Predictive Physiological Anticipation Preceding Seemingly Unpredictable Stimuli: An Update of Mossbridge et al.'s Meta-Analysis
📄 Original study ↗📌 Appears in:
Plain English Summary
Can your body predict the future? That is the bizarre question behind "presentiment" research — measuring whether people physically react to random events before they happen. A landmark 2012 meta-analysis (pooling many experiments) found a small but real effect. This 2018 update adds six more years of data from a dozen labs, and the effect actually got stronger — jumping from 0.21 to 0.29, confirmed by two independent statistical methods. Published studies showed bigger effects than unpublished ones, yet a test for publication bias (the tendency for only positive results to get printed) came up clean. With more than 100,000-to-one odds against chance, this remains one of the field's most stubbornly persistent findings.
Abstract
Background: This is an update of the Mossbridge et al's meta-analysis related to the physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli. The overall effect size observed was 0.21; 95% Confidence Intervals: 0.13 - 0.29 Methods: Eighteen new peer and non-peer reviewed studies completed from January 2008 to October 2017 were retrieved describing a total of 26 experiments and 34 associated effect sizes. Results: The overall weighted effect size, estimated with a frequentist multilevel random model, was: 0.29; 95% Confidence Intervals: 0.19-0.38; the overall weighted effect size, estimated with a multilevel Bayesian model, was: 0.29; 95% Credible Intervals: 0.18-0.39. Effect sizes of peer reviewed studies were slightly higher: 0.38; Confidence Intervals: 0.27-0.48 than non-peer reviewed articles: 0.22; Confidence Intervals: 0.05-0.39. The statistical estimation of the publication bias by using the Copas model suggest that the main findings are not contaminated by publication bias. Conclusions: In summary, with this update, the main findings reported in Mossbridge et al's meta-analysis, are confirmed.
Links
Related Papers
Extends
Cites
Precursor
Meta Analyzed By
Cited By
- Quantum Aspects of the Brain-Mind Relationship: A Hypothesis with Supporting Evidence — Kauffman, Stuart A. (2023)
- Anomalous Cognition: An Umbrella Review of the Meta-Analytic Evidence — Tressoldi, Patrizio. (2021)
- Sentiment and Presentiment in Twitter: Do Trends in Collective Mood "Feel the Future"? — Radin, Dean I. (2023)
Same Research Program
Meta Analyzes
Companion
Also by these authors
Telecommunication Telepathy: A Meta-Analysis
Who is calling? An Independent Replication of a Telephone Telepathy Test
Explicit Anomalous Cognition: A Review of the Best Evidence in Ganzfeld, Forced-choice, Remote Viewing and Dream Studies
More in Precognition
Experimental Investigation of Precognition in Yoga Practitioners
Future dreams of electric sheep: Case study of a possibly precognitive lucid dreamer with AI scoring
Raising the value of research studies in psychological science by increasing the credibility of research reports: the transparent Psi project
A Preregistered Multi-Lab Replication of Maier et al. (2014, Exp. 4) Testing Retroactive Avoidance
Precognition as a Form of Prospection: A Review of the Evidence
📋 Cite this paper
Duggan, Michael., Tressoldi, Patrizio. (2018). Predictive Physiological Anticipation Preceding Seemingly Unpredictable Stimuli: An Update of Mossbridge et al.'s Meta-Analysis. F1000Research. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.14330.1
@article{duggan_2018_paa_update,
title = {Predictive Physiological Anticipation Preceding Seemingly Unpredictable Stimuli: An Update of Mossbridge et al.'s Meta-Analysis},
author = {Duggan, Michael. and Tressoldi, Patrizio.},
year = {2018},
journal = {F1000Research},
doi = {10.12688/f1000research.14330.1},
}