Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation: A Triple-Blind Replication

Abstract

An experiment tested the hypothesis that water exposed to distant intentions affects the aesthetic rating of ice crystals formed from that water. Over three days, 1,900 people in Austria and Germany focused their intentions towards water samples located inside an electromagnetically shielded room in California. Water samples located near the target water, but unknown to the people providing intentions, acted as ‘‘proximal’’ controls. Other samples located outside the shielded room acted as distant controls. Ice drops formed from samples of water in the different treatment conditions were photographed by a technician, each image was assessed for aesthetic beauty by over 2,500 independent judges, and the resulting data were analyzed, all by individuals blind with respect to the underlying treatment conditions. Results suggested that crystal images in the intentionally treated condition were rated as aesthetically more beautiful than proximal control crystals (p ¼ 0.03, one-tailed). This outcome replicates the results of an earlier pilot test.

Keywords: intention—water—consciousness

Full text

Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal
Formation: A Triple-Blind Replication
DEAN RADIN,
1
NANCY LUND,
1
MASARU EMOTO,
2
AND
TAKASHIGE KIZU
2
1
Institute of Noetic Sciences
101 San Antonio Road
Petaluma, CA 94952-9524
e-mail: dean@noetic.org
2
IHM General Institute, Tokyo, Japan
Abstract—An experiment tested the hypothesis that water exposed to distant
intentions affects the aesthetic rating of ice crystals formed from that water.
?1 Over three days, 1,900 people in Austria and Germany focused their intentions
towards water samples located inside an electromagnetically shielded room in
California. Water samples located near the target water, but unknown to the
people providing intentions, acted as ‘‘proximal’’ controls. Other samples
located outside the shielded room acted as distant controls.
Ice drops formed from samples of water in the different treatment conditions
were photographed by a technician, each image was assessed for aesthetic
beauty by over 2,500 independent judges, and the resulting data were analyzed,
all by individuals blind with respect to the underlying treatment conditions.
Results suggested that crystal images in the intentionally treated condition
were rated as aesthetically more beautiful than proximal control crystals (p ¼
0.03, one-tailed). This outcome replicates the results of an earlier pilot test.
Keywords: intention—water—consciousness
Introduction
Can one person’s intention affect another person’s health from a distance? A
growing number of clinical studies have investigated this question. Some of
them provide positive evidence
1
, others do not
2
. To help study this question
under more stringent laboratory controls, investigators have also explored
whether one person’s intention can affect another person’s nervous system from
a distance
3
. From those studies the evidence is clearer. From a meta-analytic
perspective the original question can be answered with a tentative yes
4
.
Tentative, because while the evidence is statistically significant and repeatable,
the observed effects are small in magnitude, nontrivial to replicate, and theo-
retical explanations remain speculative.
5
Because of the complexities associated with studying human health and
physiological responses, still other investigators have aimed towards further
simplification by asking whether intention affects properties of water. This
remains relevant to the question about health because the human body consists
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 00, No. 0, pp. 000–000, 2008 0892-3310/08
C1

