Content uploaded by Brendan Callaghan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Brendan Callaghan on Dec 22, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: PRECOGNITIVE DREAMING 1
Precognitive Dreaming: An Empirical Exploration
Brendan D.L. Callaghan
B.A. (Hons.) Psychology
Masters of Counselling Psychology (Clinical Student)
PRECOGNITIVE DREAMING 2
The universe in which we live is filled with strange, fascinating phenomena that have been
intriguing and captivating the minds of both scientists and philosophers alike for millennia. One
such phenomenon is precognition; the perceptual ability to accurately predict future events that
could not be inferred from the knowledge available to the predictor at the time they made the
prediction (Marwaha & May, 2015). Precognition is most commonly reported to be experienced
through dreams (Ross & Joshi, 1992). These dreams – aptly named ‘precognitive dreams’ – are
dreams in which events presented in manifest dream content is later perceived by the dreamer as
having come true through later waking-life experiences (Haraldsson, 1985; Ross & Joshi, 1992).
As a hypothetical example, in June an individual has a detailed dream about a spontaneous
disaster, such as a neighbour’s house burning down as a result of a malfunctioning space heater,
and in December, that neighbour (having no knowledge of the dream) purchases a space heater, it
malfunctions and starts a fire that incinerates their home. These perceptions may also come in the
form of a common waking-life phenomenon known as ‘déjà vu’ – the sense of having already
been in or experienced the unique present moment (Adachi et al., 2003).
Records of precognitive dreams across cultures exist from as far back as Ancient Mesopotamia
over four thousand years ago (Oppenheim, 1956). Even to this day, over half of the general
population report having experienced accurate precognitive dreams or similar parapsychological
events at some point in their lives (Adachi et al., 2003; Kennedy, 2000). With such a high rate of
reported occurrences over such a long period of time, an extensive amount of research and
resulting literature around the topic of precognitive dreaming has been compiled over the years.
However, even after such abundant research and speculation, precognitive dreaming remains a
controversial topic in the scientific community, as conflicting findings from various studies have
created what seems to be an academic deadlock with regard to the empirical validity of
PRECOGNITIVE DREAMING 3
precognitive dreaming. Moving forward, this document will explore relevant literature and
provide future directions for research to help better understand the scientific study of
precognitive dreaming.
Investigating parapsychological phenomena such as precognitive dreams using the scientific
method is no simple task. Despite the high rate of reported occurrence, there exists a large debate
regarding the scientific validity and existence of truly precognitive dreams. This is partly because
precognitive dreams are not overtly tangible – we do not (yet) know of any reliable methods to
directly, concretely measure their strength or accuracy in a quantifiable way (Morris, 2000). This
tends to discourage academics from recognizing precognitive dreams as scientific, as researching
these complex, open systems involves challenges to traditional scientific methodology (Morris,
2000). Additionally, the unknown metaphysical origin of precognitive dreams presents
potentially uncomfortable challenges to our understanding of the mechanics of the universe
(Morris, 2000). However, despite these barriers, many researchers have, and continue to study
this fascinating phenomenon to this day.
How can scientists research something so abstract and seemingly intangible? One way is
through the use of phenomenology; by investigating the subjective experiences of those who
report having experienced precognitive dreams (Claire, 2003; Stowell, 1995). This involves the
dreamers’ introspection, and can include analytic interviews or questionnaires as methods of
ascertaining information about their experience (Stowell, 1995). Because precognitive dreaming
may be difficult to understand and explain – for scientists and dreamers alike – dedicated case
studies wherein researchers work closely with an individual precognitive dreamer on a personal
level can also be used effectively (Stowell, 1995).
PRECOGNITIVE DREAMING 4
So, what have the researchers who have taken up the challenge of studying precognitive
dreams found thus far? Houran and Lange (1998) conducted a study to investigate the
dimensions of precognitive dreaming in American, university-aged individuals. Participants in
this study were 50 undergraduate psychology students (Houran & Lange, 1998). These
participants were to complete questionnaires designed to assess their levels of belief in the
paranormal, tolerance of dream ambiguity as fitting real-life events, and whether or not there
have been instances in which they had dreamed about real-life events before those events
occurred (Houran & Lange, 1998). Through analyzation of the information recorded by these
inventories, the researchers found that participants who more frequently recalled dreams,
believed in paranormality, and had a higher tolerance to ambiguity were significantly more likely
to consider their dreams to be evidence of paranormally-sourced precognition (Houran & Lange,
1998). These findings were stable throughout participants across age and gender (Houran &
Lange, 1998). From these findings, the researchers inferred that higher dream recall frequency
increases the likelihood of an individual’s experiencing an event in waking-life that corresponds
to a similar event dreamed of in the past (Houran & Lange, 1998). These correspondences will
enforce the belief of having experienced a true precognitive dream (Houran & Lange, 1998).
