A Comparison of Four New Automated Telephone Telepathy Tests
📄 Original study ↗📌 Appears in:
Plain English Summary
Can people really sense who's calling before they pick up? Rupert Sheldrake and Tom Stedall built an automated phone system to find out. In three experiments where everyone stayed on a conference call together, guesses about who was "thinking" of the receiver barely beat coin-flip odds -- nothing exciting. But when they redesigned the test so callers and receivers went about their normal lives and got surprise calls at random times -- mimicking how phone telepathy supposedly works in real life -- hit rates jumped to 57%, a statistically significant result across 266 trials. Crucially, the success was spread across many participants, not driven by a few lucky (or sneaky) people, which helps rule out cheating or cherry-picking. The takeaway: the more a telepathy test resembles everyday life, the more likely it picks something up.
Research Notes
Extends Sheldrake's telephone telepathy program with new automated methods. The null Exps 1–3 versus significant Exp 4 provide a within-program comparison suggesting ecological validity (separated trials) matters for detecting telephone telepathy effects. Pre-registered on OSF (2015). Feeds into Sheldrake (2025) meta-analysis.
Four automated telephone telepathy experiments compared conference-call and separated-trial formats using the Twilio platform. In Experiments 1–3, three participants remained connected in a conference call; a randomly chosen caller thought about the receiver, who guessed the caller's identity (2-choice, 50% chance). None showed significant effects: Exp 1: 51% (1,047 trials), Exp 2: 51% (231 trials), Exp 3: 52% (447 trials). Experiment 4 separated callers and receivers between trials, allowing normal activity between randomly timed calls. In 266 trials, the hit rate was 57% (p = .01, one-tailed binomial). The positive effect was distributed across participants (36 positive vs 17 negative tests, p = .006), ruling out optional stopping and minority-cheater explanations.
Links
Related Papers
Cites
- Experimental Tests for Telephone Telepathy — Sheldrake, Rupert (2003)
- Videotaped Experiments on Telephone Telepathy — Sheldrake, Rupert (2003)
- A Filmed Experiment on Telephone Telepathy with the Nolan Sisters — Sheldrake, Rupert (2004)
- Testing for Telepathy in Connection with E-mails — Sheldrake, Rupert (2005)
- An Automated Online Telepathy Test — Sheldrake, Rupert (2007)
- A Rapid Online Telepathy Test — Sheldrake, Rupert (2009)
- An Automated Test for Telepathy in Connection with Emails — Sheldrake, Rupert (2009)
- Sensing the Sending of SMS Messages: An Automated Test — Sheldrake, Rupert (2009)
- Telepathy in Connection with Telephone Calls, Text Messages and Emails — Sheldrake, Rupert (2014)
Same Research Program
Also by these authors
More in Telepathy
Rethinking Communication and Consciousness: Lessons from The Telepathy Tapes Podcast
Detecting Telepathy: A Meta-Analysis for Extrasensory Perception Experiments in Last 20 Years
Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies 2009-2018: Assessing the Noise-Reduction Model Ten Years On
Can Morphic Fields Help Explain Telepathy and the Sense of Being Stared At?
On the Correspondence Between Dream Content and Target Material Under Laboratory Conditions: A Meta-Analysis of Dream-ESP Studies, 1966-2016
📋 Cite this paper
Sheldrake, Rupert, Stedall, Tom (2024). A Comparison of Four New Automated Telephone Telepathy Tests. Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.31156/jaex.25250
@article{sheldrake_stedall_2024_automated_telephone,
title = {A Comparison of Four New Automated Telephone Telepathy Tests},
author = {Sheldrake, Rupert and Stedall, Tom},
year = {2024},
journal = {Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition},
doi = {10.31156/jaex.25250},
}