The first study was an exploratory study designed to distinguish between aspects of remote staring experiences and beliefs, such as differences in acting as a starer and a staree, and to determine if participants believed that it was possible to detect a remote stare under various conditions.
There will be a significant difference in how common it is to experience being a starer compared to being a staree.
There will be a significant linear decrease in the levels of belief in remote staring as the level of occlusion (or barriers) between the starer and staree increases.
Post-hoc analyses indicated that the level of self-reported belief in these different types of remote staring detection significantly decreased in a linear fashion as the degree of occlusion between the starer and staree increased (see Table 1).
Williams (1983) increased separation by putting starer and staree in rooms 60 feet apart, linked only by a closed-circuit video arrangement, so that the starer could see the staree on a monitor during staring trials.
One of the authors (SS) acted as the starer throughout the study.
Starer and staree were located in adjoining closed rooms linked by a one-way mirror.
The PCs in both rooms were linked so that the display on the monitor in the experimental room could he seen by the starer on the PC in his room.
The subject and the starer were in the same room or in open adjoining rooms, and the subject could have discriminated staring from nonstaring periods by means of subtle, unintentional auditory cues.
Special lighting and the use of one-way mirrors permitted visual access in one direction only--that is, the starer could see but could not be seen by the staree.
As in the Williams (1983) study, separable closed rooms and a closed circuit television system were used to eliminate conventional communication channels between starer and staree.
So that there could be no peeking, subjects had to face away from the starer
and wear a blindfold.
In Replication 1, half of the starees were persons already known by the starers (relatives, friends, or familiar undergraduate classmates), whereas half were unknown at the time of the laboratory session (i.
The starers of Replication 1 were three undergraduate psychology students (two females and one male) from a local college who were participating in independent studies internships at the Mind Science Foundation.
It is also likely that the starer communicated some of her relaxed attitude, characteristics, and expectations to the three starers of Replication I during her training of the latter and her discussions of earlier results with these starers, and that these starer characteristics were then communicated to the Replication 1 starees.