That being said, it is notable that many reported precognitive dreams are of common events, such
as social interactions in public settings (Houran & Lange, 1998). When individuals dream of
common events and then go on to experience these events in the future, they believe their dreams
to have been precognitive, even though it may have simply been coincidental (Houran & Lange,
1998). For example, a young driver might dream of being involved in a car accident and then a
week later actually be involved in a car accident. This individual may recall their dream and
determine that it was precognitive, when in fact their dream may have originated from an
PRECOGNITIVE DREAMING 5
unconscious fear of becoming involved in a car accident, or some other, deeper meaning.
Furthermore, Houran and Lange (1998) suggest that tolerance to ambiguity – being more open to
more than one interpretation of dream content – serves as a strong factor in maintaining beliefs
of paranormal experiences such as precognitive dreams. For example, someone might dream of
winning the lottery two weeks prior to receiving an unexpected bonus at work in their waking-
life. In this scenario, if the person’s tolerance for ambiguity is sufficient, they may interpret their
winning the lottery in a dream as representative of the bonus they received at work. Because
their dream ‘foretold’ great financial gain, they recognize it to be predictive of their waking-life
financial gain, even though winning the lottery and receiving a bonus at work are not entirely
similar. Even in cases wherein precognitive dream content is remarkably unique and accurate,
such as dreaming of the exact time, location and intensity of a natural disaster before it happens,
Houran and Lange (1998) declare these instances as little more than meaningful coincidences.
In 2006, Blagrove, French, and Jones came to similar conclusions by studying precognitive
dreams in a wider range of participants. A total of 386 participants from different educational
backgrounds were interviewed to ascertain belief in precognitive dreams, probabilistic reasoning
skill levels (i.e. likelihood of rolling certain numbers with dice; factors influencing the likelihood
of winning the lottery), and frequency of dreams that seemed to have predicted the future
(Blagrove, French, & Jones, 2006). These interviews also included some unrelated personal
questions to assess affirmative bias (Blagrove, French, & Jones, 2006). It was found that
participants with lower levels of education, and those with worse probabilistic reasoning skills
were more likely to believe in supernaturally-sourced precognitive dreams, especially if they had
already experienced a dream that seemed to predict the future at some point in their lives
(Blagrove, French, & Jones, 2006). Participants with higher levels of education (i.e. university
PRECOGNITIVE DREAMING 6
degrees) and better probabilistic reasoning skills were found to be less likely to believe that
precognitive dreams exist as a supernatural phenomenon (Blagrove, French, & Jones, 2006).
However, that is not to say that those with higher levels of education do not believe in the
supernatural origins of precognitive dreams at all (keep in mind the aforementioned 1998 study
by Houran and Lange), but that they are simply less likely to do so (Blagrove, French, & Jones,
2006). With regard to probabilistic reasoning skills, participants who tended to underestimate the
statistical likelihood of specific events were found to be more likely to accept paranormal
explanations for connections between precognitive dreams and subsequent waking-life events
than more rational explanations involving randomness/meaningful coincidence (as was proposed
in 1998 by Horan and Lange) (Blagrove, French, & Jones, 2006). Through analysis of
information obtained in their interviews, Blagrove, French, and Jones (2006) came to the
conclusion that an affirmative bias may also play a role in the belief in precognitive dreams as
paranormal experiences. The rationality for this inference is that participants who provided more
affirmative answers to personal questions were significantly more likely to maintain beliefs in
the paranormal validity of precognitive dreams (Blagrove, French, & Jones, 2006). However, it
is important to note that the researchers point out that this affirmative bias may potentially be
more of a confound than a substantial finding; that these participants may simply have a higher
propensity to connect events from dreams and waking life using a wider range of confirmatory
information – similar to participants in the aforementioned study who had a higher tolerance to
ambiguity (Blagrove, French, & Jones, 2006; Houran & Lange, 1998). Overall, these findings
suggest that less educated, and less rationally capable individuals as well as those with higher
propensity to answer questions affirmatively are more likely to believe in experienced
precognitive dreams as true paranormal phenomena rather than random coincidence (Blagrove,
PRECOGNITIVE DREAMING 7
French, & Jones, 2006). These findings may serve to diminish the scientific credibility of
precognitive dreams as accurate predictions, presenting them as more so a pseudoscientific
phenomenon that more likely occurs due to random chance than any scientifically plausible or
truly paranormal origins.
