Ontogenetic specs of cent chotnergic involvement in spontaneous alternation behavior. Poclehaby, 6,259 Falk, R. (1981). The perception of randomness. Pracaigy of te FY Tocbctonal Coon or the Pryctolegy of Mathematics Education, pp. 222-229. Grenoble (France). Freeman, J. A. (1962), An experimeat ae 1a pecognition Joa of Perel, 26, 123-190. EL Le, M,C. & sy LL. (1952). Response para in x tt of logical inference Exdvcational and P ychological Measerement, 13, 550- Gatlin, L.L. (1977). cing aforaticn eration: ‘An altemative interpretation of the PSI phenomenon. Journal of the American Society for Psebical Resserch, 71, 1-18, Catlin, LL: (979) A new meseue of bie in inte sequences with pplication to ESP dh. jor! of -syebological I. . J. (1962). A test of the response probability theory of perceptual defense. Journal of Experimental Ps y, 63, 23-28. Goodfellow, L. D. (1938). A psychological interpretation of the results of the Zenith radio experiments in telepathy. Journal of Experimental Prychalagy, 23, 601-632. Haight, J. M., Kanthamani, H. é& Kennedy, J. E. (1978). Interaction of certain personality variables and feedback in a computerized ESP test. Journal of Parapsychology, 42, 51-52.4166 Peter Bragger and others Hake, H, W. & Hyman, R. (1953). Perception uf the statistical structure ul a random series of binary symbols. Journal of Experimental Pryebolngy, 45, 64-74. Hardy, A.. Harvie, R. & Koestler, A. (1973). Th Challenge of Chance: Fxperiments and Speculations. London: Hutchinson. Humphrey, B, S. (1951). [ntraversion-extraversion ratings in relation to scores in FSP tests. Jawrnal of Parapsychology, 15, 252-262. Humphrey, B. S, (1954). ESP tests with mental patients before and after electrn-shuck treatment. Journal of the Society for Prychical Research, 37, 259-266. Irwin, H. J. (1985). A study of the measurement and the correlates of paranormal belief. Journal of the Society for Peyehical Researrb, 79, 301-326. Kanthamani, B. K. & Rao, K. R. (1973). Personality characteristics of ESP subjects: i’. Neurot and FSP. Journal of Parapsyebolegy, 37, 37-50. Kennedy, J. E. (1980). Learning to use ESP: Do the calls match the targets or do the rargets match the calls? Journal of the American Society for Prychical Research, 74, 191-209. Kouth, D. F. (1981). The Art of Computer Programming, vol. 2, Seminumerical Algorithms. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley. ubl, J. & Schéinpfiug, W. (1974). Ordnungsverhalten, Lirmbclastung und Persinlichkeit. Psyrbological Research, 37, 143-176. Langohr, K. (1986). Fin ASW-Gruppenexperiment. Unpublished manuscript, University of Konstanz (Germany). Lincoln, R. S. & Alexander, L. T. (1955). Preferred patterns of motor and verbal responses. Journal of Experimental Prychelogy, 50, 106-112. Lopes, L. L. & Oden, G. C. (1987). Distinguishing between random and nunrandom events. Journal of Experimental Prycholegy: Learning, Memory, and Cagnition, 13, 392-400, Luh, C. W. (1931). The avoidance of repetitive responses. Paycbological Review, 38, 276 279. Matsuda, K. (1973). Creative thinking and random umber generation test. Japanese Psrcbolagicat Research, 15, 101-108. Mischo, J. (1975). Parapsychologische Phinomene im quantitativ-statistischen Modell -cin Roulette fair ‘ubersinnliche’ Schlussfolgerungen? Teil II: Ueberprifung von Zielfolgen. Zeitschrift fir Parapsyebologie and Grenzgsbiate der Psychologie, 17, 201-218. Mischo, J. (1979). Zum Stand der sheep-goat-Forschung. Zeitsebrift fiir Parapsycbolagie und Gorenggebiete der Psychologie, 21, 1-22. Mischo, J. & Wittmann, W. (1981). Hin multivariates ASW-Faxperiment. ‘Teil ut. Zetschrift fir Parapoychologie snd Grenegebinte der Psychologie, 23, 27-55. “Mirtenecker, E. (1960). Die informationstheoretische Auswerrung des Zeigeversuchs bei Psychotikern und Neurotiker. Zeitwbrift fir experimentelle und axgewendte Psychologie, 7, 392-400. Nash, C. B. (1989). Intra-experiment and intra-subject declines in extra-sensory perception after sixty years. Journal of the Society for Prycbical Research, 55, 412-416. Neuringer, A. (1986). Can people behave ‘randomly the role of feedback. Jowrnal of F:xperimentai Paychology : General, 115, 62--75. Nicol, J. F. (1955). Randomness: The background, and some new investigations. Journal uf the Societt for Psychical Research, 38, 71-87. Nicol, JF. (1959). ‘The statistical controversy in quantitative research. Internetional Journal of Parapsyebalogy, 1, 47-63. ‘Onetto, B. (1976). Ritalin and PSI: A pilot study. International Journal of Paraphysics, 10, 132-134. Palmer, J. (1971). Scoring in ESP tests as a function of belief in FSP. Journa/ of the American Society for Prychical Research, 66, 1-26, Palmer, J. (1978). Extrasensory percepuon: Research findings. In $. Krippner (Fil), . ldbances in Parapayebologicel Research, vol. 2, pp. 59-243, New York: Plenum. Palmer, J. (1982). ESP research findings: 1976-1978. In S. Keippner (Hid), -ldhences on Parapsycbologrcal Research, vol. 3, pp. 41--82. New York: Plenum. Palmer, J., Tart, Ch. & Redington, D. (1976), A