Cited by 49Paranormal Experiences and BeliefsReligious Studies and Spiritual PracticesMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

A Bayes factor meta-analysis of recent extrasensory perception experiments: Comment on Storm, Tressoldi, and Di Risio (2010).

Rouder, Jeffrey N., Morey, Richard D., Province, Jordan M.·2013·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

Psi phenomena, such as mental telepathy, precognition, and clairvoyance, have garnered much recent attention. We reassess the evidence for psi effects from Storm, Tressoldi, and Di Risio's (2010) meta-analysis. Our analysis differs from Storm et al.'s in that we rely on Bayes factors, a Bayesian approach for stating the evidence from data for competing theoretical positions. In contrast to more conventional analyses, inference by Bayes factors allows the analyst to state evidence for the no-psi-effect null as well as for a psi-effect alternative. We find that the evidence from Storm et al.'s presented data set favors the existence of psi by a factor of about 6 billion to 1, which is noteworthy even for a skeptical reader. Much of this effect, however, may reflect difficulties in randomization: Studies with computerized randomization have smaller psi effects than those with manual randomization. When the manually randomized studies are excluded and omitted studies included, the Bayes factor evidence is at most 330 to 1, a greatly attenuated value. We argue that this value is unpersuasive in the context of psi because there is no plausible mechanism and because there are almost certainly omitted replication failures.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0029008

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., & Province, J. M.
Affiliations
University of Missouri System (US)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2013
Volume
139
Issue
1
Pages
241-247
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2016461963
Cited by
48
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (SES-1024080)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Religious Studies and Spiritual Practices
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
extrasensory perception, Bayes factor, meta-analysis critique, randomization, replication failure, telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Humans, Models, Psychological, Parapsychology

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