of 70% to 90% water, depending on age.
6
Evidence from those studies supports
the hypothesis that intention affects properties of water
7
, but like many of the
empirical studies in this domain, most of the experimental reports have appeared
in specialty journals and have gone unnoticed by most medical researchers.
One exception that has elevated the question about intention and water from
the obscure to the infamous is the claim that water exposed to or ‘‘treated’’ by
positive intentions results in frozen water crystals that are aesthetically more
pleasing than similar crystals formed from ‘‘untreated’’ water
8
. In an earlier pilot
experiment we tested this claim under double-blind conditions and found
evidence in favor of the ‘‘intentional hypothesis’’ (p ¼0.001).
9
The present study
was a replication attempt conducted under triple-blind conditions.
Method
Water Sample Preparation
In preparation for the experiment, the first author (D.R.) purchased six plastic
bottles of Fiji brand commercial bottled water, the same type of water used in
the pilot study. D.R. randomly assigned (using a tossed die) the bottles with
labels A through F, and then the second author (N.L.) took the bottles to the
laboratory and randomly selected (again with a tossed die) two bottles as the
treated samples, two as ‘‘proximal’’ controls, and two as ‘‘distant’’ controls.
N.L. noted the resulting assignments and placed two copies in separate
envelopes which remained sealed until after the analyses were completed.
10
She
retained one envelope and the other was stored in D.R.’s desk. Then she entered
a double steel-walled, electromagnetically shielded room (Lindgren/ETS, Cedar
Park, Texas, Series 81 Solid Cell chamber) at the Institute of Noetic Sciences
(IONS) in Petaluma, California, where she placed the two treatment bottles on
top of a small table and the two proximal control bottles under that table. The
shielded room acted as a convenient, limited-access location in which to leave
the bottles during the experiment.
N.L. then took a digital photo of the treatment and proximal control bottles,
and placed the two remaining bottles (distant controls) in a Styrofoam box and
stored them on top of a bookshelf on another floor of the laboratory building.
D.R. edited the digital photo of the bottles in the shielded chamber to reveal just
the two treatment bottles, then emailed the photo to M.E. and T.K. They used
this photo as a visual aid for three groups that would later direct their intentions
towards those bottles.
Throughout the experimental setup, N.L. was instructed to handle each of the
water bottles in about the same way, and to hold them about the same length of
time. During the intention periods all bottles remained in their originally placed
locations and were not disturbed. The third and fourth authors (M.E. and T.K.)
knew in advance that there would be treated and distant control bottles in this
D. Radin et al.

study, but they were not informed about the existence of the proximal controls
until after all distant intention treatments had ended.
The comparison of principal interest in this study was the average (blindly
rated) aesthetic differences of frozen water crystals obtained using the treated
vs. proximal control samples. This is because those two conditions were located
close to each other in the same environment, and because the proximal control
was not influenced by M.E. or T.K.’s prior knowledge of its existence. That is,
to take seriously the hypothesis that intention plays a role in this experiment,
we felt it was necessary to constrain who knew about the potential targets of
intentional influence. By analogy with a quantum optics system, in which the
knowledge one has of the path that photons take through a double-slit apparatus
influences the behavior of those photons, we speculated that knowledge of the
experimental conditions in this test might influence what was ultimately
measured. Thus, to provide some control over the distant intentions in this
study we required a comparison condition that was unknown to M.E., to T.K.,
or to the groups of ‘‘distant intenders.’’ This was provided by the proximate
control. The distant control was retained in this study primarily because we
used a similar control in the previous study, so M.E. and T.K. would have
expected it.
Intentional Treatments
On May 20, 2006, in Graz, Austria, M.E. led a group of about a thousand
people in a prayer of gratitude directed towards the water in the IONS
laboratory, some 5,700 miles away. M.E. showed the audience where the IONS
laboratory was located in relationship to Graz through a sequence of images
from the Google Earth global mapping application. Then he showed the digital
photo of the treatment bottles inside the shielded chamber with the words of an
intentional ‘‘prayer for water’’ overlaid on the photo. After explaining the photo
and purpose of the experiment, M.E. led the group in speaking aloud the words
of the prayer for about five minutes. M.E. led a second group of 450 people in
a similar exercise on May 23, 2006, from Nuremberg, Germany, and then a third
group of 500 people from Munich, Germany on May 24, 2006.
The day after the third group sent their intentions, N.L. retrieved all six bottles
from the laboratory. Then she and D.R. (who remained blind to the bottles’
conditions) wrapped the bottles in separate sheets of aluminum foil and placed
all six bottles in a box. That package was placed inside a larger box, cushioned
with foam peanuts, and mailed to M.E.’s laboratory in Tokyo. At this point D.R.
informed M.E. and T.K. about the existence of the proximal controls. Like D.R.,
M.E. and T.K. remained blind to the conditions of the six bottles throughout the
crystal formation and statistical analysis phases. N.L. was not involved in the
study again until after all data had been collected and analyzed, whereupon
she broke the blinding code.
Effect of Intention on Water