However, not all research is so dismissive of the paranormal possibilities of precognitive
dreaming. As mentioned earlier, utilizing the method of individual case study to investigate
precognitive dreams in individuals who report regular occurrences may be an effective strategy
to better our understanding of this phenomenon (Stowell, 1995). Krippner, Ullman, and
Honorton (1971) did exactly that when they investigated precognition through an 8-night case
study of an Englishman named Malcolm Bessant, who had a reported history of precognitive
dreaming. In this study, the participant was awakened nightly by researchers during rapid eye
movement (REM) – identified using electrophysiological equipment – to increase the likelihood
of his remembrance of dream content (Krippner, Ullman, & Honorton, 1971). Upon each
awakening, the participant was briefly interviewed by a researcher so that his dream content
could be recorded (Krippner, Ullman, & Honorton, 1971). This was done to observe whether or
not the participant had experienced dream content involving a specific target (keyword/item) that
he would be presented with in the future (Krippner, Ullman, & Honorton, 1971). A total of 3
judges (who were not otherwise involved in the study) rated the congruency of the participant’s
dream content to the specific stimuli for each trial (Krippner, Ullman, & Honorton, 1971). It was
found that the participant’s dreams were significantly accurate and consistent in containing
content that directly corresponded with the target, suggesting that this participant is a frequent
and accurate precognitive dreamer (Krippner, Ullman, & Honorton, 1971).
PRECOGNITIVE DREAMING 8
These findings were supported in a subsequent case study of the same individual (Malcolm
Bessant) conducted by Honorton (1987). This study was similar to, but much more extensive
than the aforementioned 8-night study, as such few trials over such a short period of time and
lack of control condition(s) can be viewed as potentially significant limitations. In this study, the
participant was subjected to one thousand trials, this time using randomly generated numbers
presented on a computer screen as the target stimuli (Honorton, 1987). During each trial of what
was referred to as the ‘precognitive target mode’, the participant recalled previously experienced
precognitive dream content to identify the correct target number out of a group presented on the
screen (Honorton, 1987). As a form of control, the participant was to complete multiple trials of
the same task in real-time using his feelings to best guess which number presented on screen was
the target (Honorton, 1987). Not only was Bessant once again significantly accurate in selecting
the correct target during precognitive target trials, but he was significantly more accurate in
precognitive trials than in control trials (Honorton, 1987). The findings of these case studies on
Malcolm Bessant suggest that it is entirely plausible that an individual may experience accurate,
reliable, non-inferential precognitive dreams consistently over time (Honorton, 1987; Krippner,
Ullman, & Honorton, 1971).
Earlier it was mentioned that one of the difficulties in studying precognitive dreams is the lack
of the ability to observe them on a chemical, physiological level. This barrier to the scientific
study of precognitive dreaming may not stand in the way for much longer, as some research
suggests that precognitive dreams may be manipulable (and therefore at least somewhat
observable) chemically (de Pablos, 2005). Rivastigmine – an acetylcholinesterase (AChE)
inhibitor sometimes used in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease to enhance memory and
improve sleep – has been found to increase the occurrence of precognitive dreaming (de Pablos,
PRECOGNITIVE DREAMING 9
2005). In an experimental study using 10 physically healthy, psychologically normal participants,
de Pablos (2005) administered low doses of Rivastigmine to half (5) of said participants, and a
placebo to the other half (the control group) every 24 hours over a period of 10 nights. Upon
awakening after each night during this study, all participants were to scripturally record their
dreams, and each day they were to document any significant waking-life events they experienced
(de Pablos, 2005). Through comparison of each participant’s reported dream content to their
reported waking-life events, de Pablos (2005) concluded that Rivastigmine increased occurrence
rates of precognitive dreaming. Significantly more congruencies were observed between the
waking-life events and prior dream content of participants in the treatment condition than for
participants in the placebo/control group (de Pablos, 2005). Because these findings suggest that
precognitive dreams may be effectively induced in psychologically normal individuals using
AChE inhibitors, perhaps ways of measuring them as they occur using neurotransmitters as
markers could be developed in the future (de Pablos, 2005).
While some researchers consider precognitive dreams to be no more than meaningful
coincidences, other research suggests that they can be reliable predictors of future events, and
that they can even be induced and enhanced using chemical supplementation (Honorton, 1987;
Houran & Lange, 1998; de Pablos, 2005). Based on the wide array of conflicting findings
throughout the relevant literature, it is clear that more research is needed. Improved definitions,
methods of observation, and scientific measurements of precognitive dreams are needed in order
to pull together our scientific understanding of this fascinatingly abstract phenomenon.
