Critical Analysis – Is Geller Calling Less Than Chance Findings Psychic Ability?
by Gerald C. Mertens and Daniel J. Knip 7/21/06
The authors invite the readers of this article to actually participate in a Uri Geller – type demonstration before reading the results section of the article. Temney, (1984) writing in the National Enquirer, states that on May 6 1984, Uri Geller was to go to a city in the United States and at 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, was to stand in front of a historic place. Readers of National Enquirer were to write down the name of the city, draw the picture of what they visualized at that time, and send both to the National Enquirer. If you were reading this in the National Enquirer, you were told to stare into the eyes of the picture of Uri Geller appearing in the article. (This was a close up picture of Uri’s eyes and nose.) If any of you need help, just imagine Geller’s face (eyes and nose) and stare into his imaginary eyes! If you the reader, wish to participate, you might draw a historic place and write down the name of the city now. You may find your response even more interesting as you read further.
When coincidence or chance is given as an actual cause of human behavior, it might be called an unfortunate error, but when “bad luck” or the “lack of coincidence” becomes the stated cause of a behavior, it borders on the ridiculous. The first author saw this happen years ago, as a judge in a high school science fair. One grade school student used the 5 Zenner cards and received a score of less than 1 in 5 hits, and this youngster called the results E.S.P. The age of the experimenter may have “excused” this bad methodology in the science fair project.
The results of the Geller demonstration were reported in a later issue of the National Enquirer; the headline read, “1 in 10 Have Psychic Ability.” (Dick, 1984). Is this statement of psychic ability true?
This current study is an attempt to generate a non-psychic systematic replication of what Uri Geller did to “earn” this headline. We have divided this series of experiments into three parts:
Part 1. Drawings and cities collected by the first author.
Part 2. Drawings and cities collected by students in a Psychology Research Design Course.
Part 3. The study of a similar effort by Geller reported earlier in the National Enquirer (see Coz, 1982).
Part 1. Drawings Collected by the First Author of This Article:
The experimenter handed out a copy of Temney’s previously referred to article. He instructed the participants to read the article. They were then instructed to list the city Geller was in and draw a picture of the spot. Any students who had heard of this Geller experiment were instructed not to participate or say anything to other participants in the room. The subjects reported on in Part 1 were all college students, although the first author has used a similar procedure informally off campus, and obtained similar results.
Part 2. Drawings Collected by Students in the Research Design Course:
The first author saw this Geller demonstration as a useful source to teach certain aspects of research design. He has used it as a class activity on the topics of chance and subtle cues. Each person in the class selected at least 5 subjects and gave them the Temney article to read. After the subjects had read the article, they listed the city, and drew the picture of the place Geller was at. The student experimenters did not know the correct answer when collecting their drawings, thus hopefully eliminating claims they also “transmitted” the correct answer.
Students ran a total of 153 subjects in this part of the experiment. The subjects ranged in age from 14 to 55. Again, most subjects were college students.
Part 3. The Study of a Similar Effort by Geller in the 1982 National Enquirer:
Subjects were invited to participate in a procedure similar to the one used by Uri Geller on Sunday June 4, 1982. (see Coz, 1982). The Coz article states Uri Geller was concentrating on two simple drawings and a two digit number. The two pictures were to be drawn, the 2 digit number written down, and then both were to be sent to the National Enquirer.
Those readers who wish to try the procedure should do their drawings and write their 2 digit number now, before reading ahead.
Results:
Part I:
The first author has tried this procedure a number of times both in and out of class. The results have always produced higher than 10% guesses of the correct response; the Washington Monument. The total number of drawings the first author collected was 262, with 58 correct.
Part II:
The Research Design students collected 153 drawings in the Fall Quarter, 1985; 30 were the Washington Monument.
Part III:
1. The number of either picture being drawn correct was 22 of 50 drawings. The correct response according to Geller was a flower and a house.
2. The number of subjects writing the correct 2 digit number: 3 of 60. The number selected by Geller was 37. This 3 of 60 appears a low hit rate compared to other times the first author has used a commonly used 37 psychological force.
Geller Results Related to Part III:
Geller obtained the following hit rate when a person drew either of the 2 pictures. 161 of over 1200 had it correct or 13.4% (using 1,200). For the 2 digit number, 39 of over 1200* responses or 3.25% (using 1,200) (see Fritz, 1982).
Even without exact numbers from Geller’s second study, our results had a considerably higher hit rate. The consistency of the “non psychic” procedure producing better hit rates in both studies suggest Geller has called “bad luck” psychic power.
Discussion:
1. Elsewhere, the first author (Mertens, 1980) has written on the continuum of
Mentalistic/Cognitive Psychology and psychic beliefs. Any inference used as an explanation of behavior has problems associated with it. The current authors believe that literature in projective techniques, e.g., Rorschach literature, is a good example of such a point on this continuum. Projective studies do offer an area of possible heuristic research when looked at
as subtle prompts, mnemonics, etc. Below we have sketched a possible subtle prompt in the picture that readers were supposed to stare at for “vibes.” In a discussion of the Geller experiments, students have spontaneously mentioned the relationship of the picture of Geller’s nose to the Washington Monument

2. Washington DC. has, of course, many places which would easily be given as a “historic scene.” In our study, 114 of 292 of the places given by students were in Washington DC. If a person guessed any one of the sites in this city, a supposed psychic could at least claim that his/her vibes were correct as to the place.
Below is a breakdown of DC. sites and their frequency of being selected:
Washington Monument..      67
Lincoln Memorial…………..16
White House ……………… 15
U.S. Capitol……… ………  10
Others ………………… …     6
_______
total 114
3. Our count had the Statue of Liberty leading over the Washington Monument by a 74 to 67 margin. (The data was collected during the scaffolding days of restoration of The Statue of Liberty, but curiously, no subject got vibes of the scaffolding.) Below are listings of other sites
frequently selected.
Liberty Bell and Independence Hall…………….18
(see above for DC. sites)
Golden Gate Bridge ……………………………..13
Mount Rushmore………………………………….11
Arch in St. Louis…………………………………..11
4. In a follow up discussion, students stated that one of the reasons for drawing The Washington Monument was because it was easy to draw. Minimal artistic skill was needed.
5. In this same discussion following the data collection, some of the observers attended to the”Eastern Daylight Time” as mentioned in the article. This prompt or hint cuts down on the number of available places to the west of the cited time zone.
6. After the study, 37 university students were asked to list 10 historic sites. Most were hard pressed, the average number was 5.7. Of those listed, historians might be reluctant to call some of them historic spots, places, views, or scenes. Try it yourself. What does your list look like? (Remember, city is a requirement.)
7. Geller used six different names of the historic site when referring to the Washington Monument in the preparatory article. They were:
1. “The scene he is looking at”, 2. “secret location”, 3. “historic site”, 4. “historic view”, and 5.”historic spot in the U.S.” 6. “the scene.”
8. Geller’s face is a prompt for George Washington.
References
Coz, Steven, Do You Have Psychic Powers?; The National Enquirer, June 1 1982, page 12.
Dick, William, 1 in 10 Have Psychic Powers; The National Enquirer, June 12, 1984.
Fitz, Reginald, Hundreds Discover Psychic Powers in The National Enquirer Test With Uri Geller; The National Enquirer, August 3, 1982.
Mertens, G.C., 1980, “Mentalism, Cognitive Psychology and the Paranormal as the Same Continuum”, p.31. Behavioral Science Behaviorally Taught, Ginn Publishing, Lexington, MA.
Temney, Bob, Do You Have Psychic Powers?; The National Enquirer, May 1, 1984, page 1.
Notes:
1. Students in a Research and Design Course collected data and initiated a draft of Part II of this experiment.
2. Geller stated, “over 1,200” submitted responses. The vagueness of this statement makes a more precise comparison impossible. At this writing no response was received from Geller on the exact number, and the National Enquirer indicated they do not have the data.