REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 1

Remote Viewing: a 1974-2022 systematic review and meta-analysis

Patrizio Tressoldi1 and Debra Lynne Katz2

1
Science of Consciousness Research Group - Studium Patavinum, Padova University, Italy

2
International Remote Viewing Association, USA

[in press in the Journal of Scientific Exploration]

Abstract

This is the first meta-analysis of all studies related to remote-viewing tasks conducted up to
December 2022.

After applying our inclusion criteria, we selected 36 studies with a total of 40 effect sizes.

Both frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses revealed a strong average effect size of .34;
95% confidence interval: .22 -.45, after the exclusion of outliers, without signs of publication bias and
a minimal decline effect. In the raw scores, these average results correspond to a difference in hits
score of 19.3%; 95% confidence intervals:13.6%–25%, above the expected chance.

Among the meta-analyses of moderators, a small nonstatistical difference emerged between

the precognitive and clairvoyance tasks, particularly for those with an outbound agent.

A comparison with meta-analytical results observed with other experimental protocols

testing extrasensory perception showed the clear superiority of remote viewing.

After more than 50 years of investigation into extrasensory perception, remote-viewing

experimental protocols appear to be the most efficient for both experimental and practical
applications.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Patrizio Tressoldi email:

patrizio.tressoldi@unipd.it
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 2

Keywords: Remote viewing; meta-analysis; clairvoyance; precognition; extrasensory perception

Remote viewing is a novel perceptual discipline for gaining information that is not available
to the ordinary physical senses. Used extensively by so-called 'psychic spies' during the Cold
War for classified military projects, it has a long history both as an intelligence gathering tool
and as the subject of research and applications in the civilian world.

– International Remote Viewing Association Website

Introduction

The central objective of this study is to discover how remote viewing differs from other types
of approaches aimed at testing the possibility of extrasensory perception (ESP), in terms of its results
with experimental designs. A secondary objective is to identify and compare the central design
components and themes of remote viewing studies spanning the past 50 years.

To achieve this we first present definitions, then a historical overview, and then a comparison
of remote viewing to other free-response studies, which will lead us to an operationalization of
remote viewing from which our methodology for a comprehensive meta-analysis of remote viewing
related projects flows. This will be followed by inclusion criteria, a presentation of our methods,
results, and finally, a discussion aimed at identifying further moderators to explore.

Definitions of Remote Viewing

Remote viewing has been defined by Targ and Katra (2000) as “the acquisition and
description by mental means of information blocked from ordinary perception by distance, shielding,
or time.” (p.4). Thalbourne (2003) later described remote viewing as “a neutral term for general
extrasensory perception... especially in the context of an experimental design in which a percipient
[perceiver/receiver] attempts to describe the surroundings of a geographically distant agent
[sender]” (p. 107). However, Ingo Swann (1993), who coined the term in 1971-72 with Janet Mitchell,
at the American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR), in cooperation with Karlis Osis and Gertrude
Schmeidler, wrote, “there can be no doubt at all that remote viewing originally referred to a
particular kind of experiment, not a particular kind of psi ability... It is very difficult to define a psychic
ability. But it is not hard to define an experiment” (p. 75). He explained that an important aspect of
remote viewing methodology is that it includes blinding and feedback protocols.
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 3

The International Remote Viewing Association (IRVA) provides the most current definition on
their website:

“Proper RV is done within a strict science-based protocol. As mentioned, the viewer

is kept unwitting of either the nature or identity of the target until after the session is
completed. Except in training situations, the monitor (a sort of remote viewing
“guide” or facilitator that may assist the viewer during the session) is also unwitting,
and external clues or data about the target are carefully excluded. Sessions are
conducted in a setting that prevents knowledge of the target “leaking” to the viewer.
These measures are important to ensure that the viewer does not receive hints or
clues about the target in any way other than what would be considered “psychic.”

IRVA’s description continues:

“Despite the “viewing” part of the term, remote viewing is only partly about
experiences associated with what might be visible about a target. It also involves
mental impressions pertaining to the other senses, such as sounds, tastes, smells,
and textures, as well as limited telepathy-like effects, and in some cases just plain
intuitive “knowing.”…In RV, the viewer not only verbalizes what he or she is
perceiving, but usually also records in writing, in sketches, and sometimes even in
three-dimensional modeling the results of the RV episode, or “session.”

Early History of Remote Viewing & its development

Although the history of remote viewing has been well documented (Puthoff & Targ, 1974,
1976, 1980; Puthoff, May, and Marhawa, 2018), a few noteworthy developments are addressed here.
To understand the etiology of remote viewing, one might take a time capsule back to the late 1960s,
when ASPR researchers began a series of Out-of-body (OBE) experimental trials designed to explore
whether a subject could intentionally perceive objects placed on a shelf, about 10 feet above the
subject’s head. Mitchell (1987) tracked the development of Swann, whom she stated was their most
talented subject, even though he would later tell an interviewer '” Initially I was not very good at this
kind of ‘perceiving’, but as the months wore on, I grew better at it.” (Swann, 1993, p. 76). Mitchell
recorded 'learning curves' by adding each new target type. Later, she explained that this helped her
and her colleagues shift their predominant view from psychic functioning, being purely an inherent
ability, to the view that it is something that can be learned.
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 4

Initially, Swann voiced his descriptions out loud according to the researcher's instructions.
However, having studied the 'picture drawing exercises' of Warcollier (1948) and Sinclair (1930) and
being an artist, he began sketching his perceptions of the target materials. This led to what he would
go on to describe as the biggest discovery of his life: that in addition, or in place of the visual imagery
he would receive (clairvoyance), at times his hand could know what to draw, with remarkable detail,
and similarity to the object, while his conscious mind remained completely unaware of its features or
nature. (Swann, 1996). This awareness will eventually play an important role in the development of
controlled remote viewing methodology (CRV), which will be discussed below (Smith, 2014; 2015).

After becoming bored with their target pool of objects, Swann convinced Osis and Mitchell
that he could use his intuitive perceptions to describe people and activities located outside the
building. They tasked him with describing unusual weather conditions at distant locations and then
had him track the activities of a pair of researchers who visited a museum. When the researchers
discovered that the main exhibits they intended to visit were closed, they thought the experiment
failed. However, they returned to the lab to discover that Swann tracked their movements in
remarkable detail, reporting that the museum exhibits were closed (Mitchell, 1987). This could be
considered one of the first attempts to use an 'outbounder' approach, as the outbound agent was
believed to serve as a beacon of sorts, providing a necessary anchoring or bridge to a distant and
unknown location. These early experiments directed the viewers' awareness out of the lab to their
surrounding neighborhood, then to different states, then to different countries, and eventually to
distant planets, demonstrating that distance was not an inhibiting factor in informal retrieval at a
distance. (Targ & Puthoff, 1974; Puthoff, 1996).

SRI Outbounder Experiments with an Interviewer

In the early 1970s, Swann was recruited by Harold (Hal) Puthoff, to serve as both a psychic
and a research consultant in the developing psychoenergetics program at Stanford Research Institute
(SRI), which was initially funded by various governmental agencies. Building on the earlier efforts of
the research at the ASPR and Gertrude Schmeidler's laboratory at the City College of New York, co-
directors Puthoff and Targ further developed the 'outbounder' experiment in which an 'agent' would
choose from a variety of pre-selected 'target' locations and head out to that location. The person
acting as the 'percipient' (aka remote viewer) would be 'interviewed' by an experienced researcher,
often the experimenter, who was blind to the target location. The viewer would be led through a
relaxation exercise, and then directed to move their attention around the agent to different vantage
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 5

points, with the aim of observing the physical characteristics and ambiance of the location, along
with the activity happening there. If the viewer described a door, the interviewer would next invite
him to walk through the door. If they described a bridge, the interviewer suggested that they walk
across the bridge, look down, or on the other side. Using this process, it was reported that remote
viewers accurately described buildings, landscapes, objects, and people (Targ & Puthoff, 2005).

These experiments were carried out with select subjects, non-psychic control subjects, and
even first-time governmental visitors and agency contract monitors who had input on whether SRI
programs would continue. Through informal memos, government agency reports, continued contract
renewals, and formal articles, Puthoff and Targ (1976) reported that the results were significant
across all groups: experienced remote viewers and inexperienced visiting subjects. Some sketches of
the newer subjects were said to be “exceptional”. However, the results of the newer participants
were found to be less consistent than those of the experienced participants.” (p. 345).

Coordinate Remote Viewing - Leave the outbound agent behind

In 1973, Swann pushed researchers to start a new series of experiments called 'Project
Scanate.’ This design was notable because it did not require an agent to be at a location; instead,
viewers were given geographic coordinates, latitude, and longitude in degrees, minutes, and
seconds, respectively. Initially, there was resistance from the SRI directors because there was a
predominant belief that an agent provided a telepathic connection that was essential for the
percipient’s psi-based attention to be directed to the correct location. There have also been concerns
about designing protocols to eliminate the possibility of a combination of geographic coordinate
memorization and photographic memory (Puthoff, 1996). However, they found workarounds for
these challenges and started a series of trials reporting significant results (Puthoff & Targ, 1974,
1976).

While Project Scanate used National Geographic photographs as feedback for the
coordinates, real-life targets were now given to viewers. These ranged from small objects in nearby
light-tight canisters, to remote technical facilities at intercontinental distances; from letters and
numbers generated at random by a computer, to nuclear tests in a foreign country. To address some
of the concerns mentioned above for repeated trials, a procedure was utilized to use random
numbers as coordinates rather than latitude and longitude.

Operational Remote Viewing

 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 6

Essentially, remote viewing had two separate, but interconnected tracks. One was research
efforts performed at the SRI, SRI-International, and Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
(PEAR) laboratories. Their efforts were aimed at testing psychic functioning, developing both
experimental and training protocols, and discovering/demonstrating how it could be useful for
intelligence and military gathering purposes. The other track was a highly classified military remote-
viewing program, located primarily at Fort Myers Meade Army base, where under the initial direction
of operations and training officer, Holmes (Skip) Atwater, both enlisted men, and officers, along with
some civilians, were recruited, trained, and eventually put to work as remote viewers for intelligence
collection purposes.

