Does the sense of being stared at demonstrate anomalous perception?
Quick Summary
The sense of being stared at (SOBA) — the widespread experience of detecting when someone is looking at you from behind without sensory cues — has been tested in controlled behavioral trials accumulating over 30,000 trials and in CCTV/galvanic skin response studies.
The debate centers on whether the consistent above-chance hit rates (~54.7%) reflect genuine anomalous detection or accumulated response bias, demand characteristics, and the experimenter effect.
Current Consensus
SOBA has a large evidence base by parapsychological standards: tens of thousands of behavioral trials and a separately confirmed physiological signal (CCTV/GSR). The most serious methodological challenge is Schmidt's (2001) response-bias model, showing that a small bias toward guessing "looking" combined with genuine above-chance sensitivity produces a pattern statistically indistinguishable from true staring detection — the two interpretations cannot be separated without additional design controls. The experimenter effect (Schlitz vs. Wiseman) is the field's most documented anomaly: with identical protocols, the two experimenters consistently obtained opposite results. The 2006 follow-up found no effect for anyone, generally interpreted as supporting the artifact account. Sheldrake's Part 2 argues the phenomenon requires abandoning the intromission theory of vision in favor of extramission models, making SOBA a unique contact point between parapsychology and philosophy of perception.
Evidence Breakdown
Based on 12 papersSupporting Evidence
Can Morphic Fields Help Explain Telepathy and the Sense of Being Stared At?
Sheldrake (2019) -- Theoretical article proposing morphic fields as explanatory framework for SOBA and telepathy; synthesizes evidence from 30,803 stare detection trials, CCTV/GSR studies, and anim...
Schmidt et al. (2019) -- Updated social DMILS meta-analysis extending the staring-detection evidence base
Schmidt et al. (2019) -- Updated social DMILS meta-analysis extending the staring-detection evidence base
Paper not yet added to catalog
The Sense of Being Stared At, Part 1: Is It Real or Illusory?
Sheldrake (2005) -- Comprehensive review of 30,803 behavioral trials (54.7% vs. 50%, sign test p=1×10⁻²⁰), 15 CCTV/GSR studies (Schmidt et al. meta-analysis significant), and systematic artifact co...
The Sense of Being Stared At, Part 2: Its Implications for Theories of Vision
Sheldrake (2005) -- Theoretical implications: if SOBA is real, it requires an extramission model of vision in which looking projects outward influence; argues for a morphic-field-based extended min...
The Sense of Being Stared At: A Preliminary Meta-Analysis
Radin (2005) -- Meta-analysis of 60 supervised conscious staring detection experiments (33,357 trials): FEM e = 0.089, p = 10^-232; 10 through-the-window studies without feedback homogeneous at p =...
Distant intentionality and the feeling of being stared at: Two meta-analyses
Schmidt et al. (2004) -- Meta-analysis of 15 remote staring/CCTV studies using EDA: d = 0.13 (p = .01, 95% CI [0.03, 0.23]); homogeneous dataset but no study exceeded 71% overall quality, precludin...
Consciousness Interactions with Remote Biological Systems: Anomalous Intentionality Effects
Braud & Schlitz (1991) -- Four remote attention experiments measuring electrodermal correlates of staring: all 4 real experiments significant (calming or activation during staring vs. non-staring e...
Critical Evidence
Of Two Minds: Sceptic-Proponent Collaboration within Parapsychology
Schlitz, Wiseman, Watt & Radin (2006) -- Third and final collaborative study (2×2 cross-over, N=100) at IONS: neither greeter role (F=0.46, p=.50) nor sender role (F=0.21, p=.64) produced significa...
Fundamentally Misunderstanding Visual Perception: Adults’ Belief in Visual Emissions
Winer et al. (2002) -- Review documenting that 41–67% of college students affirm extramission beliefs (that vision involves emissions from the eyes), with rates up to 86% on drawing tasks; beliefs ...
*[Marks & Colwell (2000) — "The psychic staring effect: An artifact of pseudo randomization" — primary skeptical critique arguing results arise from counterbalanced trial sequences; not yet in libr...
*[Marks & Colwell (2000) — "The psychic staring effect: An artifact of pseudo randomization" — primary skeptical critique arguing results arise from counterbalanced trial sequences; not yet in libr...
Paper not yet added to catalog
*[Colwell et al. (2000) — "The ability to detect unseen staring" — skeptic-initiated Middlesex University study that found significant positive results, then attributed them to randomization artifa...
*[Colwell et al. (2000) — "The ability to detect unseen staring" — skeptic-initiated Middlesex University study that found significant positive results, then attributed them to randomization artifa...
Paper not yet added to catalog
Experimenter Effects and the Remote Detection of Staring
Wiseman & Schlitz (1997) -- Skeptic-proponent joint study at University of Hertfordshire (N=32): Wiseman's receivers showed no stare/non-stare EDA difference (z=−0.44, p=0.64) while Schlitz's showe...