Crystal Analysis
Upon receiving the six bottles, T.K. blindly examined water samples from
each bottle according to the following procedures:
1) From each bottle, a drop (approximately 0.5 ml) of water was placed
into each of 50 Petri dishes, and a lid identifying the bottle’s randomly
assigned letter (A–F) was placed on each dish. Thus there were 50 water
drops tested from each bottle.
2) Each dish was then placed on a tray in a random position in a freezer
maintained at 25 to 30 degrees C for a minimum of three hours. The
random placements helped to ensure that potential temperature differen-
ces within the freezer would be randomized among the dishes.
3) T.K. later removed the dishes from the freezer, and in a walk-in refrig-
erator (maintained at 5 degrees C) he look a photo of the apex of each
resulting ice drop using a stereo optical microscope at either 1003or
2003, depending on the presence and size of a crystal. Based on the re-
sults of the earlier experiment, some water drops were not expected to
produce any discernable crystals.
4) All 300 resulting photographs, from all six bottles, were then emailed to
D.R., each identified with a bottle assignment letter A–F, and a within-
bottle sample number from 1 to 50.
Aesthetic Assessments and Analysis
To provide blind, subjective assessments of the aesthetic beauty of the water
crystals, D.R. created a website to allow individuals to judge each crystal
photograph on two factors. The factor of principal interest was beauty, meaning
that the picture was aesthetically pleasing in some way. A second, exploratory
factor was interest, meaning that the picture was notable in some way. In both
cases the rating choices ranged over a seven-point scale, from ‘‘not’’ to ‘‘very,’’
e.g. ‘‘not beautiful to ‘‘very beautiful.’’ Each participating judge viewed and
rated 50 photos, randomly selected out of the 300 available photos, and pre-
sented one at a time in a newly randomized order.
We asked judges to rate both beauty and interest because prior research on
aesthetic judgments, in realms ranging from fine art, to faces, to commercial
product design, suggests that numerous factors influence aesthetic preference.
11
They include figural goodness, figure-ground contrast, stimulus repetition,
symmetry, and prototypicality.
12
Such factors suggest that asking for a single
rating of aesthetic beauty may not be sufficient to capture individuals’full
assessments of the photographs of frozen water. Whether the factor of interest
was the best possible variable to use for this purpose was unknown, and was thus
considered exploratory.
To test the hypothesis that the crystals in the intentional condition would
be rated as more beautiful on average than the same crystals in the proximal
D. Radin et al.

control condition, a mixed, hierarchically nested variance components analysis
of variance was employed
13
, where treatment condition was a fixed effect, and
the two bottles used per condition and 50 crystals sampled per bottle were both
random effects (see Figure 1).
Image Contrast Analysis
In addition to the subjective assessments, we also used image processing
software (Matlab 7.0.1 Image Processing Toolbox, The Mathworks, Inc., Natick,
Massachusetts) to generate an objective score of image ‘‘contrast’’ for each of the
300 photographs. Contrast in this context refers to the proportion of black vs.
white in an image. This was a useful metric because when crystals appear on the
apex of frozen water drops, they tend to rise up beyond the surface of the drop,
partially because ice expands when it freezes and also because water crystals
grow out like branches on a tree. When a microphotograph is taken of such
crystals, the narrow field of focus tends to separate the white-appearing crystal
from the darker background, thus increasing the image’s overall contrast. When
no crystal is present, the surface is flatter and the image has a more uniformly
gray appearance (see Figure 2). We predicted that these contrast values would be
Fig. 1. The intentional hypothesis was tested using a hierarchically nested variance components
analysis, with treatment condition as a fixed effect, and bottles within condition and
samples within bottles as random effects.
Effect of Intention on Water

Fig. 2. Example of images with high (top [a]) and low (bottom [b]) contrast. The left image shows
a crystal formation, the right does not.
D. Radin et al.

correlated with the average ratings of aesthetic beauty, and thus that contrast in
the treatment condition would be higher than in the proximal control condition.
Results
Analysis of Crystals
Subjective assessment ratings were collected online for one month. During
that time, 2,579 people had each assessed 50 randomly selected images, for
a total of 128,950 assessments and an average of 430 beauty and interest ratings
for each of the 300 images. These average ratings, in the form of point values,
formed the dependent variables in the subsequent analyses. Assessment data
from individuals who started to evaluate images but stopped before finishing all
50 were excluded from further analysis.
Figure 3 shows the average assessments and 95% confidence intervals for
average ratings of aesthetic beauty for each image. Images 1–100 correspond to
the distant control condition, 101–200 to the proximal control condition, and
201–300 to the treated condition. The grand average rating for beauty was 1.77
(on a scale of 0–6), thus most of the images were not regarded as particularly
beautiful. Of the 300 images, 270 obtained average beauty ratings greater than
1.0. This subset of images was examined in a secondary analysis because it was
more likely to contain crystalline shapes, which was of main interest in this
experiment. That is, the intentional hypothesis was not that more crystals would
form due to intention, but rather that crystals that did form would appear to be
more beautiful in the treatment condition vs. the proximal control condition.
Fig. 3. Average ratings of aesthetic beauty for all 300 images, with 95% confidence intervals.
Effect of Intention on Water