The operational programs had many project names. For the Army: Project Gondala Wish
(1977-1979), Grill Flame (1979-83), and Center Lane (1983-85); for the Defense Intelligence Agency:
Sun Streak (1986-90), and Star Gate (1990 - 1995). The Air Force sponsored a program from 1975 to
1979, headed by civilian intelligence analyst Dale Graff. The National Security Agency (NSA)
reportedly had its own program as well.

A DIA-classified briefing report on Project SunStreak (D.I.A., 2000) identified several

advantages of remote viewing as an intelligence-gathering tool, including that it was inexpensive to
use, remote viewers could do their work undetected, and there was no known defense against it. The
report found that remote viewing has been successfully used for “penetration of inaccessible targets;
science and technology information, cueing of other intelligence collection systems, immanent
hostilities, determination of nuclear from non-nuclear targets, human source assessments, and
accurate personality profiles”. (p. 39).

Training Methods for both experimental & operational purposes.

A formerly classified 1984 StarGate Science Panel Report (Marwaha and May, 2019) mentioned the
value of training:

“A considerable variety of material was presented with photographic evidence to

support the validity of the perceptual method. Much of this was highly impressive.
The data showed the effects of training on the success rate, which typically reached a
sustained plateau at a level higher than before training, both for groups of subjects
and for individual trainees” (p. 4).
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 7

The D.I.A. Sunstreak report indicated that training was considered an important part of
remote viewing success, and mentioned two different training methods, extended remote viewing
(ERV) and controlled remote viewing (CRV).

Remote Viewers who first entered the military operational unit were largely trained in and
practicing ERV. ERV has been defined as “a system in which the remote viewer prepares through a
method of deep relaxation and focused attention. In the early 1970s, the consensus was that the
remote viewing process seemed to be facilitated by relaxation and enhanced internal attention or
paying attention to one’s own mental imagery and impressions.” (D.I.A. Sunstreak report, 2000). It
was heavily influenced by the teachings of Robert Monroe (1977) and the Monroe Institute, which
focused on intentional Out of Body Experiences and intentional manipulation of brain wave states
through use of sound and visualization techniques. (Atwater, 2001).

Controlled Remote Viewing (CRV) was developed by Ingo Swann, under the supervision of
Hal Puthoff, in the late 1970’s through early 1980’s. In many of his writings, Swann discusses how the
stage based, structured CRV methodology was designed to build on lessons learned by himself and
others at SRI, and namely to reduce perceptual and analytic errors in psi performance. Williams
(2023) defines CRV as a “process designed to help the viewer distinguish between imagination and
true intuitive perceptions in order to extract the information they seek. The structure and
methodology of the CRV process is introduced step by step by guiding the student through actual
sessions, using real and progressively more complex targets. “(p. 1).

An additional method of remote viewing described as a hybrid of both channeling and

automatic writing was called “word remote viewing”. It was used by a small number of remote
viewers in the operational unit, although it was not formerly developed by SRI researchers. One of
the primary remote viewers, Angela Ford, utilized it during the nine years she worked for the unit
and had the ongoing support of her supervisors, who claimed she often came up with details and
correct names of locations that defied all logic until cases were solved (Graff, 2000). Ford explained
that when she came to the unit, she was told to use other methods that did not work so well for her
personally. She felt that only once she decided she would rather leave the unit then continue to hold
back on using the method she felt worked best that her remote viewing data really became
impressive (Katz & Ford, 2022).

It should be noted that even with the advent of new training protocols, both viewers trained
in CRV and ERV continued to work with interviewers to conduct their session work up until the
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 8

disbandment of the governmental remote viewing programs. Today some viewers continue to work
with monitor, but the majority seem to work on their own.

Final Program Reviews

SRI International - Science Applications International Corporation Reviews.

In June 1995, the CIA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) contracted with the
American Institutes of Research (AIR) to perform a comprehensive evaluation of the StarGate
program. However, only ten primary studies were evaluated. Utts (1996), a visiting scientist at SRI
who had already coauthored a 1989 meta-analysis of the SRI research, wrote:

“Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic
functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far
beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to
methodological flaws in the experiments are well refuted. Effects of a magnitude similar to
those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated in a
number of laboratories throughout the world. This consistency cannot be readily explained by
claims of flaws or fraud” (p. 657).

However, her counterpart, Hyman, a known skeptic who was not familiar with the work at SRI
beyond the limited reports sent to him, asserted:

“Although I cannot point to any obvious flaws in the experiments, the experimental program
is too recent and insufficiently evaluated to be sure that flaws and biases have been
eliminated... The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to
attribute to statistical flukes of any sort… I tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects
are occurring in these experiments…However, the occurrence of statistical effects does not
warrant the conclusion that psychic functioning has been demonstrated.” (p. 681).

Multilab Involvement & conceptual replications

Over the years, other laboratories and parties have attempted to replicate SRI results,
although there were always slight alterations that made these more conceptual than direct. Allen et
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 9

al. (1975) attempted an unsuccessful conceptual replication at the University of California at Santa
Barbara. Their protocols differed in three ways from those of the SRIs:1) Rather than using select
subjects, they used college students who were involved in criticizing experimental designs; 2) they
did not bring viewers to the location to view their own feedback; and 3) students had a tight time
schedule in which to complete their session work.

In 1976, Hastings and Hunt reported a successful replication, when during a single trial, 20
out of 36 teams chose the correct photo out of six locations. They referred to the interviewer as a
'coach,’ who not only assisted the viewer during their session but had full permission both to use
their own intuition and to help select the target. This was a departure from SRI protocols, in which
only the viewer selected the target in the judging phase.

In 1979, Karnes et al. attempted another replication, but did not fare well. In two trials, one
with a visit to feedback and one without, students were used as participants, 20 as 'receivers' and
120 as judges, and found 'no support for the psi hypothesis' attributing some successful trials to
differences in judging. They noted deviations in protocols from the original SRI experiments, which
included dividing viewers into two groups: an experimental group where the viewer, referred to as a
“receiver” and an outbounder, referred to as a “sender,” were introduced before the trial, and the
control group, where there were no introductions. In reviewing their instructions, it appears that
they placed a stronger emphasis on telepathic communication between the viewer and the receiver
than the SRI researchers did. Instead of encouraging direct perception through clairvoyance of the
target locations, instructions to the experimental group directed the receivers to passively receive
the thoughts of the senders who were to project their own impressions about the location, as they
sketched these on to the paper later used in judging.

PEAR Labs - A Precognitive Remote Perception Focus.

The longest running replication attempts of remote perception research were carried out at
the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) laboratory, beginning in 1978 and spanning
the next 25 years. Most of their studies had a 'precognitive' focus, operating under the assumption
that participants may be able to describe targets selected at a future date, as well as targets already
selected at the time of session work.

Although some studies did involve sending out an agent (aka 'outbounder') prior to session
work, Dunne and Jahn (2003) surmised that a substantial subset of trials have been executed in a
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 10

retrocognitive mode, where perceptions are generated after the agent has visited the target and a
smaller number have been carried out in real-time. They found many perceptions that were virtually
photographic in accuracy and produced an overall statistical yield that was well beyond chance
expectations. Most of these studies demonstrate a sufficient degree of anomalous information
acquisition to justify the continued scholarly exploration of this mystifying process.

Despite the overall success of their research, PEAR researchers saw a declining effect in the
final years, which they attributed to an increase in project designs involving modes of analysis
designed to increase efficiency and rater reliability, but then narrowed free response options into
forced choice options. They also noted that, unlike SRI where most participants work with
interviewers who help guide them during their sessions, in most of their studies participants were
self-guided, they had both less supervision and training than those of SRI.

Remote viewing studies: the present situation

In 1996, government remote viewing related programs were disbanded and declassified. At
this time, a variety of books, films, and training programs were offered to the public, first taught
independently by those who had been involved with the programs, followed by their students, and
recently even by a third or fourth generation of students. Some have attempted to follow Swann's
teachings closely, while others have modified the original forms and created derivatives of the
original training (Knowles, 2018).

Today, formal remote viewing studies continue mostly by individual or groups of researchers
in the private sector. Those trained in remote viewing participate in these studies, in RV themed
organizations, and utilize it for a variety of applied purposes including crime solving, helping to find
lost objects and pets, and financial forecasting. (Katz & Tressoldi, 2022; Katz, 2021).

Exploratory and formal remote viewing studies in recent years have focused on judging and
analytic methods and considerations (Storm, 2003; Kruth, 2021; Katz et al., 2020); predictive and
timing considerations (Brown, 2012; Fendley & Atwater, 2021) atmospheric conditions (Spottiswood,
1997), target materials (Katz et al., 2021), and states of consciousness (Ballati et al., 2020). Some
have taken a mixed-method approach, incorporating dreaming (Katz et al., 2019) or use of the
Random Event Generator while remote viewing (Smith & Stahler, 2008).

Several of the more recent RV studies in this meta-analysis are related to a specific remote
viewing design, referred to as Associative Remote Viewing (ARV) (Schwartz, 2020; Bierman &
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 11

Rabeyron, 2013, Katz & Knowles, 2022) which is a precognitive approach to making predictions. This
is one of the most active areas of remote viewing in terms of both applications and research. It is a
precognitive approach to making predictions designed to take limited potential outcomes and turn
them into unlimited possible targets by pairing the potential outcomes with photos, objects, or
videos. This allows for answering questions such as which of two teams will win a football match?
Which of five horses will come in first place at a particular race? In which direction will a particular
stock go at the end of the closing today? Interest in this methodology may be attributed to the
publicizing of past formal studies in which researchers demonstrated they earned substantial
winnings from this (Harary & Targ, 1985; Puthoff, 1984) and other large-scale efforts that did not fare
so well but involved many viewers, predictions, and investors (Katz et al., 2018).

Further popularization efforts of ARV would include the marketing and promotional activities
of a variety of organizations, such as the Applied Precognition Project, which is devoted largely to this
methodology through encouraging those who participate as viewers, judges, and project managers,
within a social and fun learning environment (Rosenblatt, Knowles, and Poquiz, 2015); Social media
platforms devoted to remote viewing, companies sharing ARV-based technologies that offer
predictions for traders of crypto currencies (Katz & Knowles, 2022), and remote viewing online apps
that continue to grow in participant size and activities (Spickett, 2020).

Remote Viewing comparison with other free response protocols

Free response is a descriptive term for studies that involve any ESP test in which the range of
possible targets is relatively unlimited and is unknown to the percipient [perceiver / receiver]'
(Thalbourne, 2003, p. 44).