As of yet, it seems as though the greatest evidence of cognitive dreaming lies within the
dreamer’s own subjective experience (Clare, 2003). As such, more in-depth case studies and
meta-analyses of case studies of precognitive dreamers should be conducted so as to gain a better
PRECOGNITIVE DREAMING 10
understanding of precognitive dreaming on a more objective scale. Additionally, doing so using
participants across cultures would be beneficial to observe potential demographically-based
differences and give a more universal understanding of this phenomenon. Developing improved
control conditions for precognitive dreaming case studies is also recommended for the purpose
of better suiting the scientific method of psychological research, as a lack of adequate control –
in any study – can be viewed as a major limitation.
Seeing as there is evidence that AChE inhibitors can increase the occurrence of precognitive
dreams, more research involving this neurotransmitter and related physiological mechanisms in
the brains of precognitive dreamers would be beneficial (de Pablos, 2005). Such research could
help to improve our understanding and advance the study of precognitive dreams on a more
traditionally scientific, psychophysiological level (de Pablos, 2005). At the same time, more
anomalous or atypical modifications to the scientific methods involved in precognitive dream
investigation ought to be adapted. Considering how little our understanding of precognitive
dreaming has advanced since we first began studying this phenomenon, perhaps developing new
methods of phenomenologically studying precognitive dreaming could prove to be rewarding.
Moreover, when it comes to the study of precognitive dreams we ought to resist the file drawer
problem – we should aim to learn more from negative results before disregarding them (Morris,
2000). More specifically, rather than assuming negative results indicate nonexistence of
precognitive dreams, it might be beneficial to investigate the validity and reliability of the
methods of measurement used. Not only can this be applied to recent studies, but perhaps
hermeneutically revisiting ancient texts reporting or analyzing precognitive dreams should be
looked into as well (Stowell, 1995). In this way we can apply our current scientific
PRECOGNITIVE DREAMING 11
understanding of psychology and the scientific method to content recorded when much less was
known about the scientific nature of dreaming, the human brain, and behaviour.
Not only is the scientific study of precognitive dreaming an interesting and controversial area
of research, but one that may be incredibly useful when it comes to otherwise unforeseeable
events that could be better prepared for or avoided if, in fact, these dreams are not merely
coincidental. This is an important area of research as precognitive dream experiences can
significantly affect our beliefs, behaviour, and understanding of ourselves and those around us
(Blagrove, French, & Jones, 2006). By working to improve methods of studying precognitive
dreams over time, we may be able to elucidate not only their causes and characteristics, but also
to learn more about other cognitive processes and patterns along the way (Blagrove, French, &
Jones, 2006).
PRECOGNITIVE DREAMING 12
References
Adachi, N., Adachi, T., Kimura, M., Akanuma, N., Takekawa, Y., & Kato, M. (2003).
Demographic and psychological features of déjà vu experiences in a nonclinical Japanese
population. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 191(4), 242-247.
Blagrove, M., French, C. C., & Jones, G. (2006). Probabilistic reasoning, affirmative bias and
belief in precognitive dreams. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(1), 65-83.
Clare, J. (2003). Dream time: Dreaming the future. London: Karnac.
Haraldsson, E. (1985). Representative national surveys of psychic phenomena: Iceland, Great
Britain, Sweden, USA, and Gallup’s multinational survey. Journal of the Society for
Psychical Research, 53, 145-158.
Houran, J., & Lange, R. (1998). Modeling precognitive dreams as meaningful coincidences.
Psychological Reports , 83(3), 1411-1414.
Honorton, C. (1987). Precognition and real-time ESP performance in a computer task with an
exceptional subject. The Journal of Parapsychology, 51(4), 291.
Kennedy, J. E. (2000). Do people guide psi or does psi guide people? Evidence and implications
from life and lab. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 94 (3-4), 130-
150.
Krippner, S., Ullman, M., & Honorton, C. (1971). A precognitive dream study with a single
subject. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 65(2), 192-203.
Marwaha, S.B., & May, E.C. (2015). Rethinking extrasensory perception: Toward a multiphasic
model of precognition, SAGE Open, 5 (1), doi:10.1177/2158244015576056.
PRECOGNITIVE DREAMING 13
Morris, R. L. (2000). Parapsychology in the 21st century. The Journal of Parapsychology, 64 (2),
123.
Oppenheim, A. L. (1956). The interpretation of dreams in the Ancient Near East: With a
translation of an Assyrian dream-book. Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society, 46 (3), 179-373.
de Pablos, F. (2005). Technical Paper No. 9: Chemical induction of precognitive dreams.
Australian Journal of Parapsychology, 5 (2), 140-148.
Ross, C. A., & Joshi, S. (1992). Paranormal experiences in the general population. Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease, 180 , 357-361.
Stowell, M. S. (1995). Researching precognitive dreams: A review of past methods, emerging
scientific paradigms, and future approaches. Journal of the American Society for
Psychical Research, 89 (2), 117-151.