The 2017 Warcollier Prize

2017 Warcollier Research Award granted by IRVA/IRIS

Associative Remote Viewing: A Proof of Principle Study

Maximilian Müller1, Laura Müller1, & Marc Wittmann2

1 Helmut Schmidt University / University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Germany2Institute for Frontier Areas of Psychology and Mental Health Freiburg, Germany

ABSTRACT: Over the course of 48 valid trials we attempted to predict the binary (up vs. down) course of the German stock index DAX with the Associative Remote Viewing (ARV) method. 38 out of 48 predictions were correct which amounts to a highly significant hit rate of 79.16% (p = 2.3 x 10-5, binomial distribution, B48(1/2); z = 3.897). The z-score divided through the square root of n = 48 trials corresponds to an effect size of ES = 0.56. We additionally calculated a Chi-Square test for the comparison of the frequency of correct predictions across two prediction methods (human ARV vs. artificial RNG). The difference is significant (χ2 = 8.926, p = 0.003). Due to the experimental design and the temporal characteristics of the dependent variable, we assume that the result is attributable to the ARV method and therefore can be considered a Psi effect. We concluded that the ARV hit rate for future predictions is primarily influenced by target selection, data collection and judging. Additionally, we tested the hypothesis whether feedback is a necessary requirement for predictions with ARV. One half of the sessions were designed with feedback and the other half without feedback (independent variable). Both conditions (feedback vs. no feedback) were independently significant and did not differ significantly from each other (χ2 = 0.505, p = 0.477). We propose that intention is the essential element in the ARV process. According to the mere intention principle, mere intention is sufficient to let the viewer receive the desired target information. Furthermore, a post-hoc analysis indicated that the session quality depended on the volatility of the stock index: The viewer’s perceptions were clearer and less ambivalent when the stock index also had a larger point difference at the end of the prediction period. This phenomenon is called retro-causality because the effect (alteration of viewer perception) precedes its cause (volatility of the future DAX course) in time. We conclude that this could be an indicator for the assumption that the actual future event is variable and not completely determined at the time of the session. If this assumption is true and the future is indeed probabilistic and only partially predictable, this should be taken into consideration regarding achievable hit rates with ARV. Finally, we propose a comparison experiment in which this assumption is tested comparing hit rates for present and future targets.

2018 IRVA conference in Las Vegas, NV and venues in Europe.

Link to published article: