Introduction

Extra-sensory perception is defined as perception that involves awareness of information

about events external to the self not gained through the senses and not deducible from previous
experience (Extrasensory perception, 2019). To study extra-sensory perception abilities, Karl
Zener created cards, often known as Zener cards, to study people’s telepathic abilities in the
1930’s (Joyce and Baker, 2008). His original experiments used 25 cards consisting of five cards
each of five different shapes; circle, cross, waves, square and star. The experimenter would hold
up the card with the back side of the card facing the subject. The subject would then say what
shape was on that card (Joyce and Baker, 2008). Zener and his partner Rhine, believed that the
data they found was “supportive enough of extra-sensory perception to warrant continued
investigation” (Joyce and Baker, 2008, para. 7).
Research on this subject is limited, as it has been classified as pseudoscience. However,
there have been a number of studies completed on the topic. In a variation of the original study
involving Zener cards, psychologist Raymond Royce Willoughby added two additional elements
to further test extra-sensory perception. First he had the experimenter also participate as a subject
by having them record their own guesses for each card first (Willoughby, 1935). Additionally, he
introduced a second Zener card pack and had it lying face down on the table. The order of these
cards were recorded as an additional person or third subject and were compared to the order of
the Zener cards that were used by the people (Willoughby, 1935). The results from both parts of
this study showed no statistical significance, indicating that ESP was not prevalent. Another
study analyzed the cognitive and motivational determinants of belief in extra-sensory perception,
with the majority of those who believe in extra-sensory perception do so because of an
individual's tendency to use intuition, their fear of death, and the idea of fatalism (Brankovic,
2019).

Methods
To test an individual’s extra-sensory perception abilities, we compared an individual’s
results on the physical Zener card test to their results on the digital version. In our study, we had
a total of 22 participants, ranging from 19 to 38 years old. In total, there were two males and
twenty females.
Each participant took both the physical Zener card test and the digital Zener card test
from psychicscience.org/esp1. During the physical test, the experimenter shuffled a set of 25
cards consisting of five cards each of five different shapes; circle, cross, triangle, square and star.
The experimenter held up one card at a time behind a computer in order to shield the card from
the participant. The experimenter stared and thought about the card for five seconds before
flipping over the next card. Each time the experimenter changed cards, they verbally said “card”
to signal a change to the participant. While the experimenter was holding a card up, the
participants wrote down what card they believed the experimenter was looking at. After
completing the 25 cards, the experimenter scored the subjects results and recorded how many
cards they matched correctly. The participants then took the digital Zener card test. The
computer randomly shuffled 25 cards consisting of five different shapes; circle, cross, waves,
square and star. The computer showed the backside of a card and the participants were given five
options for what the card could be. The participant clicked on which option they believed the
computer was thinking of. This was repeated 25 times and their successful “hits” were recorded.
The pattern of completion of the physical Zener card test and the digital test was randomly
assigned for each participant, with some participants completing the digital test first and others
completing the physical test first. Following the two tests, the subject filled out a four-question
survey regarding their beliefs about extra-sensory perception.

Results
The mean score for participants physical Zener card test was 6.09 (+/- 3.65) correct
matches, with the highest being 13 and the low being zero. For the digital test, the mean score
was 5.32 with a high score of 10 (+/- 5.32) and a low score of two. Test scores for both tests are
recorded in the graph below. The comparison of the results between the physical Zener card test
and the digital test held no statistical significance. Statistically, the chance of matching the
correct card is 20% of the time, or five cards. We analyzed our data and recorded those who
scored chance or below. This analysis showed that 12 participants scored chance or below in the
physical test and 13 in the digital test. How an individual answered the survey question, “Do you
believe that individuals can have extra-sensory perception?” was compared to both of their test
scores. Six individuals answered yes to this question, with 16 answering no. The mean scores
during the physical test were 7.17 and 5.69, with believers having the higher mean. The mean
scores for the digital test were 5.17 and 5.38 for believers and non-believers, respectfully. These
results did not show a statistical significance either. Out of the 22 participants, one individual
stated that they believed in extra-sensory perception before completing the Zener card tests and
still believed in extra-sensory perception after completing them. One individual also stated that
after completing the tests, their views on extra-sensory perception were changed from not
believing in it to slightly believing individuals may have extra-sensory
perception.
 Conclusion
Statistically, the chance of matching the correct card is 20% of the time or five times. For
extra-sensory perception to exist, individuals who have this ability should consistently be able to
score six or higher on both the physical and the digital test. However, only three participants in
our study did this on both tests, and two of them did not believe that individuals could have
extra-sensory perception abilities.
Our results show that there was no statistical significance in the relationships between our
data sets. There was no correlation between the score an individual received on the physical
Zener card test and the digital one. If extra-sensory perception was real, then individuals who
had this ability would not only be able to get a score higher than chance on one test, but on
multiple tests. There was also no consistency between scores of participants. Participants ranged
from scoring 13 on the physical test to three on the digital one. These scores present
contradicting results, with one being interpreted as the participant having extra-sensory
perception and the other interpreted as they don’t. This inconsistency provides evidence that
extra-sensory perception does not exist.
We also analyzed the difference in scores between those who believe extra-sensory
perception exists and those who do not. Our results showed that for the physical test, the
believers had a higher mean score than the non-believers. This too, however, is contradictory
since for the digital test, the non-believers had a higher mean score than the believers. We can
conclude that whether or not a person believes that extra-sensory perception exists does not
influence participants scores in a positive or negative way.
As the participants filled out the survey, they were asked specific questions about beliefs
regarding extra-sensory perception. The question, “Do you believe that you had extra-sensory
perception before completing the Zener card tests?”, was asked and only one participant
answered yes. They also stated that after completing the tests they still believed they had extra-
sensory perception and their scores on both tests indicated higher than chance. Another question
asked was, “Did completing the Zener card tests change your views on extra-sensory
perception?” and while the vast majority of participants answered ‘No”, one participant did state
that after completing the tests, they did believe that people could have extra-sensory perception.
This participant’s test results were only higher than chance on the digital test, leading to
contradictory results.
There were a number of limitations throughout our study. One limitation was our study
size. With such a small number of participants, we cannot be sure if our results can be applicable
to a larger group of individuals or only our participants. Another limitation is the reliability of
the digital extra-sensory perception test that we used. This test is only one of a number of tests
that we could have chosen to use for this experiment. Other tests may have led to different
results. A third limitation was the unevenness of our groups of believers and non-believers. The
results between those two groups may not be an accurate prediction as there wasn’t an even ratio.
If our study was to be completed again in the future, one thing to be changed would be
the order of how the study was completed. While participants were randomly assigned to which
test they were asked to complete first, a large number of participants completed the physical test
before the digital test. In the future, an even amount of participants would begin with each test.
Another change for future research would be to use one shape in a variety of colors instead of a
number of shapes in one color. This may give another perspective to the topic of extra-sensory
perception and whether or not individuals may have this ability.
 References

Joyce, N. and Baker, D. B. (2008). ESPecially intriguing. Vol 39, No. 4. Retrieved from
www.apa.org/monitor/2008/04/zener.

Brankovic, M. (2019). Who believes in ESP: cognitive and motivational determinants of the belief in
extra-sensory perception. Vol 15, Iss. 1. DOI:10.5964/ejop.v15i1.1689.

Extrasensory perception. (2019). Merriam-Webster. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/extrasensory%20perception.

Willoughby, R. R. (1935). Prerequisites for a clairvoyance hypothesis. Journal of Applied

Psychology. Vol 19, Iss. 5. DOI:10.1037/h0056006