Free response experiments include collections of studies like the Ganzfeld experiments
(Storm et al, 2010, Storm and Tressoldi, 2020, Tressoldi and Storm, 2023a), dream ESP experiments
(Storm et al, 2017), and remote viewing studies, which could further be divided into laboratory
experiments (Utts, 1996), field work (Schwartz, 2000), operational projects (McMoneagle, 2000;
Smith, 2005), and applied precognitive projects of both formal and informal nature (Katz et al.,
2018).

Although remote viewing, ganzfeld, and dream ESP approaches possess their own general
characteristics, there is variety within each design in terms of participant type, target materials, ways
in which participants report their impressions, and methods of analysis.

Judging and analysis protocols in remote viewing

 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 12

The standard judging/analysis protocols for these studies fluctuate as well, but most include
a 'matching' task in which someone is tasked with matching the remote viewer’s perceptions with a
series of photo images, one of which is an image of the actual target, chosen at random with both
the remote viewer and rater blind to the actual target. These matching tasks can follow three main
types: 1) the remote-viewing percipient attempts to 'guess' or match their own intuitive impressions
to the correct photo in a set of two or more photos (self-judging), 2) an independent rater attempts
to choose the closest match from the remote viewer’s mentation or written impressions, or 3) an
independent rater rates each photo in a set of photos from best-matching to worst-matching, ranking
the photos for example from 1 (best-matching) to 4 (worst-matching). These ranks are then
combined across the trials in a study to create a statistical measure called the ‘sum of ranks.’”

These procedures do fluctuate between studies, in terms of the number of photos placed in
a target set, but as more photos are used in the set it becomes more challenging to ensure that they
are orthogonal (i.e., different) enough from each other. If two photos in the set are similar, it is
difficult to distinguish which photo best matches the viewer's comments.

Matching tasks are considered the gold standard across all free response type experiments
because they allow for easy statistical computations. However, they have been criticized for their
reductionistic nature. The result is that the rich and varied data which in some trials may be a
remarkable match to a highly unique photograph or video clip, often get crunched into a single digit
representing a 'hit' or 'miss'. Also, many psi researchers, beginning with Whately Carington in 1925,
have noted a phenomenon that occurs when targets are placed within “decoy” sets, which he coined
“displacement”. This is thought to occur when a psi participant seems to have an extremely strong
description of another photo in the judging set (“single trial displacement”) or to the target in the
next trial (“out of sequence” or “temporal displacement”). (Tart, 1980, Brown, 2012). However,
Milton’s (1986) dissertation attempting to test whether this is a real phenomenon (rather than
simply an excuse for missing a target) found results to be inconclusive.

Analysis and Scoring methods.

Some remote viewing projects utilize more refined scoring methods than other types of free
response studies, so that rather than simply choosing the best match between a transcript (which
contains the viewer’s words and sketches) and the photos in a judging set, actual scores are given to
each comparison, based on a predetermined scale. Once scoring is completed, the highest scored
match is the one selected as the target by either the rater or an independent judge. Scoring includes
the SRI 7-point Confidence ranking scale (Targ et al, 1995); A 3-point scale utilized by Smith et al,
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 13

(2014); the McMoneagle method of scoring which involves adding up major attributes (gestalts) and
characteristics; and the Dung Beetle method (Katz & Knowles, 2022), which involves adding up all
correct perceptions and subtracting incorrect to arrive at a hit-rate.

In 1990, May et al. published a theory of “fuzzy set analysis and figures of merit” which
attempted to advance analysis in remote viewing experiments through use of computer technologies
that would address issues in rater reliability and efficiency and provide a means to ensure
orthogonality of photos within judging sets. This required the use of a specific target pool, which had
been in development for decades at SRI, consisting of National Geographic photographs, in which life
forms, animals and vehicles were deleted to make the photos, consisting of natural landscapes and
man-made structures, more homogeneous. Positive results were reported (May et al., 1995).
Additionally, and in conjunction with this work, May and colleagues suggested other related theories,
such as Shannon entropy (May et al., 2000), and another on thermodynamic limits (May, 2011) in
attempts to define what makes a target easier to perceive and also to produce equivalent target
types within judging sets.

In 1994, Lantz et al. set out to utilize the above system and concepts, while testing both static
and dynamic targets and the usefulness of telepathic sender and receiver. Researchers found that a
sender is not always necessary for extra-sensory perception to occur in free response studies, and
that dynamic targets seem to be more perceivable than static.

To date, it appears that the May et al. (1990) computerized system of targeting and figure of
merit has only been utilized for remote viewing studies and his original research has not been widely
replicated by others, although his research is often cited. Downsides to this automated system is that
it allows for a rater to remain blind to the target choices, but a coder is still needed to read over the
viewer’s transcript and fill out a spreadsheet that lists a variety of types of structures and
environmental aspects. Sometimes a coder has very clear information to go on within the session
(such as when the viewer writes the word “bridge” which is one element on the coding sheet), but
there is a lot of room for interpretation by the coder, such a when there is simply a sketch with no
words, that could resemble both a bridge, or a street, or a path or a river. So, the success or failure of
any given trial is dependent on the coder’s performance as well as the viewer’s.

States of Consciousness

Like remote viewing protocols, percipients within the Ganzfeld collection of studies perform
their sessions in a waking or semi-awake state. At the core of the Ganzfeld procedure is “a noise
reduction, psi-conductive approach, which is thought to reduce irrelevant background noise”. (Storm,
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 14

2010, p. 472) Here, the subject reclines in a darkened room, with halved translucent ping-pong balls
placed over their eyes while they stare at a red light and listen to white, stereophonic noise. The
autoganzfeld, invented by parapsychologist Rick Berger and Charles Honorton as an error reduction
method, utilizes a computer system that allows automated target selection, randomization, and
judging techniques (Honorton et al., 1990).

Remote viewing protocols do not use the formal Ganzfeld set up, although some viewers
who employ the 'extended remote viewing' methodology may listen to similar audio recordings
before or during their session. Many remote viewers do not utilize white noise (although some do),
but will sit or lie down and engage in a series of relaxation exercises that involves the tensing and
releasing of muscles, slowing down of the breath, and self-guided imagery that moves their attention
from their physical body to a 'sanctuary', to a vortex that then brings them to the target location and
allows them to move around to different vantage points.

Remote viewers who utilize controlled remote viewing methodology or derivatives depart
further from the Ganzfeld approach, in that they often sit in a room with the lights on, using
structured stage-based writing and drawing and modeling techniques that require them to be in a
more alert state of mind. The paper that a viewer writes on is not simply a recording device, but with
each stage serves as a tool for dowsing or psychometry in a sense.

Using an interviewer / monitor.

Another departure from other free response methods is that remote viewers sometimes
utilize “interviewers” (also known as monitors). Studies that were conducted within SRI or within the
U.S. operational remote viewing programs almost exclusively utilized viewers who worked with an
interviewer or monitor, also blind to the targeting task or project objective. For formal studies,
interviewers would be blind to the target, but as discussed above, would be there to give the viewer
suggestions of where to direct their attention, or get unstuck. Sometimes viewers and monitors,
such as Joe McMoneagle and Skip Atwater, worked together for decades. Viewers who utilize both
ERV and CRV relied heavily on the help of monitors until the declassification of the government
programs in the mid 1990’s.
Some researchers have suggested that the interviewer/monitor may be employing their
psychic abilities as well during a session, such as when they direct the viewer to explore an aspect of
a target location the viewer would otherwise not have focused on. It has also been raised that the
interviewer acts as a mentor to the viewer, so eventually even if they don’t attend a formal training,
after some time through this intimate, one-on-one experience, a newer viewer may be receiving
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 15

more in-depth training than others who take a group class and receive less attention from a teacher.
(Katz & Bulgatz, 2019).
However, there are often pitfalls to working with a monitor, just as a viewers can start to
develop a false idea of a target, monitors are vulnerable to this as well, so that it is possible that
both a viewer’s successes and misses could at least partially be attributed to a monitor (Williams,
2017).
Despite the popularity of using interviewers at the SRI and within the operational units,
there has been a lack of exploration into this partnership within the formal research literature.
Today, many viewers tend to work solo. (Katz & Bulgatz, 2019). Still Muller et al. (2019)
demonstrated success with pairing novice viewers with researchers acting as monitors. Rather than
being blind to the target and photo options, monitors were aware of both photo options, but not
which one would actualize as the target. For a follow-up study testing timing effects (Mueller, 2021),
researchers used experienced viewers who sometimes worked with a partner. Results were still
above chance levels. Also, Ballati et al. (2020) paired remote viewers with hypnotists to bring them
into a deeper trance state. 'During the RV session, the hypnotist’s only task was to help the
participant accurately describe all the different characteristics of the target and find as many of them
as possible' (p. 2).

Primary acquisition of psi data vs. secondary movements or “probings”.

In comparing remote viewing with other free response type studies, perhaps the biggest
difference is in the ways in which psi participants follow up on initial impressions through intentional
imaged movements or interactions with the earlier data. As noted above, a sole viewer does this on
their own, while one working with a monitor may be guided in this way.

Structured remote viewing methodologies, such as Controlled Remote Viewing (CRV) and its
derivatives, provide devices for further exploration of information, which are thought to be helpful
when an interviewer/monitor is not present to provide these prompts. This is done using “matrixes,”
which remind the viewer to probe for additional characteristics. The matrix is a spreadsheet with a
heading. Some of these are “sensories,” such as temperature, sound, smell, taste, and emotion.
Some of these are specific characteristics, such as color, shape, texture, and material. Other headings
could include (conceptual), such as whether the target feels modern, ancient, spiritual, educational,
governmental, etc.
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 16

Other categories prompt the viewer to discover whether there are any items or living beings
found in the location. This is achieved by placing the tip of the pen or the viewer's finger into the
field of the matrix (table) and waiting for further impressions that pertain to the particular category
being explored to come. CRV also allows viewers to draw, sketch and use 3-D modeling on occasion.
These actions are not simply designed as ways to report data but as tactile exercises by which to
extract further details. For example, viewers might sketch the shape of a building and move their pen
or finger inside the shape of the paper, or they might write a word such as “purpose” and touch that
word. When touching a specific part of the paper or word, a new flow of data may emerge. In recent
years, remote viewers have started using larger canvases, such as whiteboards, which get them on
their feet using their entire bodies. While there are no formal studies documenting the use of the
entire body, Vivanco (2019) and Riordan (2019) informally demonstrated that while standing up and
letting the body express itself, the body will essentially begin to pantomime key movements, such as
making quick, erratic motions as if steering a wheel for a photograph of a race car.

