What is the evidence for precognition?

What the evidence for precognition looks like

Coverage first: this reflects the studies currently in the ESP-Nexus library, not the complete published literature on precognition. We have not yet measured how much of that literature the library holds, so treat what follows as a summary of what we hold rather than a settled account of the field.

Precognition — the claim that an organism responds to a future event before it occurs — is tested in several very different paradigms, and the audited evidence base for this question mixes them. That matters for reading the numbers: the rows below report non-comparable metrics (standardized effect sizes, raw hit rates, prevalence-style figures, correlations, and bare z/p values), so there is no single “overall effect size” that summarizes them, and I will not manufacture one.

The pattern across the audited rows

The direction of results is genuinely split. Of the 47 result rows, 15 report a null or below-chance effect, alongside a set of significant positives. Both outcomes are well represented, and any honest summary has to hold them together:

  • Positive rows span forced-choice guessing, associative remote viewing, presentiment/EEG paradigms, and meta-analytic pools — e.g. Bem’s (2016) 90-study database (ES ≈ 0.09, Hedges’ g), Watt (2015), Vernon (2018), Mossbridge (2024, 2023), Radin (2023), Schmidt (2019), Kugel (2018), Mueller (2019).
  • Null rows include large, preregistered confirmatory tests — Walleczek (2025), with roughly 37,836 trials, returned essentially chance performance (hit rate ≈ 0.49, p = .979). Muhmenthaler (2022) ran three preregistered replications of specific Bem experiments and found effect sizes near zero in all three. Schlitz (2021), Alibalaei (2025), Sheldrake (2025), Maier (2020), and Katz (2018) are also null.

A few illustrative rows, by their own headline outcome:

Study (year)ParadigmNStatisticDirection
Bem (2016)90-study meta-analysis12,406 participantsES = 0.09 (Hedges’ g), z = 6.33positive
Walleczek (2025)preregistered confirmatory, erotic trials37,836 trialshit rate = 0.4948, p = .979null
Muhmenthaler (2022) Exp 1replication of Bem Exp. 3727 participantsES = 0.001 (Cohen’s d), p = .512null
Vernon (2018)precall vs baseline1,980 trialsES = 0.32 (Cohen’s d), p = .021positive
Maier (2020)5-lab meta-analysis2,004 participantsES = 0.008, p = .76null
Bancel (2025)pooled tryout data1,789 trialshit rate = 0.5059, z = 4.0positive

The recurring shape is a small positive effect in some pooled and single-lab datasets, set against near-zero results in several large preregistered confirmatory tests and direct replications. That tension — significant meta-analytic pools versus null replications of the specific protocols — is the live disagreement in these rows.

The forced-choice meta-analytic thread

Two of the numbered primary sources are the classic forced-choice meta-analyses:

  • Honorton and Ferrari (1989) analyzed forced-choice precognition experiments published 1935–1987, reporting an overall above-chance effect. They also examined whether the effect declined as methodological quality rose and reported that the database did not support the “effects vanish with rigor” objection.
  • Morris (1998) compared matched precognition and clairvoyance trials and found both cumulated to a statistically significant effect, with the mean effect sizes of the two task types very close to each other — no evidence that one worked better than the other.
Skeptical critiques and discussion

What critics argue. A standard skeptical position is that apparent precognition effects shrink or disappear as experimental controls tighten, implying artifact rather than signal. Honorton and Ferrari (1989) address exactly this claim about their forced-choice database.

What the experimental data show. In the audited rows, the strongest test of the critique is the preregistered replication record. Muhmenthaler (2022) ran three direct replications of specific Bem paradigms and reported effect sizes at or near zero (Cohen’s d = 0.001, 0.034, and −0.03), and Walleczek (2025) reported a chance-level hit rate (0.4948, p = .979) in a very large confirmatory sample. By contrast, Bem’s (2016) 90-study pool and Honorton and Ferrari’s forced-choice database report small positive effects.

Analysis. Where the same specific protocols have been carried into large preregistered replications (Muhmenthaler 2022, Walleczek 2025, Schlitz 2021), those replications report null results; where results are pooled across many heterogeneous studies (Bem 2016, Honorton & Ferrari 1989), a small positive aggregate is reported. Independent preregistered confirmation of the specific effects that drive the positive meta-analytic pools has not been established in these rows.

