Discovery Lab Answers

Ephraim I. Schechter — Experiments and Data

Ephraim I. Schechter was an active researcher at the Psychophysical Research Laboratories (PRL) in Princeton during the 1970s–1980s, contributing across several experimental programs. The sources retrieved for this question cover four distinct areas of his work.

1. Autoganzfeld Experiments (PRL)

Schechter was one of eight experimenters contributing sessions to the PRL autoganzfeld database, the results of which were reported in the landmark 1990 paper by Honorton, Berger, Varvoglis, Quant, Derr, Hansen, Schechter, and Ferrari ^[1]. That study reported eleven experimental series using an automated testing system — removing experimenter handling of targets and randomization from the trial sequence.

Key results from that paper ^[1]:

All eight experimenters produced positive effect sizes, and results were reported as homogeneous across experimenters (chi-square = 8.36, 7 df, p = .302) ^[1]. The homogeneity of effect sizes across series was also reported as non-significant (chi-square = 15.52, 10 df, p = .114), consistent with a uniform rather than outlier-driven result ^[1].

2. First-Timers Study and the Four-Factor Predictive Model

At the 1986 Parapsychological Association Convention, Honorton and Schechter jointly presented a four-factor model for predicting successful ganzfeld performance among first-time PRL participants ^[2]. The model combined:

• prior psi testing experience
• mental discipline practice (e.g., meditation)
• personal reported psi experiences
• feeling-perceptive MBTI classification

Within PRL data, all 6 participants fitting the four-factor model obtained direct hits; 28 participants fitting a three-factor version hit at 64% ^[1]. The first-timers paper also found that participants recruited through personal contact — specifically those referred by colleagues or other participants (N = 21) — showed significant psi performance (52.4% direct hits, p = .0064) ^[2].

Two first-timer series (FT1 and FT2) differed significantly in recruitment method: FT1 drew 46% from ads or media versus 11% in FT2, where 89% were recruited through personal contact (chi-square = 7.32, 1 df, p = .007) ^[2].

3. Computer Psi Games (Micro-PK)

Schechter co-authored a preliminary review with Berger and Honorton of participant performance across three Apple II-based computer psi game experiments: PsiBall (Pilots 1 and 2), Volition, and Psi Invaders ^[3]. The analysis examined eight individuals who had participated in all three RNG-PK experiments.

Notable findings from the personality correlate analyses ^[3]:

The pattern across Volition and Psi Invaders was that more introverted participants performed better in silent conditions while more extraverted participants performed better in feedback conditions ^[3]. Among participants identified as “multiple-experiment participants” (MEPs), the Psi Invaders silent-RNG condition produced significant hitting (t = 5.76, 7 df, p = .001) and the Volition feedback condition produced significant missing (t = −2.68, 7 df, p = .03) ^[3].

4. Statistical Consultation and Methodological Contributions

Beyond his experimental work, Schechter provided statistical consultation to other researchers. Milton’s 1988 ganzfeld study specifically credited Schechter and Donald McCarthy with identifying that a proposed use of the binomial test would be unjustified — because item-by-item correspondence points in that design were not assigned independently — and the analysis was corrected accordingly ^[4]. Isaacs and Patten (1991) similarly acknowledged Schechter for statistical consultation on their biocircuit relaxation study ^[6].

He also authored the retrospective overview of PRL’s autoganzfeld research published in the Journal of Parapsychology in 1993, reviewed in Palmer’s 80-year historical survey of that journal ^[5].

Review Role at PRL

Palmer’s historical overview records that in a 1993 Journal of Parapsychology symposium honoring Honorton, Schechter reviewed the autoganzfeld research Honorton had conducted at PRL — described as “more advanced and groundbreaking” than the earlier Maimonides work reviewed separately by Varvoglis ^[5].

Skeptical Critiques

What critics argued. The autoganzfeld database — the primary vehicle for Schechter’s ganzfeld work — has been scrutinized on methodological grounds, most notably by Ray Hyman, who questioned whether sensory leakage via the automated system had been fully excluded and whether the effect size was stable enough to constitute replication evidence. The Honorton–Hyman exchange, which preceded the PRL experiments, produced jointly agreed-upon methodological criteria that the autoganzfeld protocol was explicitly designed to satisfy.

What the experimental data show. The 1990 paper reports that all eight experimenters produced positive effect sizes homogeneous across experimenters ^[1], and that effect sizes were also homogeneous across the eleven series ^[1] — results consistent with a stable rather than outlier-driven pattern. The independent replication attempt by Broughton, Kanthamani, and Khilji at the Institute for Parapsychology, using the four-factor model Honorton and Schechter developed, found that participants referred by colleagues or other participants scored 52.4% direct hits (p = .0064, N = 21) ^[1][2] — consistent with the PRL finding in the personal-contact recruitment stratum.

Analysis. The autoganzfeld result has been widely cited as among the stronger databases in psi research, but independent replication outside PRL itself, using the full autoganzfeld protocol, remains a point the literature has not fully settled. The personality-correlate findings from the computer psi games ^[3] are preliminary cross-experiment analyses on a small sample of eight individuals and would require prospective replication to carry confirmatory weight.

For broader context on the PRL program and the autoganzfeld architecture, see the Charles Honorton and Rick E. Berger pages, and Schechter’s own profile at https://esp-nexus.org/scientists/ephraim-i-schechter/.