This following up on earlier perceived data is unique to remote viewing and is used across all
RV methodologies, although the means of doing so vary widely. In Ganzfeld studies, even though a
researcher may be present to assist the percipient in sharing their impressions, he/she does not
guide the percipient to obtain further details about bits of data already perceived. Rather they may
encourage them to continue to deepen their relaxation or invite them to verbalize all they are
sensing through a stream of consciousness. In Dream ESP, the dreamer awakens from the dreaming
phase and reports the data without attempting to access more information about the target.

Experience and/or Training in how to mitigate analytic overlay.

Participants who are monitored, trained in, or experienced with remote viewing approaches
may be better able to mitigate the challenges of psi tasks related to “analytic overlay”, that is the
impulse to identify immediately the target with a name or a precise identity, than participants in
other types of projects because they have a greater awareness of this concept and are given
approaches intended to decrease its negative impact on an overall session. Analytic Overlay was
noted by early SRI researchers and later defined in the military training manual, reproduced by
memory by Swann’s students assigned to the Ft. Meade Army’s remote viewing unit Coordinate
Remote Viewing, Stage 1-6 and beyond.
Percipients in other types of free-response studies are not typically provided with the above
model or given strategies for mitigating it. Remote Viewing methodology encourages viewers to
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 17

focus on smaller target characteristics, rather than trying to “name” or identify the target. Drawing is
emphasized because, even if the target is mischaracterized, the shape may still look identical to the
shapes found within a photo or object. Even if an experienced viewer describes the distorted overlay
rather than the actual target (i.e., calling a red ball a tomato or falsely describing a train as a fire
engine), an experienced viewer may be less likely to put all subsequent impressions into the same
context as the false picture.

Timing and length of intuitive information retrieval about a target.

The timing allowed for participants to engage in an intuitive session can vary widely based on
the type of experiment and the philosophy behind it. For example, some forced choice-type
experiments in which the goal is to guess a card by pressing a corresponding button may allow for
only a second or two before a response must be made. Juxtapose this with remote viewing, which
could potentially require several hours of work.

However, in most remote viewing trials involving the description of photos, the typical time
taken by experienced viewers might be 10 minutes to an hour, particularly for those trained in
methods designed for further probing of the initial data, as mentioned above. In Ganzfeld studies,
induction times usually fluctuate between 5 and 30 minutes.

Furthermore, whereas Ganzfeld participants may not be able to interrupt their sessions and
return later, remote viewers are taught to take breaks during their sessions as needed, especially
when getting stuck in a concept or feeling stressed. They may return immediately after a break or
wait several hours or days before finishing the session days later to finish the session, particularly
when doing session work at home and emailing or mailing it to a researcher. Swann taught that such
breaks were essential and once told his students that if they were not going to take breaks when
they felt emotional or stuck in an idea, they might as well “go home” and stop their training (Swann,
1986. Targ, (2019) also recounted using breaks as an approach to monitor viewers. However, not all
studies have recorded the actual time allowed or taken across all types of free response studies.

Mixed State of Consciousness-Psi Approach Methods

There are some remote viewing studies that occasionally require a remote viewer to adjust
the ways in which they have been trained or typically operate to test a particular variable. This was
the case for when stageKrippner et al. (2019) set out to test whether remote viewing is impacted
when the percipient does their session in a light compared to a dark condition. The viewers were
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 18

required to wear a blindfold, which reduced their ability to write and sketch during their session
since they could not look at their paper. Meanwhile, several studies in recent years have set out to
pair remote viewing with Ganzfeld induction approaches, determining that there was evidence that
novice subjects seemed to perform better with this pairing (Baptista et al., 2015; Storm et al.,
2010; Roe & Flint, 2007).

Most intriguing was Roe et al. (2020) found that novice participants who used a method
that combines the advantages of Ganzfeld-type induction with a location-based feedback mode
such as used in remote viewing studies performed 'significantly better than chance expectation
in all three experiments, demonstrating a degree of replicability that is relatively unusual in
parapsychology where novice remote viewers in the remote viewing mode performed only at
chance levels.' (p. 56). It should be noted that in reviewing the instructions given to participants,
it appears participants in the Ganzfeld condition were invited to relax and allow images to
appear to them about the distant location as targets and record these. Meanwhile, before
attempting their session those in the remote viewing condition were instructed to try out stages one
and two of CRV only. Stage 1 refers to perception of basic, overall nature of the site or target (usually
referred to as the “major gestalt”). Examples of these major gestalts might be “land,” “structure,”
“water,” “event,” etc.; Stage 2 refers to basic sensory perceptions, tastes, sounds, colors,
qualities of light, textures, temperatures, etc.) before attempting their session. In CRV
methodology, it is really stages 3, 4 and 6 in which imagined movements around the location,
and further exploring of sketches and initial impressions happen. Furthermore, it is not until the
viewer passes from stage 2 to 3, signified by more integration into the target location, that a
viewer is believed to move into a deeper connection with the 'signal line' (For more details
about CRV, see Smith, 2014; Buchanan, 2023). Therefore, the methodology may not have been
utilized in a way it was intended and thus may not be comparable to studies in which the full
methodology has been used.

Selected participants

What exactly does “selected participants” mean? In remote viewing, this may mean that they
are highly trained, experienced at similar or comparable tasks, previously tested by researchers, and
may have been originally selected for indicators suggesting they would do well with intuitive tasks. In
other free-response studies, “selected” subjects may be chosen for backgrounds in meditation,
music, reporting of prior spontaneous experiences, or successfully participating in other
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 19

experimental trials. Some remote viewers have participated in hundreds or even thousands of
targets over the course of many years (Katz and Tressoldi, 2022; Katz et al., 2021). Swann and Puthoff
discussed how Swann may have completed close to a million trials during his time working at SRI,
although this included both forced choice and free-response trials. (Swann, 1986). Furthermore,
many viewers have noted that they have attended years of training in various RV modalities (Katz and
Tressoldi, 2022). This is not to say that some participants in the Ganzfeld study or the ESP Dream
study 'selected' are not experienced in various aspects of intentional psi practices, but they may not
have as many social, training, or practice opportunities available to them as remote viewers.

Across all types of parapsychological studies, the term 'selected' is often poorly defined, with
little more than one sentence or two dedicated to this topic.

In summary, there appear to be several differences between remote viewing studies and
other free-response-type designs. These include differences in induction methods, physical setting,
the time provided for session work, and possible pairing of a trained monitor or interviewer with
both seasoned viewers and novices. Other differences include the level of training of select subjects,
which involves an expanded awareness of an analytic overlay model, and the ability of remote
viewers to follow up on initial bits or streams of information through learned visualization and
kinesthetic approaches. Some viewers employing CRV may use materials that are not used in other
free-response studies, such as paper, larger canvases, and modeling tools. Many viewers today
conduct their sessions from home and have greater flexibility in terms of when they conduct their
sessions and how often they can take breaks. This may allow them to wait until they are more
focused.

Differences in analytic models may also include more refined scoring procedures in RV, so
that not only is a photo chosen from a set of photos, but a score is given that could be on a 7-point,
3-point scale, or other methodology, and then the photo with the highest score is chosen by the
viewer or an independent rater. (Katz & Knowles, 2022).

Aims of this meta-analysis

The main aim of this meta-analysis is to offer a quantitative systematic review of all available
evidence obtained with RV protocols up to December 2022.

We also wished to compare studies with respect to some potentially relevant moderators
e.g., ‘selected' participants, defined as trained or experienced with some kind of record, with non-
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 20

selected subjects (novice, untrained, inexperienced, etc.); studies utilizing an agent versus those
without an agent.

Another objective was to compare the results of our meta-analysis with those related to
extra-sensory perception in a Ganzfeld environment, dream, and forced choice protocols to discover
which have had the strongest results.

Main Exploratory Hypotheses

1. Based on previous meta-analyses, selected subjects will outperform nonselected ones.

2. Given the successful results of earlier 'outbounder' studies involving an agent sent to a
location, as well as the apparent success of 'Project Scanate' that used coordinates instead of
an agent to focus the viewer’s attention, we do not expect to find a difference between
these agent / non-agent protocols.

Previous review

Although RV protocols have been used since 1974, there are no dedicated systematic review
and meta-analysis. In her review, Utts (1996), considered only the SAIC and SRI results. In Milton's
(1997) meta-analysis, RV studies were included in the larger category of free-response studies
without altered states of consciousness. The same decision was applied in the two meta-analysis of
Storm & Tressoldi, (2020), and Storm, Tressoldi, & Di Risio, (2010). Only Baptista, Derakhshani, and
Tressoldi. (2015) presented a summary of RV evidence up to 2014, but it was not a formal meta-
analysis.

Method

Reporting Guidelines

We adopted the APA Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards (MARS, Appelbaum et al., 2018) and
the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (Page
et al., 2021).

Search of studies
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 21

On 30th of January 2023 we searched the papers by using the open access scientific
databases Google Scholar, using the keywords 'remote viewing’ AND (logical operator) ‘extrasensory
perception’ up to 2022. This search yielded 1350 results.

We also refined the retrieval of the papers by checking all references related to the studies
included in the cited meta-analyses and in all more recent papers.

Inclusion criteria

We adopted the following inclusion criteria: a) the term 'remote viewing' should be made
explicit in the title or abstract; b) the papers must be published in English in peer-reviewed scientific
journals or in scientific conference proceedings; c) the papers must be related to experimental
studies and not theoretical or methodological issues; d) the total number of trials and hits counts
should be available in the results; e). The studies may be of an entirely experimental nature or may
have been conducted for both experimental and applied/operational purposes (such as for ARV
studies which tracked statistical results per trial, but also earned income from wagering). f) The
experiments should be truly free response, rather than forced choice tasks in which experimenters
simply used the term “remote viewing” as a modern synonym for clairvoyance. By free response, this
means that the psi participants had to be granted at least some period of time to perform a psi-
based session and report their impressions for unknown targets that are part of a larger pool they
have minimal knowledge of, before being shown judging sets to choose from. g). As long as the
above criteria were met, all studies fitting the definition of remote viewing provided at the top of this
paper by the International Remote Viewing Association were included. These studies represented a
diverse collection of remote viewing designs, approaches, and participants as discussed above.

