"Future Telling": A Meta-Analysis of Forced-Choice Precognition Experiments, 1935-1987
📄 Original study ↗📌 Appears in:
Plain English Summary
This is the big one for precognition research — a massive review pulling together 309 experiments conducted over more than fifty years, involving nearly 2 million trials and 50,000+ participants. In these "forced-choice" tests (where people try to guess a future random outcome), the overall hit rate was small but wildly statistically significant, with odds against chance of roughly a million trillion trillion to one. About 30% of individual studies hit significance on their own, and you'd need over 14,000 unpublished negative studies hiding in file drawers to erase the effect — a powerful argument against cherry-picking. Here's what's really interesting: study quality didn't weaken the results; higher-quality work actually showed slightly stronger effects. The researchers also pinpointed the sweet spot for success: use people who seem naturally gifted, test them one-on-one, give them immediate feedback after each guess, and keep the time gap short. Studies that nailed all four conditions produced an astonishing 87.5% significant hit rate. The authors made a memorable comparison: this precognition effect is comparable in size to well-accepted medical findings like aspirin preventing heart attacks, an argument that's been repeated in psi research ever since.
Research Notes
The cornerstone meta-analysis for forced-choice precognition, spanning half a century of experimental work. Establishes both the robustness of the small precognition effect and the moderating conditions under which it is maximized. Frequently cited as foundational evidence by Bem (2011), Radin (2011), and Mossbridge et al. (2012). Its comparison of precognition effect sizes to medical trial effect sizes (aspirin, propranolol) became a widely repeated argument for the practical significance of small psi effects.
Meta-analysis of 309 forced-choice precognition experiments published in English-language parapsychology journals between 1935 and 1987, comprising nearly 2 million trials and over 50,000 subjects from 62 investigators. The overall effect is small but highly significant (combined z = 11.41, p = 6.3 x 10^-31), with 30% of studies independently significant. A fail-safe N of 14,268 rules out selective reporting. No relationship between study quality and effect size was found; quality-weighted results were slightly stronger. Four moderating variables were identified: selected subjects, individual testing, trial-by-trial feedback, and shorter temporal intervals all increased effect magnitude. Studies combining all optimal conditions yielded 87.5% independently significant results.
Related Papers
Extended By
- Predicting the Unpredictable: 75 Years of Experimental Evidence — Radin, Dean I (2011)
- Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect — Bem, Daryl J (2011)
- Feeling the Future: A Meta-Analysis of 90 Experiments on the Anomalous Anticipation of Random Future Events — Bem, Daryl J (2015)
- Does Psi Exist? Replicable Evidence for an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer — Bem, Daryl J (1994)
Companion
Same Research Program
Cited By
- Advances in Remote-Viewing Analysis — May, Edwin C (1990)
- Quantum Aspects of the Brain-Mind Relationship: A Hypothesis with Supporting Evidence — Kauffman, Stuart A (2023)
- Nonlocality, Intention, and Observer Effects in Healing Studies: Laying a Foundation for the Future — Schwartz, Stephan A (2010)
- Explicit Anomalous Cognition: A Review of the Best Evidence in Ganzfeld, Forced-choice, Remote Viewing and Dream Studies — Baptista, Johann (2015)
- Remote Viewing as Applied to Futures Studies — Lee, James H (2008)
- Bem's 'Feeling the Future' (2011) Five Years Later: Its Impact on Scientific Literature — Silva, Bruno A (2017)
- Evaluation of a Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena — Hyman, Ray (1996)
- Precognition as a Form of Prospection: A Review of the Evidence — Mossbridge, Julia A (2018)
- Can Parapsychology Move Beyond the Controversies of Retrospective Meta-Analyses? — Kennedy, J.E (2013)
- Decision Augmentation Theory: Toward a Model of Anomalous Mental Phenomena — May, Edwin C (1995)
- Anomalous Cognition: An Umbrella Review of the Meta-Analytic Evidence — Tressoldi, Patrizio (2021)
- Extrasensory Perception and Quantum Models of Cognition — Tressoldi, Patrizio E (2010)
Meta Analyzed By
Precursor
Also by these authors
More in Precognition
Experimental Investigation of Precognition in Yoga Practitioners
Sentiment and Presentiment in Twitter: Do Trends in Collective Mood "Feel the Future"?
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
Predictive Physiological Anticipation Preceding Seemingly Unpredictable Stimuli: An Update of Mossbridge et al.'s Meta-Analysis
📋 Cite this paper
Honorton, Charles, Ferrari, Diane C (1989). "Future Telling": A Meta-Analysis of Forced-Choice Precognition Experiments, 1935-1987. Journal of Parapsychology.
@article{honorton_1989_future,
title = {"Future Telling": A Meta-Analysis of Forced-Choice Precognition Experiments, 1935-1987},
author = {Honorton, Charles and Ferrari, Diane C},
year = {1989},
journal = {Journal of Parapsychology},
}