Skip to main content

The Experimental Evidence for Parapsychological Phenomena: A Review

Contested
Cardeña, Etzel 2018 Current Era overview

📌 Appears in:

Plain English Summary

This is arguably the most important paper making the case for psychic phenomena in mainstream psychology — published in the APA's flagship journal, a huge deal for a topic most academics avoid. Cardena assembles meta-analyses (combined results from many experiments) across ten-plus psi paradigms: telepathy under sensory deprivation, precognition, remote viewing, dream ESP, and more. The numbers are striking — across 108 ganzfeld studies, people identified a hidden target 31% of the time versus 25% expected by chance. Effect sizes rival accepted findings in medicine and psychology. His bottom line: cumulative evidence supports psi and can't be dismissed by blaming fraud or cherry-picking. Note that Cardena is a leading psi proponent — though the paper survived rigorous peer review.

Actual Paper Abstract

This article presents a comprehensive integration of current experimental evidence and theories about so-called parapsychological (psi) phenomena. Throughout history, people have reported events that seem to violate the common sense view of space and time. Some psychologists have been at the forefront of investigating these phenomena with sophisticated research protocols and theory, while others have devoted much of their careers to criticizing the field. Both stances can be explained by psychologists' expertise on relevant processes such as perception, memory, belief, and conscious and nonconscious processes. This article clarifies the domain of psi, summarizes recent theories from physics and psychology that present psi phenomena as at least plausible, and then provides an overview of recent/updated meta-analyses. The evidence provides cumulative support for the reality of psi, which cannot be readily explained away by the quality of the studies, fraud, selective reporting, experimental or analytical incompetence, or other frequent criticisms. The evidence for psi is comparable to that for established phenomena in psychology and other disciplines, although there is no consensual understanding of them. The article concludes with recommendations for further progress in the field including the use of project and data repositories, conducting multidisciplinary studies with enough power, developing further nonconscious measures of psi and falsifiable theories, analyzing the characteristics of successful sessions and participants, improving the ecological validity of studies, testing how to increase effect sizes, recruiting more researchers at least open to the possibility of psi, and situating psi phenomena within larger domains such as the study of consciousness.

Research Notes

The most important single review of psi evidence in mainstream psychology — published in American Psychologist, lending unprecedented institutional credibility. Central reference for the meta-debate (Controversy #10) and provides the quantitative backbone for evaluating every domain-specific controversy in this library. Authored by Cardeña, a leading proponent, which should be weighed alongside its rigorous peer review.

Comprehensive integration of current experimental evidence and theories about parapsychological phenomena, published in the APA's flagship journal. Reviews recent/updated meta-analyses across 10+ psi paradigms including ganzfeld (108 studies, z = 8.31, hit rate 31% vs 25% MCE), Bem-type precognition (90 experiments from 33 labs, ES = 0.09), presentiment (26 studies, ES = 0.21), remote viewing, dream ESP, DMILS, noncontact healing, dice PK, and micro-PK. Synthesizes theoretical frameworks from quantum physics (nonlocality, retrocausality) and psychology (PMIR, first-sight theory). Concludes that cumulative evidence supports the reality of psi, with effect sizes comparable to established psychological phenomena, and cannot be explained by study quality, fraud, or selective reporting.

Links

Related Papers

Cites

Also by these authors

More in Overview

📋 Cite this paper
APA
Cardeña, Etzel (2018). The Experimental Evidence for Parapsychological Phenomena: A Review. American Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000236
BibTeX
@article{cardena_2018_experimental,
  title = {The Experimental Evidence for Parapsychological Phenomena: A Review},
  author = {Cardeña, Etzel},
  year = {2018},
  journal = {American Psychologist},
  doi = {10.1037/amp0000236},
}