Williams: Kelly-Arcangel Mediumship Summary 1

Proxy Sittings: An Old and Renewed Twist in Mediumship Research

Bryan Williams
[This is a post I wrote for Mike Wilsons Psi Society group on Yahoo in 2011, which summarizes for lay readers some of the recent mediumship studies using proxy sittings, including the recent study published by Emily Williams Kelly and Diane Arcangel in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease.]

Throughout history, people have been fascinated by the claimed ability of mediums to communicate with deceased individuals. For instance, at the height of the Spiritualism movement in the late 19th century, it was quite socially fashionable for people to attend parlor room sances that were often focused around a certain medium who attempted to receive and convey messages from the dead while in a state of trance.1 And over the past decade, there have been signs of an apparent resurgence in public fascination with self-proclaimed mediums: Sylvia Browne, John Edward, and James Van Praagh have all had books that have been on the New York Times bestseller list, and have appeared on TV shows (or had a show of their own) in which they give readings to members of a studio audience. Television dramas such as Medium and Ghost Whisperer have been on the air for several seasons, and movies such as The Sixth Sense were boxoffice hits. Of course, mediumship would have important implications for our attempts to better understand human consciousness and its limits if it were ever validated through science. Serious scientific study of claimed mediums formally began in 1882 with the founding of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) by a prominent group of scholars associated with Cambridge University in England. Although the members of the SPR eventually found many claimed mediums to be fraudulent, they also found and closely studied a certain few, such as Mrs. Leonore Piper, who seemed capable of providing verifiable information about friends and relatives on the other side while in trance (Gauld, 1982). This was largely based on observations made by SPR members within the loosely-controlled space of the parlor room, however, and a more controlled environment would soon be needed in order to better ascertain that the medium was somehow obtaining this information through psychic means, and not simply obtaining it normally through the use of known psychological techniques of observation and deception. Naturally, this becomes an important issue toward providing an answer to the main question often posed by the general public: Are mediums really contacting the dead? In general, there are two techniques of normally obtaining information that have to be controlled for in studies of mediumship.2 One technique, called the Barnum effect, involves making statements that are so vague, broad, and generalized, that it is very likely they will apply to almost anyone. It has often been used in personality tests (Dickson & Kelly, 1985; Furnham & Schofield, 1987), and can be quite effective on people, whether they are conscious of it or not. For that reason, it has been frequently used to fake horoscopes, fortune-telling, and readings by phone psychics (McMahon & Lascurain, 1997). To see how it can be used to fake mediumship, consider the following illustrative example: Some of the TV mediums start off a reading by giving the audience a statement like, Im getting a name that begins with a B, a B-sounding name like Bob or Bill or Benso this could be someone whos living, someone whos passed, someone you know Given that the large number of people sitting in the audience, all of whom have friends or relatives both living and deceased, it is very likely that someone in the crowd will know a person with a B-sounding name (or know a Bob, Bill, or Ben).

