Skip to main content

Distant intentionality and the feeling of being stared at: Two meta-analyses

πŸ“„ Original study β†—
Schmidt, Stefan, Schneider, Rainer, Utts, Jessica, Walach, Harald β€’ 2004 Modern Era β€’ telepathy

πŸ“Œ Appears in:

Plain English Summary

Can one person's focused intention measurably affect another person's body from a distance? This landmark meta-analysis (a study that pools results from many experiments) tackled that question across 36 studies measuring tiny changes in skin conductance (basically, sweat responses) when a distant person concentrated on the participant. The overall verdict: a small but statistically significant effect emerged. However β€” and this is the really important part β€” when the authors zeroed in on just the seven highest-quality studies, the effect shrank to nearly nothing and was no longer significant. Better-designed studies consistently found weaker results, with randomization quality being the biggest factor. A separate batch of 15 "remote staring" experiments did show a small significant effect. The authors honestly acknowledged the pattern and called for more top-tier independent replications before drawing firm conclusions.

Research Notes

The benchmark meta-analysis for both DMILS and remote staring paradigms, notable for its transparent acknowledgment that effect sizes shrink with methodological quality. The non-significant best-evidence synthesis is the single strongest skeptical datum against DMILS, though it drew from only one lab. Central to Controversies #5 and #11.

Across two meta-analyses of experiments using electrodermal activity (EDA) as a dependent variable, a quality-weighted analysis of 36 Direct Mental Interaction in Living Systems (DMILS) studies yielded a small significant effect (d = 0.11, p = .001, 95% CI [0.04, 0.17]), while a best-evidence synthesis of 7 highest-quality studies was non-significant (d = 0.05, p = .50). A separate analysis of 15 remote staring studies found d = 0.13 (p = .01, 95% CI [0.03, 0.23]). A 208-item coding scheme revealed a significant negative correlation between overall study quality and DMILS effect size, with randomization quality as the strongest predictor. No publication bias was detected. The authors conclude that hints of an effect exist but call for independent high-quality replications.

Links

Related Papers

Also by these authors

More in Telepathy

πŸ“‹ Cite this paper
APA
Schmidt, Stefan, Schneider, Rainer, Utts, Jessica, Walach, Harald (2004). Distant intentionality and the feeling of being stared at: Two meta-analyses. British Journal of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126041546396
BibTeX
@article{schmidt_2004_distant,
  title = {Distant intentionality and the feeling of being stared at: Two meta-analyses},
  author = {Schmidt, Stefan and Schneider, Rainer and Utts, Jessica and Walach, Harald},
  year = {2004},
  journal = {British Journal of Psychology},
  doi = {10.1348/0007126041546396},
}