ArticleF1000Research2015
Feeling the future: A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random future events.
Article in F1000Research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Follow-up on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) remote viewing experimentsBrain and behavior · 2023Article
- Raising the value of research studies in psychological science by increasing the credibility of research reports: the transparent Psi project.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- 'Feeling' or 'sensing' the future? Testing for anomalous cognitions in clinical versus healthy populations.Heliyon · 2022Article
- What if consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain? Observational and empirical challenges to materialistic models.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Review
- Predicted as observed? How to identify empirically adequate theoretical constructs.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Examining implicit beliefs in a replication attempt of a time-reversed priming task.F1000Research · 2021Article
- The Multivariable Multiaxial Suggestibility Inventory-2 (MMSI-2): A Psychometric Alternative to Measure and Explain Supernatural Experiences.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Top-down resolution of visual ambiguity - knowledge from the future or footprints from the past?PloS one · 2021Article
- Qualitative analysis of first-person accounts of noetic experiences.F1000Research · 2021Article
- Article
- Why Most Research Findings About Psi Are False: The Replicability Crisis, the Psi Paradox and the Myth of Sisyphus.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Review
- A preregistered multi-lab replication of Maier et al. (2014, Exp. 4) testing retroactive avoidance.PloS one · 2020Article
- Inner Experience - Direct Access to Reality: A Complementarist Ontology and Dual Aspect Monism Support a Broader Epistemology.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- From Discovery to Justification: Outline of an Ideal Research Program in Empirical Psychology.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
- Psychology, replication & beyond.BMC psychology · 2016Article
- On the reproducibility of meta-analyses: six practical recommendations.BMC psychology · 2016Article
- Investigating expectation effects using multiple physiological measures.Frontiers in psychology · 2015Article
- Feeling the future: A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random future events.F1000Research · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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 5.1 × 10 (9), 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 intense " 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 the experiments to be 0.20 for the complete database and 0.24 for the independent replications, 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.