CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 331Paranormal Experiences and BeliefsReligious Studies and Spiritual PracticesAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 288 of the 294 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer.

Bem, Daryl J., Honorton, Charles·1994·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Most academic psychologists do not yet accept the existence of psi, anomalous processes of information or energy transfer (such as telepathy or other forms of extrasensory perception) that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms. We believe that the replication rates and effect sizes achieved by one particular experimental method, the ganzfeld procedure, are now sufficient to warrant bringing this body of data to the attention of the wider psychological community. Competing meta-analyses of the ganzfeld database are reviewed, 1 by R. Hyman (1985), a skeptical critic of psi research, and the other by C. Honorton (1985), a parapsychologist and major contributor to the ganzfeld database. Next the results of 11 new ganzfeld studies that comply with guidelines jointly authored by R. Hyman and C. Honorton (1986) are summarized. Finally, issues of replication and theoretical explanation are discussed. The term psi denotes anomalous processes of information or energy transfer, processes such as telepathy or other forms of extrasensory perception that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms. The term is purely descriptive: It neither implies that such anomalous phenomena are paranormal nor connotes anything about their underlying mechanisms. Does psi exist? Most academic psychologists don't think so. A survey of more than 1,100 college professors in the United States found that 55% of natural scientists, 66% of social scientists (excluding psychologists), and 77% of academics in the arts, humanities, and education believed that ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility. The comparable figure for psy

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.4

Cites

288 of 288 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 294 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 331

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bem, D. J., & Honorton, C.
Affiliations
Cornell University (US)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1994-01
Volume
115
Issue
1
Pages
4-18
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.4
OpenAlex
W2104146277
Cited by
330
References
294
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 13
FWCI
20.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Religious Studies and Spiritual Practices
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Keywords
extrasensory perception, telepathy, replication, effect size, parapsychology, meta-analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review