ArticlePloS one2025
Metascientific replication project with the advanced meta-experimental protocol of the transparent psi project procedures for testing the precognitive effect claimed by Bem.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This metascientific project studied the replicability of Bem Experiment 1, which had claimed a precognitive effect, i.e., the ability to successfully guess the outcome of future random events (Bem. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011;100: 407-25). The use of advanced methodologies-based on the advanced meta-experimental protocol (AMP) and transparent psi project (TPP) procedures-reduced the risk of false discoveries as a function of (i) confirmation bias, (ii) non-transparency, and (iii) intrinsic measurement bias. The combined AMP-TPP test strategy performed three replication studies with a total of 26,483 participants resulting in N = 420,472 critical trials. Study 1 failed to replicate the precognitive effect. An exploratory analysis of Study 1 suggested an effect in the opposite direction than was originally predicted (49.48% ± 0.26 SE; N = 37,836). Study 2 confirmed this exploratory result using a high-powered replication design (49.65% ± 0.14 SE; p = 0.013; N = 127,000). Study 3 was unable to replicate the result from Study 2 (50.07% ± 0.11 SE; p = 0.496; N = 217,800). The results of Study 2 represent a rare example in psi research of the successful replication of an exploratory result using a confirmatory protocol. The source of the one-time confirmed anomalous result in Study 2 remains to be identified. This result presents either (i) a psi-derived anomaly that defies known physical laws, or (ii) a method-derived anomaly, e.g., a false-positive statistical finding. Using conventional standards, based on the lack of replicability in Study 3 and absence of an accepted scientific theory, the second scenario appears more plausible. This AMP-TPP metascientific project demonstrated the use of advanced controls for assessing the reliability of the employed scientific process. This project shows how rigor-enhancing test strategies can improve the reliability, not only of psi research, but any type of weak-effects experiments, including in psychology.
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.