We included 36 studies with a total of 40 effect sizes. The PRISMA flow chart is presented in
the Supplementary Material.

Variables coding

The following variables were included in the database: a) Authors’ name; b) Year of
publication; c) Participants category: 0 = unselected, 1 = selected; d); publication type: 0 =
conferences proceedings, 1 = peer reviewed journals; e) judges of participants’ data: 1 = participants;
2 = independent judges; f) task type: Clairvoyance, Precognition; g) Outbound agent: 0 = no; 1 = yes;
h) Interviewer: Yes = 1; No = 0; i) number of participants; l) number of trials; m) number of correct
responses (hits); n) proportion of hits; o) number of choices in the judging phase; p) proportion of
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 22

hits expected by chance or Mean Chance Expected (MCE); q) proportion of hits and proportion of
hits expected by chance difference.

Effect size measures

Taking the number of trials, the number of hits and the MCE as raw data, the standardized
effect sizes, similar to Cohen’s d, were estimated using the formula Z/√N of the trials.

The Z value are obtained using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Under
the null hypothesis of no psi, the number of hits in each study has a binomial distribution with n =
the number of sessions, and p = 1/number of choices in the target set used for judging. Because
there are differing values of p across studies, it makes sense to convert the exact binomial values to
z-scores using the normal approximation. This calculation can be obtained online at this site:
https://www.omnicalculator.com/statistics/normal-approximation.

The corresponding standard errors were estimated using the formula:

(ℎ𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛) ∗ (1 − ℎ𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)
(𝑀𝐶𝐸) ∗ (1 − 𝑀𝐶𝐸) ∗ (𝑁 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙)
Meta-analysis models

We applied a frequentist random effect model using the metafor package v. 3.8 (Viechtbauer,
2010), adopting the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) to estimate the heterogeneity variance
(Langan et al., 2019) and the Hartung method to control effect size nonnormality (Rubio-Aparicio et
al., 2018) and corresponding confidence intervals estimation.

To test the results’ robustness, we also applied a Bayesian random effect model using the
MetaBMA package v. 0.6.7 (Heck et al., 2017). As priors for the average effect size, we used a normal
distribution with mean = 0.1, considered as the minimum expected effect size; SD = 0.03, positive
constrained, lower bound = 0 (Haaf & Rouder, 2020), given our expectation of a positive value. For
the tau prior parameter, we used an inverse gamma distribution with shape = 1, scale = 0.15,
suggested as default option.

Outliers Detection

We identified as outliers the effect sizes whose 95% confidence interval lies outside the 95%
confidence interval of the average effect using the function find.outliers of the dmetar package
(Harrer, Cuijpers, Furukawa, & Ebert, 2021).
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 23

Publication bias tests

From an empirical point of view, 13 Z values (34.2%) resulted below 1.65, the statistical
threshold corresponding to a p value of .05. Furthermore, following the suggestions of Carter,
Schönbrodt, Gervais, & Hilgard, (2019) we applied two further tests to assess publication bias:

The 3-parameter selection model (3PSM)

The three parameters model, implemented by Coburn & Vevea, (2019) in the package
‘weightr’ v.2.0.2, represents the average true underlying effect, δ, the heterogeneity of the random
effect sizes, τ2 and the probability that there is a nonsignificant effect in the pool of effect sizes. The
probability parameter is modeled by a step function with a single cut point at p = 0.025 (one-tailed),
which corresponds to a two-tailed p-value of 0.05. This cut-off point divides the range of possible p-
values into two bins: significant and nonsignificant. The three parameters are estimated using
maximum likelihood (Carter et al., 2019).

The Robust Bayesian Meta-Analysis Test

The Robust Bayesian meta-analysis (RoBMA) test implemented with the RoBMA package
v.2.3.1 (Bartoš,, Maier, Wagenmakers, Doucouliagos & Stanley, 2022) is an extension of the Bayesian
meta-analysis obtained by adding selection models to account for publication bias. This allows
model-averaging across a larger set of models, ones that assume publication bias and ones that do
not. This test allows us to quantify evidence for the absence of publication bias estimated with a
Bayes factor. In our case we compared only two models, a random-effects model assuming no
publication bias and a random-model assuming publication bias.

Meta-regression

To test the so-called 'decline effect', that is, if the average effect size declines with further
data accumulation, we estimated the overall effect size taking the variable 'year of publication' as a
covariate and the effect size of each study as dependent variable using a meta-regression model.

Moderators’ effects

We compared the difference of the following four moderators: (a) Type of participant, (b)
Type of task, and (c) Publication type, and d) Interviewer presence. As described in the Variable
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 24

Coding paragraph, the variable Type of participant has been coded in a binary way: selected vs.
unselected; Type of task has been coded as Clairvoyance or Precognition; Publication type = 0 for
studies published in conference proceedings or = 1, for the studies published in scientific journals
with full peer-review; Interviewer = Yes (1) or No (0).

The entire database and the code used for all statistical analyses are open access available at
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22298266.v1 for independent reproducibility and analyses.

Results

Descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics of the main variables are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Descriptive statistics of the main variables.

Type Count (Percentage) Mean - Median (SD) Range

Participants type Selected= 26 (65) Unselected=14
(35)
Publication type Peer-reviewed= 26 (65)
No peer-reviewed= 14 (35)
Judges type Participants= 6 (15)
External = 34 (85)
Tasks type Clairvoyance= 23 (57.5)
Clairvoyance with agent= 13
(32.5)
Clairvoyance without agent= 10
(25)
Precognition= 17 (42.5)
Precognition with agent= 3 (7.5)
Precognition without agent= 14
(35)
Interviewer Yes = 23 (57.5)
No = 17 (42.5)
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 25

Participants number 50.6 – 7 (139.46) 1 - 770

Trials number 242.1 – 38.5 (897.5) 5 - 5677
Hits % above MCE 19.3 – 13.2 (17.9) -2.8 – 55.6

Average effects

The results of the frequentist and Bayesian average effects meta-analyses are presented in
Table 2. The outliers detection identified Husting & Hurts (1986) as an influential outlier.

Table 2: Frequentist and Bayesian meta-analytic results.

Meta-analysis n. Effect 95% Confidence/Credible p/Bayes Heterogeneity

effect size Intervals Factor I2
size H1/H0
Frequentist 40 .36 .23 - .48 8.7-e10 100

Frequentist 39 .34 .22 - .45 2.94-e9 100

without outliers
Bayesian 39 .33 .23 - .42 530209
without outliers

Comment

The results of both the frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses are in close agreement. The
level of heterogeneity among studies is very high, as expected by the wide variability of participants
and experimental designs. The forest plot is available in the Supplementary Material.

Publication bias analysis

The results of the 3-parameter selection model and the robust Bayesian meta-analysis are
reported in Table 3.

Table 3: Effect size and corresponding 95% confidence / credibility intervals of the 3PSM and RoBMA
publication bias tests.

n. effect size Effect size 95% Confidence/Credible

Intervals
3PSM 39 .31 .16 - .47
RoBMA 39 .32 .23 - .42
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 26

Comment:

From both an empirical and a simulated point approach, there is no sign of publication bias.

Moderators’ analyses

The results of the meta-analyses related to the main moderators are presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Results of the meta-analyses related to the main moderators.

Type n. effect Effect 95% Confidence p Heterogeneity

size size Intervals I2
Selected participants 26 .35 .20 - .50 3.5e-7 100
Unselected participants 13 .30 .08 - .52 .01 99.9
Clairvoyance Tasks 22 .37 .19 - .54 .0003 99.8
Clairvoyance Tasks with 12 .46 .15 - .77 .007 93.7
Outbound partner
Clairvoyance Tasks without 10 .30 .06 - .53 .01 99.8
Outbound partner
Precognition Tasks 17 .30 .13 - .47 .001 100
Peer- reviewed papers 26 .28 .14 - .42 .0002 99.9
No peer-reviewed papers 13 .48 .23 - .72 .001 99.6
Interviewer - Yes 22 .43 .25 -.61 3.02-e7 99.7
Interviewer - No 17 .25 .09 - .41 .003 100

Comment

Among the more relevant results, there is a small difference between the conditions
requiring a clairvoyant or a precognitive activity, particularly when there was an outbound partner.
Given the low number (2, 5.4%), we did not estimate studies that require precognitive activity with
an outbound partner.

Another difference is between peer-reviewed and no peer-reviewed studies with a larger

effect size for the latter ones, and between protocols with and without an interviewer, even if their
confidence intervals overlap.
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 27

Given the low number of studies (5, 13%) that used self-judging, we did not compare them
with the studies using independent judges.

However, these differences in the means do not correspond to a statistical difference, given
the wide range and overlap of their confidence intervals, as shown in Figure 1, for a better visual
comparison of these statistical parameters.

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Effect Size

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Figure 1: Effect size and corresponding 95% confidence intervals related to the different moderators.

Decline Effect

To check if there was a decline effect, that is, a decrease in effect size since 1974, we
performed a meta-regression analysis using the variable 'year' of publication as moderators.

The results were the following: effect size = -.008; 95% Cis = -.015 - -.002, suggesting a
minimal statistically significant decline, z = -2.43; p=-015.

Differences with other ESP protocols

In Figures 2a and 2b, we compared the average standardized identical effect size with the
corresponding 95% confidence intervals of selected and unselected participants with those obtained
with other protocols, all aimed at detecting extrasensory perception. Results related to forced choice
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 28

protocols with participants in a normal state of consciousness are obtained by Storm and Tressoldi
(2023); those related to free response protocol with participants in a Ganzfeld environment are
obtained by Tressoldi & Storm, (2023), and those obtained from presentiment protocols by Duggan &
Tressoldi, (2018). For this protocol, there are no data related to selected participants.

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
EFFECT SIZE

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.35
0.2
0.03
0.1 0.17
0
Forced-Choice Free-Response Ganzfeld Free-Response Remote
Viewing

Figure 2a: Average effect size with corresponding 95% confidence intervals obtained by selected
participants.

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
EFFECT SIZE

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.30 0.28
0.2
0.1
0.01 0.047
0
Forced-Choice Free-Response Free-Response Presentiment
Ganzfeld Remote Viewing

Figure 2b: Average effect size with corresponding 95% confidence intervals obtained by unselected
participants.
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 29

Discussion

The results of this first meta-analysis related to all RV studies carried out in almost 50 years
are quite encouraging, even if they are few, approximately one per year. The observed average effect
size was confirmed by both frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses. Furthermore, no signs of
publication bias and a tiny decline effect were observed.

