A quantitative digest of the ESP-Nexus structured study database for Dream ESP: 11 studies spanning 1968–2025, with every figure traceable to its source. ESP-Nexus reports what the studies found and takes no position on whether the effects are genuine.
The broadest quantitative summary available is Howard's (2018) meta-reanalysis of 44 dream-ESP studies, which yielded a pooled effect of r = 0.07, a small positive value. Individual studies scatter considerably around that central estimate. Effect sizes in primary reports range from r = 0.04 (Luke, 2014) up to Cohen's h = 0.46 (Dalton, 1999) and h = 0.38 (Sherwood, 2000), while a 2024 study by Vernon reported d = 0.25 and a 2025 Mossbridge result reached p = .033. Older laboratory work by Krippner and by Rechtschaffen produced results significant beyond the .001 level, and Paquette (2012) reported a p-value of 4.07 × 10−13 under one scoring threshold.
Alongside these positive signals, the evidence is visibly unsettled. Roe (2007) produced a non-significant p of .18, Watt (2014) returned z/sqrt(n) = 0.16, and at least one study reports a null or below-chance direction. Effect sizes span a wide range across different metrics, making direct comparison difficult, and the heterogeneity across designs, judges, and scoring methods means no single summary number captures the full picture.
Pooled meta-analytic effects
- Howard (2018), International Journal of Dream Research: ES 0.07 (pearson_r) (k = 44)
The evidence
| Paper | Reported finding | Effect / significance | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mossbridge et al. (2025), International Journal of Dream Research [source] | AI judging limited analysis – best material set, best model performance. | p = .033, hit rate 0.5 | N = 10 |
| Vernon et al. (2024), International Journal of Dream Research [source] | Main trial: target vs combined decoy similarity ratings. | ES 0.25, p = .012 | N = 101 |
| Howard (2018), International Journal of Dream Research | Overall inverse-variance weighted effect. | ES 0.07, z = 2.857, p = .004 | 44 studies; N = 1708 |
| Watt (2014), Journal of Parapsychology | H1 precognition – planned direct hits. | ES 0.16, z = 2.21, p = .015, hit rate 0.32 | N = 200 |
| Luke et al. (2014), International Journal of Dream Research | Overall psi score. | ES 0.04, z = 0.89, p = .37, hit rate 0.268 | N = 400 |
| Paquette (2012), Journal of Scientific Exploration | All 20 records, all 558 line items. | p = 4.1 × 10−13 | N = 558 |
| Roe et al. (2007), European Journal of Parapsychology | Sender night – z score of similarity ratings. | p = .18, hit rate 0.3 | N = 40 |
| Sherwood et al. (2000), Dreaming | Discussion consensus judging procedure – H1. | ES 0.38, p = .0294, hit rate 0.43 | N = 28 |
| Dalton et al. (1999), Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research | Group consensus-vote direct hits. | ES 0.46, p = .006, hit rate 0.469 | N = 32 |
| Rechtschaffen, Allan et al. (1970) | Larger waking-hypnotic-dream study: dream-vs-dream matching, all 6 subjects combined. | p = .001 | N = 47 |
| Krippner (1968) | Condition 2 – HYPNOSIS group. | p = .001 | — |
What is unsettled
- Reported directions disagree across studies (some positive, some null or below-chance).
- 1 result(s) report a null or below-chance (negative) effect.
Source: ESP-Nexus structured study database, 11 studies. 11 born-digital figures; OCR-derived figures awaiting source-verification are excluded from this digest. Effect sizes are shown only where a standardized metric is recorded.