Future Sight? Teen Study Sees Nothing
On this page
Can anxious people sense danger before it happens?
Imagine you're about to take a test where you have to guess which of two curtains hides something unpleasant behind it. Now imagine your body somehow 'knows' the answer before your conscious mind does — milliseconds before the curtain is even pulled back. This is essentially what researcher Daryl Bem claimed to have discovered in 2011, suggesting our brains might be able to sense threatening events before they happen. A new study with 144 teenagers tried to recreate this controversial experiment, wondering if anxious people — who are naturally more alert to threats — might be especially good at this mysterious ability. The results paint a very different picture than Bem's original findings.
Study finds no evidence that anxious teens can predict future threats.
In 2011, psychologist Daryl Bem published controversial research suggesting people could unconsciously sense future events before they happen. This sparked intense debate and numerous replication attempts. Researchers at Columbia University decided to test whether anxious individuals might be especially good at this 'precognitive avoidance' since anxiety often involves hypervigilance for threats.
This independent replication found no evidence for precognitive abilities, with participants performing at chance level (48.95% accuracy) rather than above chance as Bem originally reported.
Key Findings
- The results were clear: participants performed at chance level, correctly avoiding the disturbing images only 48.95% of the time (essentially a coin flip).
- There was no relationship between anxiety levels and performance on the task.
- The study found no evidence for precognitive abilities in their sample of teenagers.
What Is This About?
The researchers recruited 144 teenagers and had them complete Bem's original computer task. Participants saw two curtains on a screen and had to choose which one to click. Unknown to them, one curtain would later reveal a disturbing image while the other showed a neutral picture. The idea was that if precognition exists, people would unconsciously avoid clicking the curtain that would show the disturbing image. The researchers also measured each participant's anxiety levels using standard psychological questionnaires.
Researchers tested 144 adolescents on Bem's precognitive avoidance task and measured their anxiety levels to see if anxious individuals might be better at unconsciously avoiding future threats.
The study found no evidence of precognitive abilities (hit rate was 48.95%, essentially chance level) and no relationship between anxiety levels and performance on the precognition task.
How Good Is the Evidence?
48.95% hit rate — essentially identical to the 50% expected by pure chance. This contrasts with Bem's original 2011 study which reported hit rates of 53.1%, suggesting people could avoid future negative images slightly better than chance.
Supporters of psi research argue that replication failures like this one might be due to factors like experimenter effects, participant populations, or insufficient statistical power. Skeptics point out that the majority of well-controlled replication attempts have failed to find evidence for precognition, suggesting the original Bem results were likely statistical flukes. Both sides agree that more rigorous, pre-registered studies are needed to settle the question definitively.
Mainstream: This study adds to the growing evidence that Bem's original precognition findings were statistical artifacts and that precognitive abilities do not exist. Moderate: While this particular replication failed, the question of subtle precognitive effects remains open and requires more research with larger samples and better controls. Frontier: Precognitive abilities may exist but be highly sensitive to experimental conditions, participant characteristics, and other factors not yet fully understood.
Many people think precognition research is about dramatic fortune-telling abilities. Actually, these studies test for tiny statistical deviations from chance — like getting 53% instead of 50% correct over hundreds of trials. The effects being tested are subtle, not supernatural visions of the future.
To settle the precognition question, we'd need multiple large-scale, pre-registered replications by independent teams, with consistent methodology and transparent data sharing. This study meets some criteria (clear methodology, statistical reporting) but lacks pre-registration and data availability. The failure to replicate adds to the weight of evidence against precognitive effects.
We were unable to replicate the 2011 Bem findings in our sample (precognitive avoidance hit rate = 48.95%, p = 0.825), and neither trait nor state anxiety was correlated with precognitive avoidance.
Stance: Skeptical
What Does It Mean?
The idea that our brains might be constantly scanning the future for threats — like a biological early warning system — captures the imagination even when the evidence doesn't support it. This study reminds us how the boundary between science fiction and scientific inquiry can sometimes blur in consciousness research.
It's like having a gut feeling about which elevator will arrive first, or which checkout line will move faster. This study tested whether people really have such intuitive abilities about future events, especially when those events might be unpleasant.
If precognitive abilities were real and linked to anxiety, it could revolutionize our understanding of how the mind processes threat-related information and potentially explain why some people seem unusually sensitive to danger. Such findings might also suggest that consciousness and time perception operate in ways far more complex than currently understood. However, the current evidence suggests we're still far from establishing whether such extraordinary claims have any basis in reality.
This study illustrates why replication is the backbone of science — extraordinary claims require multiple independent confirmations, not just one positive result.
Understanding Terms
What This Study Claims
Findings
The study failed to replicate Bem's 2011 precognitive avoidance findings, with participants scoring at chance level (48.95% hit rate, p = 0.825)
strongNeither trait anxiety nor state anxiety was correlated with precognitive avoidance performance
moderateFemales showed higher levels of trait anxiety consistent with previous research
moderateNo sex differences were detected in precognitive avoidance abilities between males and females
moderateLimitations
The study may have been underpowered to detect precognitive effects
weakThis summary is for general information about current research. It does not constitute medical advice. The scientific interpretation of these results is debated among researchers. If personally affected, please consult qualified professionals.