The average size of the RV effect was the strongest with respect to all other protocols used to
investigate extrasensory perception.

In terms of raw percentage of hits difference from chance, RV protocols obtained 19.3%, 95%
confidence intervals: 13.6% - 25%, much higher than that obtained with the ganzfeld protocol of
6.8%, 95% confidence intervals: 4.7% - 8.9% (Tressoldi and Storm, 2023).

Among the meta-analyses of the moderators, it is interesting that we did not observe
differences between selected and non-selected participants. This result is quite unexpected given the
importance given to training in RV. We will see if this finding will be confirmed in future studies.
However, from a statistical point of view, this small difference did not turn out statistically significant
(t(37) = .15: p=-88) given the small number of studies, the large variability of effect sizes, and
consequently the lower statistical power.

Furthermore, we observed a small difference between the precognitive and clairvoyance

tasks, particularly with those with an outbound agent, but without reaching a statistical difference
given the wide confidence interval of the means.

Participants in studies in which remote viewers were paired with interviewers who helped
guide them through their session work performed slightly better on average than those in which they
worked independently. While many viewers today tend to perform their work solo (Katz & Tressoldi,
2022), our findings may encourage some to revisit this practice. In the research and military arms of
the RV programs, viewers almost always worked in partnership with an experienced interviewer (Katz
& Bulgatz,2019; Puthoff, 2023). Although we can only speculate here, this might also account for the
only very slight differences between studies using select vs. unselect subjects, as it is possible that
utilizing an experienced interviewer could make up for the lack of experience in an unselected
subject.

In this meta-analysis, we did not have enough studies with descriptions of their methods to
analyze potential differences among the different RV techniques, for example ARV and CRV; ERV and
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 30

CRV, or stages 1-6 of CRV vs. studies using only stages 1 & 2 (Roe et al., 2020). Such an assessment is
certainly warranted.

Similarly, we did not have enough studies to compare self-judging with independent judging
protocols, another relevant characteristic worth investigating.

Our statistical findings suggest that remote viewing protocols may have stronger results than
the collection of other free response protocols, which are already found to have stronger results with
respect to forced choice ones.

Implications and Applications

Our results paired with previous findings suggest that the use of RV, if properly applied by
experts, can have wide practical applications, from military and intelligence applications to
archeological investigations (Schwartz, Mattei, & Society, 2000) to finance (Katz, Grgic & Fendley,
2018), as documented by Katz and Tressoldi (2022).

Another interesting finding was the almost identical outcome of studies related to
precognitive or clairvoyant tasks, particularly when there was an outbounder (agent). Storm and
Tressoldi (2023) found a similar outcome in their meta-analysis of studies related to forced-choice
protocols. This finding suggests that the future may be as easy to describe as the present, very
probably because extra-sensory perception taps into a sort of nonlinear time frame.

Study limitations

The main limitation of this study is similar to all other available meta-analyses related to ESP,
that is, studies were not pre-registered in open access registries, i.e., Open Science Framework,
allowing the possibility that the researchers may have engaged in the so-called questionable
research practices (John, Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2012). However, the percentage of 34.2% non-
statistically significant z scores observed in this meta-analysis, suggests that these practices were not
widely applied.

Another limitation is the studies' unexplained high level of heterogeneity even when
analyzed considering the different moderators (see I2 values in Table 4). This high heterogeneity
suggests other potential unexplored moderators to explore, for example the quality of images to be
compared and/or interactions among those analyzed in this study, e.g., selected participants and
type of task. The low number of effect sizes for such analyses precluded us from such an
investigation.
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 31

Recommendations for future studies

Although Spitzer & Mueller (2021), speaking to psychological research in general found that
'preregistering studies is still not the norm in the field' (p. 1), our recommendation for all future
studies is that researchers preregister methodology and data analyses, and make their raw data open
access for independent reproducibility of results.

Moreover, as our literature review suggest, mixed-method studies, such as pairing a Ganzfeld
set up with remote viewing (Roe et al., 2020) or hypnosis (Ballati et al., 2020), may hold potential.
We recommend that such pairings be further explored with experienced remote viewers.
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 32

References

Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018). Journal
article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and
Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 3–25.
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000191

Atwater, F. H. (2001). Captain of my ship, master of my soul: Living with guidance. Hampton Roads
Publishing.

Baptista, J., Derakhshani, M. &Tressoldi, P. (2015). Explicit Anomalous Cognition. A Review of the Best
Evidence in Ganzfeld, Forced—Choice, Remote Viewing and Dream Studies. In Etzel Cardeña, John
Palmer and Davis Marcusson-Clavertz (Eds). Parapsychology. A Handbook for the 21st Century.
McFarland.

Bartoš, F., Maier, M., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Doucouliagos, H., & Stanley, T. D. (2022). Robust Bayesian
Meta-Analysis: Model-Averaging Across Complementary Publication Bias Adjustment Methods.
Research Synthesis Methods. https://doi.org/10.1002/JRSM.1594

Bierman, D., & Rabeyron, T. (2013). Can psi research sponsor itself? Simulations and results of an
automated ARV-casino experiment. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Convention of the
Parapsychological Association in Viterbo, Italy, August.

Brown, C. (2012). Remote Viewing the future with a tasking temporal outbounder. Journal of
Scientific Exploration, 26(1), 81-110.

Buchanan, R. (2023). The Fleshly School of Poetry. BoD–Books on Demand.

Carter, E., Schönbrodt, F., Gervais, W., & Hilgard, J. (2019). Correcting-bias-in-psychology. Advances in
Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 115–144.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847196

Coburn, K. M., & Vevea, J. L. (2019). Package ‘weightr’. Estimating Weight-Function Models for
Publication Bias.

D.I.A. (2000). A brief overview of Project Sunstreak. Released online by the Central Intelligence
Agency; https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB534-DIA-Declassified-
Sourcebook/documents/DIA-21.pdf
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 33

Duggan, M., & Tressoldi, P. (2018). Predictive physiological anticipatory activity preceding seemingly

unpredictable stimuli: An update of Mossbridge et al’s meta-analysis. F1000Research, 7, 407.

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.14330.2

Fendely, T., Atwater, T. (2021). Investigation of ARV session-event time delay and judging protocols
for horse race predictions. Aperture. 34, Spring Summer, 34-
44.https://www.irva.org/library/aperture

Graff, D. (2000). River Dreams: The Case of the Missing General and Other Adventures in Psychic
Research. Houghton Mifflin.

Haaf, J. M., & Rouder, J. N. (2021). Does Every Study? Implementing Ordinal Constraint in Meta-
Analysis. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000428.supp

Harary, K., & Targ, R. (1985). A new approach to forecasting commodity futures. Psi Research, 4, 79–
85.

Harrer, M., Cuijpers, P., Furukawa, T. A., & Ebert, D. D. (2021). Doing Meta-Analysis with R : A Hands-
On Guide. Doing Meta-Analysis with R. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003107347

Heck, D. W., Gronau, Q. F., & Wagenmakers, E. (2017). metaBMA: Bayesian model averaging for
random and fixed effects meta-analysis. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.835494

Honorton, C., Berger, R. E., Varvoglis, M. P., Quant, M., Derr, P., Schechter, E. I., & Ferrari, D. C. (1990).
Psi communication in the ganzfeld: Experiments with an automated testing system and a comparison
with a meta-analysis of earlier studies. The Journal of Parapsychology, 54(2), 99.

Katz, D.L., & Bulgatz, M. (2019). An intimate conference with Russell Targ: The other half of Hella’s
brain. Eight Martini’s Magazine, issue 7, 4-20.

Katz & Knowles (2022). Associative Remote Viewing: The Art & Science of Predicting Outcomes for
Sports, Politics, Finances and the Lottery. Living Dreams Press.

Katz, D. L. & Tressoldi, P. (2022). Remote Viewing Applications: A Survey of Present-Day Remote
Viewing Practitioners. Journal of Parapsychology, 86(1),135-157.
http://doi.org/10.30891/jopar.2022.01.07

Katz, D. L. (2021). 50 Year History of Applied RV Projects. Aperture, 34, Spring/Summer, 18-23.
https://www.irva.org/library/aperture
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 34

Katz, D. L., Grgić, I., & Fendley, T. W. (2018). An ethnographical assessment of Project Firefly: A
yearlong endeavor to create wealth by predicting FOREX currency moves with associative remote
viewing. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 32(1), 21–54. DOI: 10.31275/2018/1141

Katz, D. L., Smith, N., Graff, D., Bulgatz, M., & Lane, J. (2019). The associative remote dreaming
experiment: A novel approach to predicting future outcomes of sporting events. Journal of the
Society for Psychical Research, 83(2), 65–84.

Katz, D. L., Grgić, I., Tressoldi, P., & Fendley, T.W. (2020). Associative Remote Viewing Projects:
Assessing rater reliability and factors affecting successful predictions. Journal of the Society for
Psychical Research, 85(2), 65-90.

Katz, D. L., Lane, J., & Bulgatz, M. (2021). Effects of background context for objects in photographic
targets on remote viewing performance. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 34(4), 752-787.
https://doi.org/10.31275/20212405

Katz, D.L., & Ford, A. (2022). Channeling and Remote Viewing with Angela Ford. New Thinking
Allowed Video Collection. https://youtu.be/WHDvTi5ALRc

Knowles, J. (2018) Remote Viewing from the Ground Up. Create Space.

Kolodziejzyk, G. (2015). Thirteen-year associative remote viewing results. Journal of Parapsychology,

76(2), 349–368.

Kruth, J. G. (2021). Associative Remote Viewing for Profit: Evaluating the Importance of the Judge
and the Investment Instrument. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 35(1), 13-35.

Langan, D., Higgins, J. P. T., Jackson, D., Bowden, J., Veroniki, A. A., Kontopantelis, E., … Simmonds, M.
(2019). A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random-effects meta-
analyses. Research Synthesis Methods, 10(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1316

Lantz, N. D., Luke, W. L. W., & May, E. C. (1994). Target and sender dependencies in anomalous
cognition experiments. Journal of Parapsychology, 58, 285–302.