The grand average rating for interest was 2.51. The correlation between
average ratings of beauty vs. interest was highly positive (r ¼0.86, t ¼29.1, N ¼
300, p ’0). The correlation between beauty and normalized image contrast was
also positive (r ¼0.30, t ¼5.35, N ¼300, p ¼8.97 310
8
).
14
Analysis 1: Aesthetic Beauty
The treatment condition resulted in a significant, albeit weak main effect (p ¼
0.03; Table 1; Figure 4). When interest was used as a covariate of beauty, the
main effect for condition was no longer significant (F[2,293] ¼3.03, p ¼0.20).
The latter is not too surprising given the strong correlation between beauty and
interest variables. For the subset of 270 trials with beauty .1.0, the results
remained significant (p ¼0.04; Table 2; Figure 4).
TABLE 1
Hierarchically Nested Variance Components Analysis for All Trials, with
Beauty as the Dependent Measure
Effect df MS F p
Condition fixed 2 2.13 13.09 .03
Bottle/condition random 3 0.16 0.23 .87
Sample/bottle random 294 0.69
Fig. 4. Average ratings of aesthetic beauty for all 300 images, and for the subset of 270 images
where average rating for beauty .1.0, with one standard error bars.
D. Radin et al.

The pairwise comparison of principal interest—treated vs. proximal
controls—supported the intentional hypothesis for all trials (t[198] ¼1.67, p ¼
0.05, one-tailed). The same comparison was somewhat stronger for the subset of
trials where beauty .1 (t[168] ¼2.32, p ¼0.01, one-tailed). The distant control
condition resulted in slightly more beautiful crystals than the intentional
condition when considering all trials (t[198] ¼0.77), and slightly less beautiful
for the subset where beauty .1 (t[168] ¼0.14).
Analysis 2: Image Contrast
Normalized image contrast scores resulted in a nonsignificant main effect
across the three conditions for all trials (p ¼0.25; Tables 3 & 4; Figure 5), but
a pairwise comparison between the treated vs. proximal controls showed
suggestive effects for both all trials, t(198) ¼1.85 (p ¼0.03, one-tailed), and for
the subset of trials where beauty .1, t(168) ¼1.55 (p ¼0.06, one-tailed). The
distant control comparisons were nearly identical to the proximal controls.
Discussion
This experiment found a modestly significant difference (p ¼0.03) in blind
ratings of subjective aesthetic beauty of crystals formed from water samples
‘‘exposed’’ to distant intentions vs. proximal and distant control samples. The
comparison of main interest confirmed, weakly, that the treated water crystals
were rated as more beautiful, on average, than the proximal controls (p ¼0.05,
one-tailed). A similar analysis using objective ratings of image contrast was
not significant when comparing across the three conditions, but a planned
TABLE 2
Hierarchically Nested Variance Components Analysis for All Trials where Beauty .1
Effect df MS F p
Condition fixed 2 2.12 11.49 .04
Bottle/condition random 3 0.19 0.28 .84
Sample/bottle random 264 0.66
TABLE 3
Hierarchically Nested Variance Components Analysis for All Trials, Using Normalized
Image Contrast as the Dependent Variable
Effect df MS F p
Condition fixed 2 2.59 2.24 .25
Bottle random 3 1.16 1.17 .32
Sample random 294 0.99
Effect of Intention on Water