For the site’s fuller treatment, see Precognition, the Dream Precognition page, and Edwin May’s work on precognition and presentiment mechanisms.

The studies behind this answer
PaperReported findingEffect / significanceBasis
Bancel et al. (2025), Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition [source]Tryout data – All cohorts pooled.z = 4.0, p = 3.1 × 10−5, hit rate 0.5059N = 1789 trials
Walleczek et al. (2025), PLoS One [source]Study 1 – pure-session erotic trials, preregistered confirmatory one-sided.p = .979, hit rate 0.4948N = 37836 trials; 26483 participants
Walleczek et al. (2025), Preprint V1 (under peer review, dated 06/27/2025; journal not specified)Study 1 – confirmatory, erotic trials, pure session.p = .979, hit rate 0.4948N = 37836 trials
Alibalaei et al. (2025), Journal of the Society for Psychical Research [source]Study 1 – 40-day yoga course, pre vs post precognition.ES -0.027, p = .783, hit rate 0.251N = 4160 trials; 104 participants
Boyle (2025), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source]ChatGPT-4.1-mini 100-trial precognition task.ES 0.28, p = .005, hit rate 0.32N = 100 trials; 1 participants
Sheldrake et al. (2025), Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition [source]Overall precognition condition – standardized effect size.ES 0.18, p = .17k = 3
Mossbridge et al. (2024), Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition [source]Exp 2 free-response overall target precognition.ES 0.22, p < 2 × 10−4, hit rate 0.35N = 307 trials; 307 participants
Radin et al. (2023)Exp 1 – hidden-task slope.z = 2.267, p = .02N = 85792278 trials
Mossbridge (2023), Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition [source]EEG presentiment – pre-stimulus prediction of future button-press response.p < 1 × 10−6N = 4000 trials; 40 participants
Muhmenthaler et al. (2022), Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice [source]Experiment 1 – Retroactive Affective Priming.ES 0.001, p = .512N = 36 trials; 727 participants
Bancel (2022), Unpublished proposal/report (IMI institute)Psi@Home preliminary variance test.z = 3.7, p = 1 × 10−4, hit rate 0.5N = 1160 trials; 30 participants
Schlitz et al. (2021), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source]Exp 1 confirmatory: retroactive priming, full sample.ES 0.03, p = .22N = 493 participants
Maier et al. (2020), PLOS ONE [source]Cross-lab random-effects meta-analysis.p = .765 studies; N = 2004 participants
Schmidt (2019), Journal of Parapsychology [source]Experiment 1 – combined total.ES 0.0253, z = 6.36, p < 2 × 10−9k = 3 events/tests; N = 63066 trials; 3 participants
Jolij et al. (2019), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source]Connectivity <|R|> – Amsterdam.p = .018N = 61 participants
Mueller et al. (2019), Zeitschrift fuer Anomalistik / Journal of Anomalistics [source]Overall ARV hit rate over 48 valid DAX predictions.ES 0.56, z = 3.897, p = 2.3 × 10−5, hit rate 0.7916N = 48 trials; 15 participants
Katz et al. (2018), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source]Project Firefly overall – 177 daily aggregate predictions.hit rate 0.48N = 177 trials; 62 participants
Kugel (2018), Zeitschrift fuer Anomalistik / Journal of Anomalistics [source]Program prognosis module – overall.z = 3.27, p = 6 × 10−4N = 3713 trials
Alvarez (2018), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source]Active block – Experimental trials: distance to to-be-lit vs not-to-be-lit LED.p = .035N = 25 participants
Vernon (2018), Journal of Parapsychology [source]Main study: Precall vs.ES 0.32, p = .021N = 1980 trials; 99 participants
Source: ESP-Nexus structured study database (44 studies; the table shows the 20 highest-ranked). ESP-Nexus reports what each study found and takes no position on whether the effects are genuine.
References
  1. Bancel, P. A., Boban, J., Bensahral, A., & Varvoglis, M. (2025). A Forced-Choice Precognition Experiment with Selected Cohorts. Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition, 5(1), 14–46. https://doi.org/10.31156/jaex.26394
  2. Walleczek, J., von Stillfried, N., Schmidt, S., Wittmann, M., Kirmse, K. A., Moll, J., & Kekecs, Z. (2025). Metascientific replication project with the advanced meta-experimental protocol of the transparent psi project procedures for testing the precognitive effect claimed by Bem. PLoS…, 20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335330