Marwaha, S. B., & May, E. C. (2019). The StarGate Operational Remote Viewing Program. The
StarGate Archives: Reports of the United States Government Sponsored Psi Program, 1972-1995.
Volume 4: Operational Remote Viewing: Memorandums and Reports, 5.
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 35

Mathur, M. B., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2021). Estimating publication bias in meta-analyses of peer-
reviewed studies: A meta-meta-analysis across disciplines and journal tiers. Research Synthesis
Methods, 12(2), 176-191. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1464

May, E. C. (2011). Possible thermodynamic limits to anomalous cognition: Entropy gradients. Journal
of the Society for Psychical Research, 75.2(903), 65-75.

May, E.C. & Marwaha, S. (2018). The StarGate Archives: Reports of the United States Government
Sponsored Psi Program, 1972-1995. Volume 1: Remote Viewing, 1972-1984. McFarland & Company.

May, E. C., Spottiswoode, S. J. P, & James, C. L. (1994). Managing the target-pool bandwidth: Possible
noise reduction for anomalous cognition experiments. Journal of Parapsychology, 58, 303–313.

May, E. C., Spottiswoode, S. J. P., & Faith, L. V. (2000). Correlation of the gradient of Shannon entropy
and anomalous cognition: Toward an AC sensory system. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 14(1), 53-
72.

May, E.C., Utts, J., Humphrey, B., Luke, W., Frivold, T., & Trask, V. (1990). Advances in remote viewing
analysis. Journal of Parapsychology, 54(3) 193-228.

May, E. C., Utts, J. M., & Spottiswoode, S.J. P. (1995). Decision augmentation theory: Toward a model
of anomalous mental phenomena. Journal of Parapsychology, 59, 195-220.

McMoneagle, J. (2000). Remote viewing secrets. Developing and extending your psychic abilities.
Hampton Roads Publishing.

Milton, J. (1997). Meta-analysis of free-response ESP studies without altered states of consciousness.
The Journal of Parapsychology, 61(4), 279-319.

Mitchell, J. L (1987). Out-of-body experiences: A handbook. Aquarian.

Monroe, R. A. (1977). Journeys out of the body. Anchor Press.

Mumford, M.D., Rose, A.M. and Goslin, D.A. (1995). An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and
Applications. Retrieved from https://irp.fas.org/program/collect/air1995.pdf

Puthoff, H.E. (2023). Private correspondence.

Puthoff, H. E. (1984). ARV applications. In R. White & J Solfvin (Eds.), Research in Parapsychology.
Scarecrow Press.
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 36

Puthoff, H.E. (1996). CIA initiated remote viewing experiments at Stanford Research Institute (SRI).
Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin.
https://www.newdualism.org/papers/H.Puthoff/CIAInitiated%20Remote%20Viewing%20At%2Stanfo
rd%20Research%20Institute.htm

Roe, C. A., & Flint, S. (2007). A remote viewing pilot study using a ganzfeld induction procedure.
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 71 (4),4, 230–234.

Roe, C., Cooper, C., Hickinbotham, L., Hodrien, A., Kirkwood, L., & Martin, H. (2020). Performance at
a precognitive remote viewing task, with and without ganzfeld stimulation: Three experiments.
Journal of Parapsychology, 84(1), 38-65. http://doi.org/10.30891/jopar2020.01.06

Rosenblatt, R., Knowles, J., & Poquiz, A. (2015). Applied Precognition Project (APP) and a Summary of
APP-2014. Connections Through Time, 38. http://p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue38/Connections_38.html

Rubio-Aparicio, M., López-López, J. A., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., Viechtbauer, W., & Van
den Noortgate, W. (2018). Estimation of an overall standardized mean difference in random-effects
meta-analysis if the distribution of random effects departs from normal. Research Synthesis
Methods, 9(3), 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1312

Schwartz, S. A., Mattei, R. J. De, & Society, T. M. (2000). The discovery of an American brig: fieldwork
involving applied remote viewing including a comparison with electronic remote sensing.
Archaeology, 73–78.

Schwartz, S.A. (2020). The origins of ARV. Mindfield Bulletin of the Parapsychological
Association.12(1), 7-14.

Sinclair (2001). Mental Radio. (Studies in Consciousness). Hampton Roads Publishing.

Smith, C., Laham, D., & Moddel, G. (2014). Stock market prediction using associative remote viewing
by inexperienced viewers. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 28(1), 7–16.

Smith, D. (2014). Controlled Remote Viewing: Collected manuals and information to help you learn
this intuitive art. Smith Publishing. https://www.remoteviewed.com/crv-manuals

Smith, P. H. (2005). Reading the enemy’s mind: Inside StarGate—America’s psychic espionage
program. Tom Dougherty Associates.

Smith, P. H. (2015). The essential guide to remote viewing: The secret military remote perception skill
anyone can learn. Intentional Press.
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 37

Smith, P.H. & Stahler, J.P. (2008). CRV-REG Study. International Remote Viewing Association Website.
https://www.crvreg.org/study/overview/overview.html

Spickett, G. (2020). A Deep dive into remote viewing tournament, the psychic competition app with
real prizes. Remote Viewing Community Magazine. https://medium.com/remote-viewing-
community-magazine/a-deep-dive-into-remote-viewing-tournament-the-psychic-competition-app-
with-real-prizes-d2f176ffeb84

Spitzer L, Mueller S. Registered Report Protocol: Survey on attitudes and experiences regarding
preregistration in psychological research. PLoS One. 2021 Jul 2;16(7):e0253950. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0253950. PMID: 34214134; PMCID: PMC8253437.

Spottiswoode, S. J. P. (1997). Geomagnetic fluctuations and free-response anomalous cognition: A

new understanding. Journal of Parapsychology, 61(1), 3-12.

Storm, L. (2003). Remote viewing by committee: RV using a multiple agent/multiple percipient

design. Journal of Parapsychology, 67, 325–342.

Storm, L., & Tressoldi, P. E. (2020). Meta-Analysis of Free-Response studies 2009-2018: Assessing the
Noise-Reduction Model ten years on. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 84(4), 193–219.
https://doi.org/10.31234/OSF.IO/3D7AT

Storm, L. & Tressoldi, P.E. (2023). Assessing 36 years of the forced-choice design in extra-sensory
perception studies: a 1987 to 2022 meta-analysis. Journal of Scientific Exploration (in press).

Storm, L., Sherwood, S. J., Roe, C. A., Tressoldi, P. E., Rock, A. J., & Di Risio, L. (2017). On the
correspondence between dream content and target material under laboratory conditions: A meta-
analysis of dream-ESP studies, 1966-2016. International Journal of Dream Research, 10(2), 120–140.

Storm, L., Tressoldi, P. E., & Di Risio, L. (2010). Meta-analysis of free-response studies, 1992-2008:
Assessing the noise reduction model in parapsychology. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 471–485.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019457

Swann, I. (1986) Ingo Swann papers found in SRI Files, Annie Belle Weaver Special Collections, Irvine
Sullivan, Ingram Library, University of West Georgia. https://www.westga.edu/special/index.php.

Swann, I. (1993). On remote viewing, UFO’s, and extraterrestrials. Fate Magazine, 46(9), 73–82.

Swann, I. (1996). Remote Viewing: The Real Story. An Autobiographical memoir. Published online.
https://Ingoswann.com/superpowers.
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 38

Targ, R. & Kantra, J. (2000). Remote viewing in a group setting. Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol.
1,14, No. 1, pp. 107–114.

Targ, R. & Puthoff, H.E. (2005). Mind-Reach: Scientists look at psychic abilities. Hampton Roads
Publishing.

Targ, R., Kantra, J., Brown, D., & Wiegand, W. (1995). Viewing the future: A pilot study with an error-
detecting protocol. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 9(3), 367-380.

Thalbourne, M. A. (2003). A glossary of terms used in parapsychology. Puente Publications.

Tressoldi, P. E., & Storm, L. (2023). Stage 2 Registered Report: Anomalous perception in a Ganzfeld
condition - A meta-analysis of more than 40 years investigation. F1000 Research 10:234, 10, 234.
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.51746.2

Utts, J. (1996). An assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning. Journal of Scientific
Exploration, 10(1), 3–30.

Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of

Statistical Software, 36(3), 1-48.

Warcollier, R. (1948). Mind to Mind. Creative Age Press.

Williams, L. (2017). Monitoring: A Guide for Remote Viewing & Professional Intuitive Teams. Lambert
Williams Enterprises.

Williams, L. (2023). What is controlled remote viewing? (CRV). Intuitive Specialists website.
https://intuitivespecialists.com/
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 39

Acknowledgements

We thank one anonymous reviewer and in particular Paul Smith for his accurate review which helped
us to improve the clarity of the paper. We also thank the Editors, Brian R Laythe and James Houran
for their further precise comments and suggestions.

CRediT author statement

Patrizio Tressoldi
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration,
Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Debra Katz
Roles: Data Curation, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Funding

No funds were used for this study.

Conflict of Interest

We have no known conflicts of interest to disclose.

 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 40

Supplementary Material

References of the included and excluded studies with reason.

Included Studies

1. Allen, S., Green, P., Rucker, K., Cohen, R., Goolsby, C., & Morris, R. L. (1975). A remote
viewing study using modified version of the SRI procedure. In Morris, J. D., Roll, W. G., &
Morris, R. L. (Eds.). Research in Parapsychology. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press. 46–48.

2. Bierman, D., & Rabeyron, T. (2013). Can psi research sponsor itself? Simulations and
results of an automated ARV-casino experiment. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Convention of
the Parapsychological Association in Viterbo, Italy, August.

3. Brown, C. (2012). Remote Viewing the Future with a Tasking Temporal Outbounder. Journal

of Scientific Exploration, 26(1), 81-110.

4. Dunne, B. J., & Bisaha, J. P. (1978a), Long distance precognitive remote viewing. In W. G. Roll
(Ed.), Research in parapsychology, Metuchen. N. J, Scarecrow Press, 68-70.

5. Dunne, B. J., & Bisaha, J. P. (1978b), Multiple channels in precognitive remote viewing. In W.
G. Roll (Ed.), Research in parapsychology, Metuchen. N. J, Scarecrow Press, 1978.

6. Dunne, B. J., & Bisaha, J. P. (1979). Precognitive remote viewing in the Chicago area: A

replication of the Stanford experiment. Journal of Parapsychology, 43(1), 17-30.

