Skip to main content

Precognition as a Form of Prospection: A Review of the Evidence

Contested
Mossbridge, Julia A, Radin, Dean 2018 Current Era precognition

Plain English Summary

Can people actually sense the future? This ambitious review, published in an official American Psychological Association journal, pulls together decades of controlled experiments on precognition -- the idea that humans can somehow perceive events before they happen. The authors examined five different flavors of evidence: prophetic dreams, conscious guessing, free-form impressions, snap-judgment tasks, and bodily reactions that seem to anticipate what's coming. The numbers are striking. Across hundreds of forced-choice studies, the odds against the results being pure luck are roughly a billion to one. Quick-thinking tasks show a small but stubbornly persistent effect, and studies measuring physical responses like heart rate find an even larger signal. Taken together, the authors argue this converging evidence seriously challenges our everyday assumption that causes always come before effects -- a bold claim that immediately drew formal critiques from other researchers.

Research Notes

Published as a target article in APA's Psychology of Consciousness, this is among the most comprehensive reviews of precognition evidence in a mainstream journal. Consolidates presentiment, Bem-style, and forced-choice literatures into a single theoretical framework, directly prompting cross-examination by Houran et al. (2018).

Reviewing controlled experiments across five domains — precognitive dreaming, forced-choice conscious precognition, free-response precognition, implicit (Bem-style) precognition, and physiological presentiment — this paper evaluates whether precognition represents a genuine form of human prospection. The forced-choice literature (309 studies, 1935-1987) yields ES = 0.02, Z = 6.02, p = 1.1x10^-9. Implicit precognition (90 experiments) shows Hedges' g = 0.09, p = 1.2x10^-10, with fast-thinking tasks driving the effect. The presentiment meta-analysis (26 studies) reports ES = 0.21, z = 5.3, p = 5.7x10^-8. The authors conclude converging evidence challenges standard assumptions about temporal causality.

Links

Related Papers

Also by these authors

More in Precognition

📋 Cite this paper
APA
Mossbridge, Julia A, Radin, Dean (2018). Precognition as a Form of Prospection: A Review of the Evidence. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000121
BibTeX
@article{mossbridge_2018_precognition,
  title = {Precognition as a Form of Prospection: A Review of the Evidence},
  author = {Mossbridge, Julia A and Radin, Dean},
  year = {2018},
  journal = {Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice},
  doi = {10.1037/cns0000121},
}