Williams: Kelly-Arcangel Mediumship Summary 2

The other technique, known as cold reading, has often been described as fishing for information using a combination of questions, clever guesses, and subtle sensory cues being given off by a person (such as by what he or she is wearing, or by a facial reaction) (Hyman, 1977, Dutton, 1988). To see how this technique can be used to fake mediumship, consider this example: Theres a woman in the audience who lost her husband, and his favorite activity was fishing. In hopes of connecting with him, she wears his favorite outdoor vest. The medium spots her wearing the vest in the crowd, and says in her direction, I have a male presence coming through. Is it your husband thats passed? She replies, Yes. Cued by the vest, the medium then asks, Did he like to go hunting or fishing? Cause Im getting an image of the outdoors, like hes in the woods The womans face lights up as she replies, Yes, he liked to fish all the time! While this may appear to be a very specific and impressive hit in the eyes of the woman, she may not have realized that the medium had simply inferred this information from the vest she was wearing. And in her excitement, she unknowingly supplies the medium with the correct answer, which gives the medium additional information on which to build guesses that are cleverly disguised as messages from the dead. To control for the effects of cold reading, it has been important in parapsychological studies of mediumship to isolate the medium from the person receiving the mediumship reading (who is traditionally called the sitter3) so that there is no sensory contact between them. To do this, some of the latest studies have placed the medium and the sitter in separate, soundproofed rooms (OKeeffe & Wiseman, 2005). Others have put a renewed twist on an old method to study mediums that was first developed in the days of psychical research. This method is known as the proxy sitting (Kelly, 2010). In a proxy sitting, the sitter is not present when the mediumship reading takes place. Instead, another person acts as a stand-in for the sitter. This person, called the proxy sitter, is not told anything about the sitter or the individual that the sitter hopes to contact on the other side. That way, the proxy sitter is unable to cue the medium with this information during the reading. Usually, the only piece of information that the medium is given by the proxy sitter is the name of the deceased individual, which is intended to help the medium focus his/her efforts on contacting that particular individual. Proxy sittings can also have the advantage of controlling for the Barnum effect through a special method of scoring the mediums accuracy. To show how, let us say that were conducting a mediumship study consisting of five separate experimental sessions. In each session, a medium gives a reading intended for one of five individual sitters. Each of these sessions is conducted by proxy sitting, so that the five sitters remain unaware of which session was theirs. After all five sessions are completed, we transcribe each of the five readings given by the medium, shuffle up the order of the transcripts, and then send them as a group to each of the five sitters (i.e., each sitters receives a packet of five readings - one intended for them, and four intended for the other four sitters). We ask each sitter to read through each reading and rate the accuracy of the statements found in each. Now, it is important to keep in mind that, since the readings were obtained by proxy without the sitters being present, each sitter does not yet know which reading in the packet of five is actually theirs (they will not know until after they have scored the readings). And so when each sitter reads through the five readings, they will be rating the accuracy of the statements both in the reading intended for them (the target reading), and in the readings for the other four sitters (which are acting as decoy readings). This method of scoring controls for the Barnum effect in the following way: If the medium is producing specific and accurate statements that apply only to

Williams: Kelly-Arcangel Mediumship Summary 3

the sitter, then each sitter should rate the target reading (i.e., his/her own reading) as being significantly more accurate than the other four decoy readings. On the other hand, if the medium is just using the Barnum effect to produce vague, broad, and general statements that can apply to anyone, then each sitter will rate the accuracy of their own target reading as being about the same as the four decoy readings. In other words, the statements in the decoy readings (the ones intended for other sitters) are judged by the sitter to be just as accurate as the statements contained in the target reading intended for him/her, which is what we would expect if the statements could apply to anyone. This scoring method, refined from the one initially developed by J. Gaither Pratt and William Birge (1948) at the Duke University Parapsychology Laboratory in the 1940s, has been used in tandem with proxy sittings in two recent studies of mediumship. The first study was conducted by Julie Beischel and Gary Schwartz (2007) at the University of Arizona. Most readers of this list are probably familiar with Schwartzs early studies of mediumship (Schwartz et al., 2001), which were an important step in reviving research on the topic (for a readable overview, see Schwartz with Simon, 2002). Despite this, these early studies were criticized on the grounds that they still contained subtle pathways for sensory cuing, and that the sitters knew which readings were intended for them (Hyman, 2003a, 2003b; Wiseman & OKeeffe, 2001). Schwartz (2002, 2003) was aware of these issues and noted that these studies were designed to study mediumship in a more naturalistic setting, closer to the conditions that the mediums were used to working in. Their results would be used to design and refine later studies. The study by Beischel and Schwartz is one that gradually developed out of Schwartzs early efforts, and its design was greatly refined through Beischels (2007) careful and attentive approach to control and procedure, which she now uses in her continuing studies at the Windbridge Institute in Arizona (for a readable overview of her approach, see Beischel, 2007-2008). In their study, Beischel and Schwartz (2007) had placed the eight sitters into pairs, and each sitter in the pair was read by a medium via proxy sitting. After the reading, transcripts of the two readings were made and given to each of the sitters in the pair, and each sitter was asked to rate the two readings for accuracy (like in the method example described above), using a scale from 0 to 6 (with 6 being highly accurate, 0 being not accurate at all). Again, each sitter did not know which of the two readings was intended for him/her while scoring them. On the basis of these scores, the sitter was asked to choose the reading that he or she thought was the reading intended for him/her (i.e., the target reading). In line with the idea that the mediums were producing specific and accurate information, the sitters showed a significant tendency to rate their own target reading as higher in accuracy than the other (decoy) reading, at odds of about 140 to 1 against chance. In addition, the sitters correctly chose the target reading 81% of the time, which has odds of about 100 to 1 against chance. The second study was conducted by Emily Williams Kelly and Dianne Arcangel (2011) at the University of Virginia, and was just recently published in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, a mainstream psychiatry journal. In their study, Kelly and Arcangel conducted two experiments where they separately served as proxy sitters during phone readings given by mediums. Each sitter was then sent a packet containing 4 to 6 readings, with one being reading intended for him/her (the target reading) and the others being readings intended for another sitter (decoy readings), and asked to rate them for accuracy without knowing which was which. The ratings were made on a scale from 1 to 6, with one being highly accurate, and 6 being not accurate at all. On the basis of these accuracy ratings, the sitters were asked to try and pick out the reading that they thought was most likely to be the target reading.