large-sample classroom FSP card-guessing experiment Enrepean Journal of Parapsyebology, 1, 40-56, Peach, P. rior Bias in pseudo-random numbers, Journal of the lmerican Statistica: »ssoctation, 56, 610-618,Extra-sensory perception 467 Poppel, E. (1967). Signifikanz-Artefakte in der experimentellen Parapsychologie. Zeitschrift fr Parapsycbologie und Grewegebieie der Prycbologie, 10, 63-72. Pratt, J.G. & Soal, S. G. (1952). Some relations between call sequence and ESP performance. Journal of Parapsychology, 16, 165-186. A.K., Smith, J. & Kittelman, A. (1961). Computers, chance and cholinergia. Darshane International, 1, 41-43. Rebinowitz, F.M. (1970). Characteristic sequential dependencies in multiple-choice situations. Paychological Bulletin, 74, 141-148. Radin, D1 & Bosworth, . I. (1985), Responae daebusons in a compuser‘baed pereepual suk: ‘Test of four models. Journal of the American Socaty for Psychical Research, 79, 453-483. Ramsey, R.W. & Broadhurst, A. (1968), The non-randomness of strempes at random sesponses: Reltionshipe with peronaiy vtabies and peyclatrc divonde. British Journal of Psycholegy, 59, Ra G. a (1966). Randomization by humans, American Journal of Prycbolegy, 79, 97-103. Sargent, ‘© L- (1977). Conical aroumel and pals A pharmacoogis! sendy. Esser Jownel of , 1, 72-79, supa CL, (1981). Extraversion and performance in extra-sensory perception tasks. Personality aad individual Differences, 2, 137-143, scheren, W. B. (1948). Spontancity as a factor in ESP. Journal of Parapoycboloy, 12, 126-147. Scheie, GR (1952), Ronchachs and ESP scores of patients sudering from cerebral concussion. ‘Journal of Parapobelogy, 16, Schmeidler, G. R. (1968). ‘A earch fr fecdback in BSP: 1 Session salience and stiraulus preference. ‘Journal of the Society for Peycbical Research, 28, 130-141. Schmeidler, G. R. & McConnell, R. A. (1958). ESP and Personality Patterns. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Shaffer, J. 1, Barone, N.C. & Slak, S. (1984), Information-theoretic analysis of randomization and spontaneous activity. Pereeptnal and Motor Skills, 58, 55-60. Smith, K. & Canon, H. J. (1954). A methodological refinement in the study of ‘ESP*, and negative findings. Science, 120, 148-149. Spinelli, E. (1978). Human development and paranormal cognition. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Surrey. Saute, 1. R (1969). ifs of pretrial and posal siinittion of cholinergic and anticholinengic “droge on spontancous alteration. Joraal of Comparatn nd Plosolagieal Prychaly, 69, 69-75. Tart, Ch., Palmer, J. & Redington, D. (1979). Effects of immediate feedback on ESP performance over Journal of tbe American Society for Prycbical Remerch, T3, 291-301. Medizin. Wiener Zeitschrift fir Nervenbeilkunde, 29, 143-176. Treisman, M. & Williams, T. C. (1984). A theory of criterion setting with an application to sequential dependencies. Pryebological Review, 91, 68-111. Truijens, C. 1., Trumbo, D. A. & Wagenaar, W. A. (1976). Amphetamine and barbiturate effects on two tasks performed singly and in combination. Arte Psychologica, 40, 233-244. ‘Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D, (1974), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131, Virulli, W. F. (1982). Effects of immediate feedback on computer-assisted testing of ESP performance. Paycbological Reports, 51, 403-408. von Hoerer, S. (1957). Herstellung von Znfaliszahlen auf Rechenautomaten. Zeitschrift fir angewandie Mathematik und Physik, 8, 26-52. Wagenaar, WA. (1968). Sequential response bias in psychophysical experiments. Perception and Prycboplysics, 3, 364-365. Wagenaar, W. A. (1970). Appreciation of conditional probabilities in binary sequences. Ate Prycholagice, 34, 348-356. Wagenasr, W. A. (1971). Serial non-randomness as a function of duration and monotony of « randomization task. Acta Prychologica, 35, 78-87. Wagenaar, W. A. (1972). Generation of random sequences by human subjects: A critical survey of the literature, Peycbological Bulletin, 77. 65-72.468 Peter Brugger and others Wasserman, G. D. (1956). Some comments on methods and statements in parapsychology and other sciences. British Journal for the Philasaphy of Science, 6, 122-140. Weiss, R. L. (1964), On producing random responses. Psychological Reports, 14, 931-941 White, R. (1964) A compariton of old and new methods of response to targes in ESP experiments Journal of the American Sacity for Prycbical Research, 38, 2156. Williams, P.C. & Parkin, A. J. (1960). On knowing the meaning uf words we are unable t0 report ~ confirmation of a guessing explanation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 101-107. ‘Yacoraynski, G. K. (1941). Perceptual principles involved in the disintegration of a configuration formed in predicting the occurrence of patterns selected by chance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 401-406. Yaron, H.§. (1965, The production of ndom ler soquenes in ehizophenic, june of Poel. 56, 171-173. Received 16 June 1989; revised version received 13 February 1990Copyright © 2003 EBSCO Publishing