  3. Alibalaei, H., Radin, D., Ilavarasu, J., & Nagendra, H. R. (2025). Experimental Investigation of Precognition in Yoga Practitioners. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 89(1), 1–23.
  4. Boyle, B. J. A. (2025). Testing Noetic Potential in Large Language Models: A 100-Trial Precognitive Forced-Choice Study with ChatGPT-4.1-Mini. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 39(3), 348–355. https://doi.org/10.31275/20253739
  5. Sheldrake, R., Stedall, T., & Tressoldi, P. E. (2025). Telecommunication Telepathy: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition, 5(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.31156/jaex.25934
  6. Mossbridge, J., Cameron, K., & Boccuzzi, M. (2024). State, Trait, and Target Parameters Associated with Accuracy in Two Online Tests of Precognitive Remote Viewing. Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition, 4(1), 88–121. https://doi.org/10.31156/jaex.24743
  7. Mossbridge, J. (2023). Precognition at the Boundaries: An Empirical Review and Theoretical Discussion. Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition, 3(1), 5–41. https://doi.org/10.31156/jaex.24216
  8. Muhmenthaler, M. C., Dubravac, M., & Meier, B. (2022). The Future Failed: No Evidence for Precognition in a Large Scale Replication Attempt of Bem (2011). Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000342
  9. Bancel, P. (2022). Psi@Home: A New Experimental Paradigm for Parapsychology. Unpublished proposal/report (IMI institute).
  10. Schlitz, M., Bem, D., Marcusson-Clavertz, D., Cardena, E., Lyke, J., Grover, R., Blackmore, S., Tressoldi, P., Roney-Dougal, S., Bierman, D., Jolij, J., Lobach, E., Hartelius, G., Rabeyron, T., Bengston, W., Nelson, S., Moddel, G., & Delorme, A. (2021). Two Replication Studies of a Time-Reversed (Psi) Priming Task and the Role of Expectancy in Reaction Times. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 35(1), 65–90. https://doi.org/10.31275/20201903
  11. Maier, M. A., Buechner, V. L., Dechamps, M. C., Pflitsch, M., Kurzrock, W., Tressoldi, P., Rabeyron, T., Cardena, E., Marcusson-Clavertz, D., & Martsinkovskaja, T. (2020). A preregistered multi-lab replication of Maier et al. (2014, Exp. 4) testing retroactive avoidance. PLOS…, 15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238373
  12. Schmidt, H. (2019). Precognition of a Quantum Process. Journal of Parapsychology, 82. https://doi.org/10.30891/jopar.2018S.01.07
  13. Jolij, J., & Bierman, D. (2019). Two Attempted Retro-Priming Replications Show Theory-Relevant Anomalous Connectivity. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 33(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.31275/2019.1262
  14. Mueller, M., Mueller, L., & Wittmann, M. (2019). Predicting the Stock Market: An Associative Remote Viewing Study. Zeitschrift fuer Anomalistik / Journal of Anomalistics, 19, 326–346. https://doi.org/10.23793/zfa.2019.326
  15. Katz, D. L., Grgic, I., & Fendley, T. W. (2018). An Ethnographical Assessment of Project Firefly: A Yearlong Endeavor to Create Wealth by Predicting FOREX Currency Moves with Associative Remote Viewing. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 32(1), 21–54.
  16. Kugel, W. (2018). Amplifying Precognition: Four Experiments with Roulette. Zeitschrift fuer Anomalistik / Journal of Anomalistics, 18, 214–231. https://doi.org/10.23793/zfa.2018.214
  17. Alvarez, F. (2018). Experimenter Psi Effect in Precognition Tests with Planarians. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 32(4), 679–692. https://doi.org/10.31275/2018.1222
  18. Vernon, D. J. (2018). A Test of Reward Contingent Precall. Journal of Parapsychology, 82(1), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.30891/jopar.2018.01.02
Deeper dives on ESP-Nexus

Ask another question

More questions answered

All questions and answers →

Last updated: 2026-08-30 22:55:57

Copyright © 2026 Innovative Software Design. All rights reserved.

ESP-Nexus reports published parapsychology research as written by its own authors. Source-fidelity to cited documents is audited on every page; the site takes no position on the epistemic status of parapsychological claims themselves.