Methodological discussion does result in improvements of laboratory controls and procedures. Sometimes even members of the sceptical community contribute to this discussion in a positive way, trying to prevent alternative explanations of ostensible paranormal data (Morris, 1986).

However, one sometimes gets the impression that the demand for control seems to be determined by an asymptotical function, not of legitimate concerns of slackness, but of the conservative attitude of so-called sceptics. Even the retro-PK experiment with a sceptic as outside observer which have been proposed as fool-proof (Schmidt et al., 1986), leaves open the possibility of fraud using advanced technology and loopholes in the protocol (Bierman, 1991).

Although compliance with current academic rules shows parapsychologists are experts of science, application of such rules might scare away the object of research, the psi phenomenon, resulting in small effect-sizes. Besides, whatever controls imposed, for any experimental set-up there remains alternative, normal explanations for the apparent psi-results (Bierman 1981). As an alternative to this development another line of research suggests itself. Provided that fraud can be ruled out as an explanation, working with Œgiftedı subjects outside of the laboratory offers an opportunity to gain more insight in the psycho-dynamics of psi and may contribute to theory driven, process oriented research. Working with such a subject, this study, the outlines of which were presented at the 1992 PA-convention (Bierman & Gerding 1992) , was conceived as a test of the possibility of fraud prevention by hidden manipulation of the experimental context in a theory relevant way.