Discovery Lab Answers

Charles Honorton studies in the sources retrieved for this question

To be clear on scope: the five items below are the passages retrieved for this question — not an inventory of everything by Honorton in the library. The site profiles him more fully at Charles Honorton. With that caveat, here is what each retrieved source is and the statistics its excerpt actually shows.

1. Bem & Honorton (1994), Psychological Bulletin — the autoganzfeld meta-analysis

The paper that carried the ganzfeld database to a mainstream psychology audience ^[4]. From the retrieved text:

• Of 28 studies, 23 (82%) had positive z scores (exact binomial p = 4.6 × 10⁻⁴).
• 12 of 28 (43%) had z scores independently significant at the 5% level.
• Adding 10 further studies that used the relevant judging procedure but did not report hit rates — assigned a mean z of zero — the Stouffer z across all 38 studies becomes 5.67 (p = 7.3 × 10⁻⁹) ^[4].

The excerpt also records a substantive disagreement: Hyman claimed a correlation between randomization flaws and study outcome; Honorton claimed there was not — the dispute traced to conflicting flaw-category definitions ^[4].

2. Honorton (1997), Journal of Parapsychology — “The Ganzfeld Novice: Four Predictors of Initial ESP Performance”

A posthumous publication (the excerpt notes the structured footer erroneously renders the author as “Honorton, Gregory”; the document’s own editor’s note identifies “the late Charles Honorton”) ^[3]. It compares PRL-1 (Series 101–102), PRL-2 (Series 103–105), and an independent FRNM replication (Broughton, Kanthamani, & Khilji). Statistics from the excerpt ^[3]:

• Novice hit rates: PRL-1 30% (N = 100); PRL-2 35% (N = 106, p = .015); FRNM 28% (N = 120).
• Combined 31% (N = 326, p = .012, z = 2.25, h = .13).
• Myers-Briggs feeling-perceiving (FP) subjects across all three studies: 42% hits (N = 127, p = .000064, z = 3.83); non-FP nonsignificant (27%).
• Prior testing: PRL-1 novices with prior testing hit 50% (N = 20, p = .014) — significant in both PRL series, not replicated at FRNM.
• Mental disciplines: practitioners 34% (N = 220, p = .0025) vs 28% nonpractitioners (nonsignificant).
• Four-predictor model: participants satisfying all four factors hit 73% (weighted z = 3.35, p = .00041, h = 1.03). Three-predictor model (excluding prior testing): 99 participants at 43% (z = 3.64, p = .00014) vs 28% for the 191 not satisfying it (difference z = 2.64, p = .0041, phi = .15).

The paper’s own caution: no single predictor differentiated successful from unsuccessful performance across all three studies ^[3].

3. Schlitz & Honorton (1992), JASPR — “Ganzfeld Psi Performance Within an Artistically Gifted Population”

An autoganzfeld study with 20 Juilliard undergraduates, using the automated procedures described in Honorton et al. (1990) ^[5]. From the excerpt:

• 10 of 20 students (50%) hit — double the 25% chance expectation (exact binomial p = .014, z = 2.20, Cohen’s h = .52, 95% CI 29%–71%).
• Music students strongest: 6 of 8 musicians hit (75%, p = .0042, z = 2.63) ^[5].
• For comparison, the general PRL novice population is given as 30.1% hits (p = .047, z = 1.67, h = .13, 95% CI 24%–37%) ^[5].

One honesty flag the paper itself raises: with two creativity-scale outliers included, the correlation between ESP performance and creativity is a nonsignificant negative; excluding them, it is positive and significant ^[5].

4. Hyman & Honorton — “A Joint Communiqué: The Psi Ganzfeld Controversy”

Originally published 1986 (JP, 50, 351–364); the retrieved record is a 2019 Journal of Parapsychology reprint ^[1]. This is not an empirical study but a co-authored methodological statement — a parapsychologist and a critic agreeing on what the database showed and on standards for future work (randomization, judging, feedback, statistics, documentation, meta-analysis). The only figures in the excerpt are an illustrative worked example (a hypothetical 20-trial study: 9+ direct hits gives p = .041; a sum-of-ranks ≤ 41 gives p = .036), used to make a point about multiple-analysis correction — not a study result ^[1]. ESP-Nexus treats this document in depth at Hyman–Honorton joint communiqué and methodological standards.

5. Honorton (2014), Journal of Scientific Exploration — “A Moving Experience”

A macro-PK piece describing observations of a PK subject and related fieldwork (the excerpt references observations by Ullman, Pratt, and Keil, and a magician/photographer’s film) ^[2]. The retrieved excerpt contains no statistics — it is narrative/observational. That is what the excerpt shows, not a claim about the full paper.

The pattern

Across the retrieved empirical work, the ganzfeld/autoganzfeld results run positive and significant — the individual-differences predictors (FP type, artistic/musical selection) and the aggregate meta-analytic z’s are the strongest signals — while the Juilliard creativity correlation flips sign with two outliers, the novice predictors do not all replicate at FRNM, and the joint communiqué itself frames the verdict as awaiting future, more stringently controlled experiments ^[3][4][5][1].

Two provenance notes worth carrying forward: the 1997 “Ganzfeld Novice” record has a footer author-field error (rendered “Honorton, Gregory”) that the document’s own text corrects to Charles Honorton ^[3], and the 2014 JSE record’s DOI field is empty in the source ^[2].

For the fuller synthesis of this program, see Honorton: Altered states and psi performance.