ESP Contributes to the Unconscious Formation of Preferences

Carpenter, J., Simmonds-Moore, C., Moore, S., & Carpenter, F. (2021). ESP Contributes to the Unconscious Formation of Preferences. Journal of Parapsychology, 85(1), 28–53. https://doi.org/10.30891/jopar.2021.01.06

AI Assessment

A two-experiment test of First Sight Theory, which proposes that ESP is an ongoing unconscious process feeding into everyday judgments, here tested on picture preferences using a variant of the mere-exposure effect. Crucially, the theory predicts no simple overall effect, because unconscious influence is held to be bidirectional (sometimes increasing liking, sometimes decreasing it, the “psi-missing” pattern), so the study instead tries to predict the direction and size of the effect from personality and mood. That is roughly what happened: there was no overall mere-exposure effect for either subliminal or extrasensory pre-exposure, but a personality composite predicting extrasensory preference, derived in Study 1, was independently confirmed in Study 2 (r = .29). Several other predictions, including the subliminal effects and an extrasensory mood manipulation, failed to replicate. The derive-then-confirm design is a genuine strength; the reliance on a data-derived moderator in the absence of any main effect is the main caution. This audit reports what the study found and how; it takes no position on whether ESP is real.

Provenance

DOI. 10.30891/jopar.2021.01.06 · Journal of Parapsychology 2021, 85(1), 28 to 53.

Study type. Two linked experiments: an exploratory derivation study and a confirmatory replication of the derived predictor.

Authors. James Carpenter (the originator of First Sight Theory), Christine Simmonds-Moore, Steve Moore, and Ferrell Carpenter, associated with the Rhine Research Center and the University of West Georgia. (A cataloguing note: the study database had stored this record’s title and author list in corrupted form; the byline used here is from the article.)

Data availability. Not stated in the article.

Source basis. Every figure below is taken from the article’s own Abstract and Results.

What the paper reports

First Sight Theory (FST) holds that ESP is not a rare special ability but an ongoing unconscious process that shapes ordinary judgments and feelings, and that its expression is bidirectional and moderated by personality and state.¹ The authors therefore do not predict a simple mere-exposure effect from extrasensory pre-exposure; they predict that variables like openness, tolerance for merger, and positive mood will determine whether pre-exposure increases or decreases liking. The paper reports that this moderated pattern held for the extrasensory condition and replicated, while the parallel subliminal predictions and a mood manipulation did not.

The second study tested this composite variable in a new sample and validated it significantly. Again, relationships were stronger when mood was better … relationships should be stronger when the information is of more personal relevance … and this was confirmed as well.

How it was run

• Task. Participants viewed fractal patterns interspersed with 100-millisecond masked subliminal picture flashes, or completely occluded “extrasensory” picture presentations, then judged their preference between pairs of previously exposed versus control pictures. Participants could not distinguish extrasensory from subliminal trials.
• Stimuli. IAPS pictures in matched pairs (for valence and intensity, all positive valence), 25 pairs per condition in Study 1 (chance = 12.5) and 12 pairs per condition in Study 2 (chance = 12).
• Moderators. Personality facets (openness, anxiety facets from the NEO-PI, tolerance for merger, and others), belief that ESP is possible, and mood, the last measured indirectly by the valence of an autobiographical early memory rated by an independent judge.
• Design. Study 1 used multiple regression across the moderators to derive a composite predictor of extrasensory preference; Study 2 then tested that single composite in a fresh sample as a confirmatory step.

Results, as reported

Values are reproduced from the article’s Abstract and Results. The one relationship that held up across both studies is the personality composite predicting extrasensory preference (small to moderate, r = .29), stronger under positive mood and for personally relevant pictures; most of the study’s other predictions did not replicate.

Eleven-dimension audit

Pre-registration

Not preregistered, but the two-study structure partly compensates: the composite predictor was derived by regression in Study 1 (an exploratory step) and then tested in a fresh sample in Study 2 (a confirmatory step). That derive-then-confirm sequence is close to what preregistration is meant to guarantee, provided Study 2 is treated as the real test.

Randomization

Pictures were presented in matched pairs and the pre-exposure conditions varied within the task; the extrasensory and subliminal trials were arranged so participants could not tell them apart, which is the relevant control here.

Sensory leakage

The extrasensory condition uses completely occluded picture presentations, so the key concern is whether that occlusion truly prevents any subliminal leakage. The finding that extrasensory and subliminal scores were uncorrelated is at least consistent with the two being separate channels rather than one leaking into the other.

Blinding

Participants could not distinguish extrasensory from subliminal trials, and mood was scored by an independent judge from autobiographical memories, both of which limit obvious bias. The moderator analyses, however, were run by the authors without a blinded plan.

Optional stopping

Not described and, without preregistration, not documented. The main analytic latitude lies in the derivation of the composite rather than in data collection.

Outcome measure

Preference judgments against a clear chance baseline (12.5 and 12 per condition), with the theoretically central outcome being a moderated, directional preference score rather than a raw hit rate. That is defensible under the theory but makes the outcome harder to interpret than a simple above-chance count.

Effect size

There is no main effect; the confirmed relationship is a correlation of r = .29 (rising to .38 under positive mood). This is a small to moderate association between a personality composite and an extrasensory preference score, not a large or simple psi effect.

Multiple comparisons

Study 1 examined many moderators and used multiple regression to build the composite, which is a high-multiplicity, overfitting-prone step. The saving grace is that only the single resulting composite was carried into Study 2, so the confirmatory test is not itself multiplicity-inflated.

Internal replication

The central strength: the personality composite replicated in an independent Study 2 sample. Equally important for honesty, several other predictions (the subliminal effects, the extrasensory mood manipulation) did not replicate, and the paper reports those failures plainly.

External replication

This is a partial replication of prior First Sight work by the same tradition; independent replication by other groups, ideally preregistered, would be needed to establish the moderated effect firmly.

Transparency

Good in structure and reporting: the two-study derive-and-confirm logic is explicit, and the non-replications are reported alongside the confirmations rather than omitted. The limits are the absence of preregistration and of a stated data-availability provision.

The adversarial record

• No main effect; a moderator carries the result. With no overall mere-exposure effect from extrasensory pre-exposure, the positive finding rests entirely on a composite of personality and mood variables. When a main effect is absent, a data-derived combination of moderators that “predicts” the psi score is exactly the situation in which chance can masquerade as signal, and the bidirectional (psi-missing) framing further increases the number of patterns that can be counted as predicted.
• The composite is post-hoc. It was assembled by regression over many variables in Study 1. That step is legitimately exploratory, and the authors handle it correctly by testing the composite in Study 2, but the composite’s very existence is a product of the first dataset.
• Mixed, selective replication. The personality composite replicated, but the subliminal predictions and the extrasensory mood manipulation did not, and the extrasensory and subliminal scores were uncorrelated, which sits awkwardly with a unified unconscious-processing account. The supportive headline is one strand among several that failed.
• Small effect, same tradition. The confirmed correlation is modest (r = .29) and the work is within the First Sight research program; independent, preregistered replication is the decisive next step.
• What is genuinely strong. Methodologically, testing a data-derived predictor in a fresh confirmatory sample is precisely the right way to guard against overfitting without preregistration, the stimuli are matched IAPS pairs with a clear chance baseline, participants could not distinguish the trial types, and the authors report their non-replications candidly. As a test of a specific, falsifiable-in-part theory, it is carefully executed, with the honest bottom line that one moderated relationship survived and several predictions did not.