Williams: Kelly-Arcangel Mediumship Summary 4

The results of their first experiment were not very promising, with only 2 of the 12 sitters being able to correctly pick out the target reading. In the hopes of improving the results in the second experiment, photographs of the deceased individual that the sitters were hoping to contact on the other side were sent by Kelly to the mediums, which the mediums used to try and better focus their contacting efforts. To help ensure that no cues were provided to the mediums, the photos only showed the deceased person alone, and not engaged in any activity (like playing tennis or knitting) that might offer hints about the persons interests or personality. This second experiment was much more successful, with 14 of the 38 readings being correctly chosen as the target reading, and 7 target readings being chosen as the second most accurate reading. In all, 30 of the 38 target readings were ranked in the top three positions for accuracy (i.e., they were ranked between 1 and 3), a finding that has odds of about 10,000 to 1 against chance. However, Kelly and Arcangel noticed two potential caveats in this experiment. First, they recognized the possibility that, no matter how non-active the deceased people looked in the photographs, it might have still been possible for some skilled mediums to infer a few correct details about them (such as whether they might have been a social person or not) just from their appearance. Second, they recognized that since the pictures were all labeled and sent to the mediums by Kelly, she could have possibly known which particular picture the medium was using (and thus, which particular person the medium was trying to contact) during the readings in which she acted as the proxy sitter. However, they pointed out that Kelly did not know much at all about any of the deceased people in the photographs, and that Kelly and Arcangel had both produced significant results when each served as a proxy sitter (if it had been the case that only Kelly had produced significant results and Arcangel had not, then this might have thrown up a red warning flag). In addition, Kelly and Arcangel point to certain impressions received by the mediums about the deceased individuals that would have been rather difficult to obtain through simply sensory cuing. For example, they noted that one medium
referred to a lady that is very much, was influential in his [the deceased persons] formative years. So, whether that is mother or whether that is grandmotherShe can strangle a chicken. The sitter commented that her grandmother (the deceased persons mother) killed chickens. It freaked me out the first time I saw her do this. I cried so hard that my parents had to take me home. So the chicken strangling is a big deal In fact I often referred to my sweet grandmother as the chicken killer (p. 15).

As startling and gruesome as this impression seems, can such a thing be read from a photograph of the deceased person? Especially when it is about the deceased persons relative? As Kelly and Arcangel ask, Do mediums, overall or individually frequently refer to chicken-strangling grandmothers (p. 16)? While keeping in mind the caveats in the experiment, such examples do seem to offer some reason for the door to be kept open with regards to the possibility of mediumship. As always, more experimental work needs to be done in order to provide clearer answers. Considering its use in reducing the possible effects of cold reading and the Barnum effect, the old method of proxy sitting seems to provide a renewed twist in the way we might eventually learn whether or not mediums are indeed contacting the dead.
Notes