comparison between the treated and proximal controls again showed a modest
difference in favor of the intentional hypothesis (p ¼0.03).
It should be noted that the distant controls were judged as being slightly
(nonsignificantly) more beautiful than the treated samples when considering all
trials, but nevertheless for the comparison of main interest (treated vs. proximal
controls) the difference was in alignment with the previously reported pilot test.
The present experiment extended the earlier test design by including five new
features to address potential alternative explanations. They included (a) using
a proximal control condition to eliminate environmental differences between the
treated and control samples, (b) placing Petri dishes in random positions in
the deep freezer to average out any systematic temperature differences in the
freezer, (c) employing a triple-blind design to control for expectation biases on
the part of the photographer, judges, and data analyst, (d) including image
processing to objectively characterize the images, and (e) analyzing all images
rather than just those judged by the photographer to contain crystals.
TABLE 4
Analysis for All Trials where Beauty .1, Using Normalized Image Contrast as the
Dependent Variable
Effect df MS df MS F p
Condition fixed 2 2.04 2.99 1.54 1.33 .39
Bottle random 3 1.54 264 0.94 1.65 .18
Sample random 264 0.94
Fig. 5. Average normalized values for contrast for all 300 images, and for the subset of 270 images
where average rating for beauty .1.0, with one standard error bars.
D. Radin et al.

These design elements excluded obvious environmental differences and
conventional subjective biases as plausible explanations for the observed results,
and the combined results of the two experiments appear to exclude chance as an
explanation (unweighted Stouffer Z ¼3.34, p ¼0.0004). At first blush this seems
to imply that distant intention influenced water crystallization properties in
accordance with the hypothesis. However, as in any experiment involving
intention, the intentions of the investigators cannot be cleanly isolated from
those of the nominal participants and this in turn constrains how one should
properly interpret the results.
In addition, there were many uncontrolled degrees of freedom in this
experiment which may have allowed ‘‘unintended intentional’’ effects to creep
in. They all involve human decisions, e.g. selecting six specific bottles of water
from a huge population of available bottles, randomly assigning those bottles to
three conditions, selecting and preparing the water drops, placing the water drop
samples inside the freezer, searching for and photographing ice crystals on the
frozen water drops at different magnification levels, choosing one of a large
possible set of image processing algorithms to provide an objective measure of
image contrast, and so on. The challenge for future tests of this kind is to find
ways of reducing these degrees of freedom without imposing such severe
constraints on the design that the effect of interest is either quenched out of
existence, or that the experiment becomes so expensive to conduct that it doesn’t
take place at all.
Notes
1
Sicher, F., Targ, E., Moore, D., 2nd, & Smith, H. S. (1998). A randomized
double-blind study of the effect of distant healing in a population with
advanced AIDS. Report of a small scale study. Western Journal of Medicine,
169, 356–363; Astin, J. A., Harkness, E., & Ernst, E. (2000). The efficacy of
‘‘distant healing’’: A systematic review of randomized trials. Annals of Internal
Medicine, 132, 903–910.
2
Astin, J. A., Stone, J., Abrams, D. I., Moore, D. H., Couey, P., Buscemi, R., &
Targ, E. (2006). The efficacy of distant healing for human immunodeficiency
virus—results of a randomized trial. Alternative Therapies in Health and
Medicine, 12(6), 36–41; Harkness, E. F., Abbot, N. C., & Ernst, E. (2000).
A randomized trial of distant healing for skin warts. American Journal of
Medicine, 108, 448–452; Aviles, J. M., Whelan, S. E., Hernke, D. A.,
Williams, B. A., Kenny, K. E., O’Fallon, W. M., & Kopecky, S. L. (2001).
Intercessory prayer and cardiovascular disease progression in a coronary care
unit population: A randomized controlled trial. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 76,
1192–1198; Palmer, R. F., Katerndahl, D., & Morgan-Kidd, J. (2004). A
randomized trial of the effects of remote intercessory prayer: interactions with
personal beliefs on problem-specific outcomes and functional status. Journal
of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 10, 438–448; Krucoff, M. W.,
Effect of Intention on Water

