Skip to main content

Examining Psychokinesis: The Interaction of Human Intention With Random Number Generators—A Meta-Analysis

Contested
Bösch, Holger, Steinkamp, Fiona, Boller, Emil 2006 Modern Era psychokinesis

📌 Appears in:

Plain English Summary

Can you move things with your mind? This landmark meta-analysis, published in one of psychology's most prestigious journals, tackled that question head-on by crunching 380 studies spanning 45 years of people trying to mentally influence random number generators (basically digital coin flips). The verdict? There is a statistically significant effect — but it's breathtakingly tiny, shifting the odds to 50.0286% instead of a perfect 50/50. That's like winning one extra coin flip out of every 3,500. And here's the kicker: smaller studies found bigger effects, which is a classic red flag for publication bias (the tendency for boring null results to stay in file drawers). The researchers ran a clever computer simulation showing that if roughly 1,500 unpublished negative studies existed, it would perfectly reproduce all the patterns in the data. Their blunt conclusion borrowed a phrase from 1962: "not proven." This analysis became the single strongest skeptical challenge to the entire mind-over-matter research program and sparked a heated rebuttal from the field's leading proponents.

Actual Paper Abstract

Se´ance-room and other large-scale psychokinetic phenomena have fascinated humankind for decades. Experimental research has reduced these phenomena to attempts to influence (a) the fall of dice and, later, (b) the output of random number generators (RNGs). The meta-analysis combined 380 studies that assessed whether RNG output correlated with human intention and found a significant but very small overall effect size. The study effect sizes were strongly and inversely related to sample size and were extremely heterogeneous. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the small effect size, the relation between sample size and effect size, and the extreme effect size heterogeneity found could in principle be a result of publication bias.

Research Notes

The most rigorous independent meta-analysis of the RNG-PK database, published in the APA’s Psychological Bulletin. Its Monte Carlo publication bias simulation provides the strongest skeptical argument against the entire RNG-PK evidence base and directly prompted Radin, Nelson, Dobyns & Houtkooper’s rebuttal. Essential reading for Controversies 4 (PK) and 10 (meta-debate).

A meta-analysis of 380 studies (117 reports, 1959–2004) examining whether human intention can influence true random number generator output. Using both fixed-effects and random-effects models, the analysis found a statistically significant but extremely small overall effect (REM: π = .500286, z = 4.08, p < .001, excluding three outlier studies). However, effect sizes were inversely related to sample size (small-study effect) and extremely heterogeneous (Q = 1508.56, p ≈ 0). A Monte Carlo simulation showed that a simple publication bias model could reproduce all three main findings, requiring approximately 1,500 unpublished null studies. The authors conclude with Girden’s 1962 verdict: “not proven.”

Links

Related Papers

Also by these authors

More in Psychokinesis

📋 Cite this paper
APA
Bösch, Holger, Steinkamp, Fiona, Boller, Emil (2006). Examining Psychokinesis: The Interaction of Human Intention With Random Number Generators—A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.497
BibTeX
@article{bosch_2006_examining,
  title = {Examining Psychokinesis: The Interaction of Human Intention With Random Number Generators—A Meta-Analysis},
  author = {Bösch, Holger and Steinkamp, Fiona and Boller, Emil},
  year = {2006},
  journal = {Psychological Bulletin},
  doi = {10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.497},
}