Williams: Kelly-Arcangel Mediumship Summary 5

1.) Since they can seem similar on the surface, mediums and psychics may often be confused with one another, so it is important to make a minimal distinction here. Mediums and psychics both exhibit above-average levels of extrasensory perception (ESP), but their views of it tend to differ. Psychics tend to view their ESP as their own personal ability, which they use to obtain information about (living) people, objects, and places. On the other hand, mediums tend to attribute their ESP to one or more spirit controls (or spirit guides as they are often called by todays mediums), which are believed to be discarnate entities that act as spiritual intermediaries in communicating with the other side. When they attempt communication, mediums often say that it is their spirit guide who makes contact with deceased people in the afterlife and relays the information from them to the medium. From this perspective, the spirit guide would appear to be the mediums medium, and ESP is seen as the ability of the spirit guide, rather than that of the medium. 2.) It should be emphasized here that, while I use illustrative examples of the following techniques of observation and deception within the context of TV mediumship, it is not my intention to pass judgment on the claimed abilities of any particular medium. The examples are merely a convenient and relatable way to show how one could possibly use the techniques to fake mediumship. But just because there are ways in which someone can and might fake mediumship, does not necessarily mean that all mediums are faking it. Ultimately, deciding what to accept when it comes to certain mediums should be left up to the individual person. 3.) The traditional term sitter dates back to the early days of psychical research, and refers to the fact that the people attending sances actually sat around the claimed medium at a table or in a social circle in the parlor (or sitting) room. They were the observers of sance phenomena and the recipients of messages supposedly received by the medium from the other side.

References
Beischel, J. (2007). Contemporary methods used in laboratory-based mediumship research. Journal of Parapsychology, 71, 37 68. Beischel, J. (2007-2008, December-February). Talking to the dead: Laboratory investigation of mediumship. Shift: At the Frontiers of Consciousness, No. 17, pp. 20 24. Beischel, J., & Schwartz, G. E. (2007). Anomalous information reception by research mediums demonstrated using a novel triple-blind protocol. Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing, 3, 23 27. Dickson, D. H., & Kelly, I. W. (1985). The Barnum effect in personality assessment: A review of the literature. Psychological Reports, 57, 367 382. Dutton, D. L. (1988). The cold reading technique. Experientia, 44, 326 332. Furnham, A., & Schofield, S. (1987). Accepting personality test feedback: A review of the Barnum effect. Current Psychological Research and Reviews, 6, 162 178. Gauld, A. (1982). Mediumship and Survival: A Century of Investigation. London: William Heinemann Ltd. Hyman, R. (1977, Spring/Summer). Cold reading: How to convince strangers that you know all about them. The Zetetic: The Skeptical Inquirer, pp. 18 37. Hyman, R. (2003a, January/February). How not to test mediums: Critiquing The Afterlife Experiments. The Skeptical Inquirer, pp. 20 30. Hyman, R. (2003b, May/June). Hymans reply to Schwartzs How Not to Review Mediumship Research. The Skeptical Inquirer, pp. 61 64. Kelly, E. W. (2010). Some directions for research on mediumship. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 24, 247 282. Kelly, E. W., & Arcangel, D. (2011). An investigation of mediums who claim to give information about deceased persons. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 199, 11 17. McMahon, J. D. S., & Lascurain, A. M. (1997). Shopping for Miracles: A Guide to Psychics & Psychic Powers. Los Angeles: Roxbury Park/Lowell House. OKeeffe, C., & Wiseman, R. (2005). Testing alleged mediumship: Methods and results. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 165 179.

Williams: Kelly-Arcangel Mediumship Summary 6

Pratt, J. G., & Birge, W. R. (1948). Appraising verbal test material in parapsychology. Journal of Parapsychology, 12, 236 256. Schwartz, G. E. (2002, September/October). After-death communications: A misleading critique. The Skeptical Inquirer, p. 64. Schwartz, G. E. (2003, May/June). How not to review mediumship research. The Skeptical Inquirer, pp. 58 61. Schwartz, G. E. R., Russek, L. G. S., Nelson, L. A., & Barentsen, C. (2001). Accuracy and replicability of anomalous after-death communication across highly skilled mediums. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 65, 1 25. Schwartz, G. E., with Simon, W. L. (2002). The Afterlife Experiments: Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of Life After Death. New York: Pocket Books. Wiseman, R., & OKeeffe, C. (2001, November/December). A critique of Schwartz et al.s after-death communication studies. The Skeptical Inquirer, pp. 26 30.