Crater, S. W., Gallup, D., Blankenship, J. C., Cuffe, M., Guarneri, M., Krieger,
R. A., Kshettry, V. R., Morris, K., Oz, M., Pichard, A., Sketch, M. H., Jr.,
Koenig, H. G., Mark, D., & Lee, K. L. (2005). Music, imagery, touch, and
prayer as adjuncts to interventional cardiac care: The Monitoring and
Actualisation of Noetic Trainings (MANTRA) II Randomised study. Lancet,
366(9481), 211–217; Benson, H., Dusek, J. A., Sherwood, J. B., Lam, P.,
Bethea, C. F., Carpenter, W., Levitsky, S., Hill, P. C., Clem, D. W., Jr., Jain,
M. K., Drumel, D., Kopecky, S. L., Mueller, P. S., Marek, D., Rollins, S., &
Hibberd, P. L. (2006). Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer
(STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of
uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. American Heart
Journal, 151, 934–942.
3
Radin, D. I. (2004). Event-related electroencephalographic correlations
between isolated human subjects. Journal of Alternative and Complementary
Medicine, 10, 315–323; Wackermann, J., Seiter, C., Keibel, H., & Walach, H.
(2003). Correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially
separated human subjects. Neuroscience Letters, 336, 60–64; Achterberg, J.,
Cooke, K., Richards, T., Standish, L. J., Kozak, L., & Lake, J. (2005).
Evidence for correlations between distant intentionality and brain function
in recipients: A functional magnetic resonance imaging analysis. Journal of
Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 11, 965–971; Richards, T. L.,
Kozak, L., Johnson, L. C., & Standish, L. J. (2005). Replicable functional
magnetic resonance imaging evidence of correlated brain signals between
physically and sensory isolated subjects. Journal of Alternative and
Complementary Medicine, 11, 955–963; Standish, L. J., Johnson, L. C.,
Kozak, L., & Richards, T. (2003). Evidence of correlated functional magnetic
resonance imaging signals between distant human brains. Alternative
Therapies in Health and Medicine, 9, 122–125; Standish, L. J., Kozak, L.,
Johnson, L. C., & Richards, T. (2004). Electroencephalographic evidence of
correlated event-related signals between the brains of spatially and sensory
isolated human subjects. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine,
10, 307–314.
4
Schmidt, S., Schneider, R., Utts, J., & Walach, H. (2004). Distant
intentionality and the feeling of being stared at: Two meta-analyses. British
Journal of Psychology, 95, 235–247.
5
Walach, H. (2005). The complementarity model of brain-body relationship.
Medical Hypotheses, 65(2), 380–388; Walach, H. (2005). Generalized
entanglement: A new theoretical model for understanding the effects of com-
plementary and alternative medicine. Journal of Alternative and Complemen-
tary Medicine, 11, 549–559; Radin, D. (2006). Entangled Minds:Extrasensory
Experiences in a Quantum Reality. Simon & Schuster, Paraview Pocket Books.
6
Sheng, H. P., & Huggins, R. A. (1979). A review of body composition studies
with emphasis on total body water and fat. American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, 32, 630–647.
D. Radin et al.

7
Schwartz, S. A., DeMattei, R. J., Brame, E. G., & Spottiswoode S. J. P. (1990).
Infrared spectra alteration in water proximate to the palms of therapeutic
practitioners. Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine, 1, 43–72; Roney-Dougal,
S. M., & Solfvin, J. (2004). Field study of enhancement effect on lettuce seeds:
Their germination rate, growth and health. Journal of the Society for Psychical
Research, 66, 129–142; Lenington, S. (1979). Effect of holy water on the
growth of radish plants. Psychological Reports, 45, 381–382.
8
Emoto, M. (2004). Healing with water. Journal of Alternative and
Complementary Medicine, 10, 19–21; Emoto, M. (2004). The Hidden
Messages in Water. Hillsboro, OR: Beyond Words Publishing;.
9
Radin, D. I., Hayssen, G., Emoto, M., & Kizu, T. (2006). Double-blind test
of the effects of distant intention on water crystal formation. Explore: The
Journal of Science and Healing, 2(5), 408–411.
10
The analysis reported here differs from the original plan in response to
a reviewer’s comments, so an argument could be made that this study, as
reported, is actually double-blind.
11
Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & van Wieringen, P. C. W. (2003). ‘Most advanced,
yet acceptable’: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic
preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 111–124.
12
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkelman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and
aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364–382.
13
Statistica 7.0, StatSoft, Tulsa, OK, Variance components and mixed model
ANOVA/ANCOVA analysis, in a hierarchically nested design.
14
Normalized contrast values were formed as z¼(cm)/s, where cwas the raw
contrast value for a given image, mwas the mean of all raw contrast values,
and sthe standard deviation of all raw contrast values.
Effect of Intention on Water