Feeling the future: A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random future events [version 1; referees: 2 approved]
Daryl Bem, Patrizio Tressoldi, Thomas Rabeyron, Michael W. Duggan
DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) October 1, 2015 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.7177.1 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Meta-analysis Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Anticipation artificial intelligence Open peer review Feeling Plant biology Physiology Cognitive psychology |
| Citations | 1 |
| Post-publication review | 3 comments on PubPeer (opens in new tab) · last active October 2023 |
| Key findings | A meta-analysis of 90 experiments found a small but statistically significant overall effect supporting precognition, with the effect persisting when the original author's experiments were excluded. |
Abstract
In 2011, one of the authors (DJB) published a report of nine experiments in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology purporting to demonstrate that an individual’s cognitive and affective responses can be influenced by randomly selected stimulus events that do not occur until after his or her responses have already been made and recorded, a generalized variant of the phenomenon traditionally denoted by the term precognition. To encourage replications, all materials needed to conduct them were made available on request. We here report a meta-analysis of 90 experiments from 33 laboratories in 14 countries which yielded an overall effect greater than 6 sigma, z = 6.40, p = 1.2 × 10-10 with an effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.09. A Bayesian analysis yielded a Bayes Factor of 1.4 × 109, greatly exceeding the criterion value of 100 for “decisive evidence” in support of the experimental hypothesis. When DJB’s original experiments are excluded, the combined effect size for replications by independent investigators is 0.06, z = 4.16, p = 1.1 × 10-5, and the BF value is 3,853, again exceeding the criterion for “decisive evidence.” The number of potentially unretrieved experiments required to reduce the overall effect size of the complete database to a trivial value of 0.01 is 544, and seven of eight additional statistical tests support the conclusion that the database is not significantly compromised by either selection bias or by “p-hacking”—the selective suppression of findings or analyses that failed to yield statistical significance. P-curve analysis, a recently introduced statistical technique, estimates the true effect size of our database to be 0.20, virtually identical to the effect size of DJB’s original experiments (0.22) and the closely related “presentiment” experiments (0.21). We discuss the controversial status of precognition and other anomalous effects collectively known as psi.
Citations in the library
Cited by 13
- Inner Experience - Direct Access to Reality: A Complementarist Ontology and Dual Aspect Monism Support a Broader Epistemology. Frontiers in Psychology 2020
- Why Most Research Findings About Psi Are False: The Replicability Crisis, the Psi Paradox and the Myth of Sisyphus Frontiers in Psychology September 18, 2020
- What if consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain? Observational and empirical challenges to materialistic models. Frontiers in Psychology 2022
- Comforting delusions? How to evaluate the plausibility of mystical-type insights in psychedelic experiences Philosophical Psychology August 14, 2024
- Follow‐up on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) remote viewing experiments☆ Brain and Behavior May 3, 2023
and 8 more in the library
Cites 2
- Predicting the unpredictable: critical analysis and practical implications of predictive anticipatory activity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2014
- Feeling the future: experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology February 28, 2011