7. Dunne, B. J., & Jahn, R. G. (2003). Information and uncertainty in remote perception

research. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 17, 207–241.

8. Harary, K., & Targ, R. (1985). A new approach to forecasting commodity futures. PSI
Research, 4(3-4), 79–88.

9. Hastings, A. C., & Hurt, D. B. (1976). A confirmatory remote viewing experiment in a group

setting. Proceedings of the IEEE, 64(10), 1544-1545.

 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 41

10. Katz, D. L., Grgic, I., & Fendley, T. W. (2018). An ethnographical assessment of project Firefly:

A yearlong endeavor to create wealth by predicting FOREX currency moves with Associative
Remote Viewing. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 32(1), 21-54.

11. Katz, D. L., Grgić, I., Tressoldi, P., & Fendley, T. (2021). Associative remote viewing projects:
assessing rater reliability and factors affecting successful predictions. Journal of the Society
for Psychical Research, 85(2), 65-90.

12. Katz, D. L., Lane, J. D., & Freed-Bulgatz, M. (2021). Effects of Background Context for Objects
in Photographic Targets on Remote Viewing Performance. Journal of Scientific Exploration,
35(4), 752-787.

13. Kolodziejzyk, G. (2013). Greg Kolodziejzyk’s 13-year associative remote viewing experiment
results. Journal of Parapsychology, 76, 349-368.

14. Krippner, S., Saunders, D. T., Morgan, A., & Quan, A. (2019). Remote viewing of concealed
target pictures under light and dark condition. Explore, 15:27-37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2018.07.001

15. Kruth, J. G. (2021). Associative Remote Viewing for Profit: Evaluating the Importance of the
Judge and the Investment Instrument. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 35(1), 13-35.

16. Müller, M., Müller, L., & Wittmann, M. (2019). Predicting the Stock Market. Zeitschrift für
Anomalistik Band, 19, 326-346.

17. Müller, M., & Wittmann, M. (2021). Anomalous Cognition in the Context of Time: Does the
Viewer Describe a Deterministic or a Probabilistic Future? Journal of Scientific Exploration,
35(3), 542–569.

18. Puthoff, H. E. (1985). ARV (associational remote viewing) applications. In R A. White & Solfvin
(Eds.), Research in Parapsychology Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 121-122.

19. Puthoff, H. E., & Targ, R (1974). Remote viewing of natural targets [Abstract]. In. D. Morris, W.
G. Roll, & R L. Morris (Eds ), Research in Parapsychology 1974 (pp. 30-32). Metuchen, NJ:
Scarecrow Press
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 42

20. Puthoff, H. E., Targ, R, & Tart, C. T. (1980). Resolution in remote-viewing studies: Mini-targets.
In W. G. Roll (Ed.), Research in Parapsychology,). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 120-122.

21. Roe, C., Cooper, C., Hickinbotham, L., Hodrien, A., Kirkwood, L., & Martin, H. (2020).
Performance at a precognitive remote viewing task, with and without ganzfeld stimulation:
Three experiments. Journal of Parapsychology, 84(1), 38-65.

22. Schlitz, M., & Deacon, S. (1980). Remote Viewing: A Conceptual Replication of Targ and
Puthoff. In W. G. Roll (Ed.), Research In Parapsychology, Metuchen, Nj: Scarecrow Press, 124-
126.

23. Smith, C. C., Laham, D., & Moddel, J. (2014). Stock market prediction using associative
remote viewing by inexperienced remote viewers. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 28(1), 7-
16.

24. Storm, L. (2003). Remote viewing by committee: RV using a multiple agent/multiple

percipient design. Journal of Parapsychology, 67, 325–342.

25. Subbotsky, E., & Ryan, A. (2014). Motivation and belief in the paranormal in a remote
viewing task. The Open Behavioral Science Journal, 8(1), 1-7.

26. Targ, R. (1994). Remote-viewing replication: Evaluated by concept analysis. Journal of

Parapsychology, 58(3), 271–284.

27. Targ, Russell & Harold Puthoff. (1976). "Replication Study on the Remote Viewing of Natural
Targets." In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, and R. L. Morris, eds. Research in Parapsychology 1975.
Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 33-36.

28. Targ, R., & Puthoff, H. (1974). Information transmission under conditions of sensory
shielding. Nature, 251(5476), 602-607.

29. Targ, R., H. E. Puthoff, B. S. Humphrey, & Tart, C. T. (1980). Investigations of Target
Acquisition, Research in Parapsychology 1979. Scarecrow Press, Inc., Metuchen, NJ, 122-124.
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 43

30. Targ, R., Targ, E., & Harary, K. (1984). Moscow-San Francisco remote viewing experiment. PSI
Research, 3(3-4), 74–82.

31. Targ, E., Targ, R, & Lichtargf, O. (1985). Real time clairvoyance: A study of remote-viewing
without feedback. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 79, 493-500

32. Targ, R., Katra, J., Brown, D., & Wiegand, W. (1995). Viewing the future: A pilot study with an
error-detecting protocol. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 9(3), 367-380.

33. Targ, R., & Katra, J. E. (2000). Remote viewing in a group setting. Journal of Scientific
Exploration, 14(1), 107-114.

34. Utts, J. (1999). The significance of statistics in mind-matter research. Journal of Scientific
Exploration, 13(4), 615-638.

35. Vallee, J. (1988). Remote viewing and computer communications—An experiment. Journal of
Scientific Exploration, 2(1), 13-27.

36. Whitson, T. W., Bogart, D. N., Palmer, J., & Tart, C. T. (1976). Preliminary experiments in
group" Remote viewing". Proceedings of the IEEE, 64(10), 1550-1551.

Excluded studies with reason:

Ballati, A., Prati, E., Pederzoli, L., & Tressoldi, P. (2020). Remote Viewing with and without controlled
Out-Of-Body Consciousness. Advanced Research in Psychology, 14154. [used only the number of
correct or wrong information related to the 4 targets]

Harary, K., & Targ, R. (1985). A new approach to forecasting commodity futures. PSI Research, 4(3-4),

79–88. [no hits count]

Karnes, E. W., Ballou, J., Susman, E. P., & Swaroff, P. (1979). Remote viewing: Failures to replicate with
control comparisons. Psychological Reports, 45(3), 963-973. [no hits count]

Karnes,E. W., & Susman,E. P. (1979). Remote viewing: a response bias interpretation. Psychological
Reports, 44, 471-479. [targets presented to the receivers]
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 44

Lantz, N. D., Luke, W. L. W., & May, E. C. (1994). Target and sender dependencies in anomalous
cognition experiments. Journal of Parapsychology., 58, 285-302. [no hits count]

Marks, D., & Kammann, R. (1978). Information transmission in remote viewing experiments. Nature,
274(5672), 680-681. [methodological, not experimental]

May, E. C. (2011). Possible thermodynamic limits to anomalous cognition: Entropy gradients. Journal
of the Society for Psychical Research, 75(903), 65-75. [methodological, not experimental]

May, E. C., Utts, J. M., Humphrey, B. S., Luke, W. L., Frivold, T. J., & Trask, V. V. (1990). Advances in
remote-viewing analysis. Journal of Parapsychology, 54(3), 193-228.[ methodological, not
experimental]

May, E. C., Spottiswoode, S. J. P., & James, C. L. (1994). Shannon entropy: A possible intrinsic target
property. Journal of Parapsychology, 58(4), 384-401. [methodological, not experimental]

May, E. C., Spottiswoode, J. P., & James, C. L. (1994). Managing the target-pool bandwidth: possible
noise reduction for anomalous cognition experiments. Journal of Parapsychology, 58(3), 303-313.
[methodological, not experimental]

Persinger, M. A., Roll, W. G., Tiller, S. G., Koren, S. A., & Cook, C. M. (2002). Remote viewing with the
artist Ingo Swann: neuropsychological profile, electroencephalographic correlates, magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI), and possible mechanisms. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94(3), 927-949. [no
hits count]

Nelson, R. D., Dunne, B. J., Dobyns, Y. H., & Jahn, R. G. (1996). Precognitive remote perception:
Replication of remote viewing. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 10(1), 109-110. [methodological]

Puthoff, H. E., & Targ, R (1976). A perceptual channel for information transfer over kilometer
distances: Historical perspective and recent research. Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical and
Electronic Engineers, 64, 329-354. [results included in the SRI data]

Roe, C. A., & Flint, S. (2007). A remote viewing pilot study using a ganzfeld induction procedure.
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 889, 230. [added a ganzfeld induction]

Schlitz, M, & Gruber, E. (1980). Transcontinental remote viewing. Journal of Parapsychology,44, 305-
317. [no hits count]

Schlitz, M., & Gruber, E (1981). Transcontinental remote viewing: A rejudging. Journal of
Parapsychology, 45, 233-237. [no hits count]

Schlitz, M. J., & Haight,J. (1984). Remote viewing revisited: An intrasubject replication. Journal of
Parapsychology, 48, 39-49. [no hits count]

Schlitz, M., & Braud, W. G. (1989). Free response PSl performance with and without feedback: An
attempted replication. In L. A. Henkel & RE Berger (Eds ), Research in Parapsychology, Metuchen, NJ:
Scarecrow Press, 53-58. [no hits count]

Solfvin, G., Roll, WG., and Krieger, J. (1978). Meditation and ESP: Remote Viewing. In W. Roll (Ed.),
Research in Parapsychology. Metuchenn, NJ: Scarecrow Press. 151-157. [no hits count]
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 45

Targ, R., & Morris, R. L. (1982). Note on a Reanalysis of the UCSB Remote-Viewing Experiments. The
Journal of Parapsychology, 46(1), 47-50- [reanalysis]

Wiseman, R., & Watt, C. (2010). ‘Twitter’ as a new research tool: A mass participation test of remote
viewing. European Journal of Parapsychology, 25, 89-100. [mass participation majority vote]
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 46

Forest Plot
 REMOTE VIEWING: A 1974-2022 META-ANALYSIS 47

PRISMA flowchart

Records identified through Records identified through Records identified through

Identification

Google Scholar previous meta-analyses specialized journals and

(n = 39) proceedings (n = 21)
(n = 1350)

Records after duplicates removed and application of the inclusion criteria

(n = ……)
(n = 120)
Screening

Records screened
(n =120)

Studies assessed for eligibility Studies excluded with reasons

(n = 57) (n = 21)
Eligibility

Studies included in the

meta-analysis
Included

(n = 36)