Predictive Physiological Anticipation Preceding Seemingly Unpredictable Stimuli: An Update of Mossbridge et al.'s Meta-Analysis
📄 Original study ↗📌 Appears in:
Plain English Summary
Can your body predict the future? That is the bizarre question behind "presentiment" research — measuring whether people physically react to random events before they happen. A landmark 2012 meta-analysis (pooling many experiments) found a small but real effect. This 2018 update adds six more years of data from a dozen labs, and the effect actually got stronger — jumping from 0.21 to 0.29, confirmed by two independent statistical methods. Published studies showed bigger effects than unpublished ones, yet a test for publication bias (the tendency for only positive results to get printed) came up clean. With million-to-one odds against chance, this remains one of the field's most stubbornly persistent findings.
Actual Paper Abstract
Background: This is an update of the Mossbridge et al's meta-analysis related to the physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli. The overall effect size observed was 0.21; 95% Confidence Intervals: 0.13 - 0.29 Methods: Eighteen new peer and non-peer reviewed studies completed from January 2008 to October 2017 were retrieved describing a total of 26 experiments and 34 associated effect sizes. Results: The overall weighted effect size, estimated with a frequentist multilevel random model, was: 0.29; 95% Confidence Intervals: 0.19-0.38; the overall weighted effect size, estimated with a multilevel Bayesian model, was: 0.29; 95% Credible Intervals: 0.18-0.39. Effect sizes of peer reviewed studies were slightly higher: 0.38; Confidence Intervals: 0.27-0.48 than non-peer reviewed articles: 0.22; Confidence Intervals: 0.05-0.39. The statistical estimation of the publication bias by using the Copas model suggest that the main findings are not contaminated by publication bias. Conclusions: In summary, with this update, the main findings reported in Mossbridge et al's meta-analysis, are confirmed.
Research Notes
Confirms and strengthens the Mossbridge et al. (2012) PAA meta-analysis with an additional six years of data from a dozen laboratories. Effect size slightly larger (0.29 vs. 0.21) despite broader inclusion criteria. High heterogeneity (I² = 80.5%) reflects diverse protocols. Directly relevant to the presentiment controversy (#3).
An updated meta-analysis extending Mossbridge et al. (2012) on predictive anticipatory activity (PAA) — physiological responses preceding randomly presented stimuli. Eighteen new studies (26 experiments, 34 effect sizes) from January 2008 to October 2017 were analyzed using frequentist multilevel random models and Bayesian multilevel models following PRISMA guidelines. The overall weighted effect size was g = 0.29 (95% CI [0.19, 0.38], p = 8×10⁻⁶), confirmed by Bayesian analysis (g = 0.29, 95% CrI [0.18, 0.39]). Peer-reviewed studies showed higher effects (g = 0.38) than non-peer-reviewed (g = 0.22). Copas selection model found no publication bias (adjusted ES = 0.28).
Links
Related Papers
Precursor
Meta Analyzed By
Also by these authors
Telecommunication Telepathy: A Meta-Analysis
Feeling the Future: A Meta-Analysis of 90 Experiments on the Anomalous Anticipation of Random Future Events
Explicit Anomalous Cognition: A Review of the Best Evidence in Ganzfeld, Forced-choice, Remote Viewing and Dream Studies
More in Precognition
Experimental Investigation of Precognition in Yoga Practitioners
Future dreams of electric sheep: Case study of a possibly precognitive lucid dreamer with AI scoring
Sentiment and Presentiment in Twitter: Do Trends in Collective Mood "Feel the Future"?
Raising the value of research studies in psychological science by increasing the credibility of research reports: the transparent Psi project
A Preregistered Multi-Lab Replication of Maier et al. (2014, Exp. 4) Testing Retroactive Avoidance
📋 Cite this paper
Duggan, Michael, Tressoldi, Patrizio (2018). Predictive Physiological Anticipation Preceding Seemingly Unpredictable Stimuli: An Update of Mossbridge et al.'s Meta-Analysis. F1000Research. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.14330.1
@article{duggan_2018_paa_update,
title = {Predictive Physiological Anticipation Preceding Seemingly Unpredictable Stimuli: An Update of Mossbridge et al.'s Meta-Analysis},
author = {Duggan, Michael and Tressoldi, Patrizio},
year = {2018},
journal = {F1000Research},
doi = {10.12688/f1000research.14330.1},
}