Table 1. Meta-analytic results for all experiments and for independent replications of Bem’s experiments.

	Number of experiments	Number of participants	Effect size (Hedges’ g)	95%CI or Crl	Combined z or Bayes factor	p (One-tailed)	I 2	τ 2
All experiments a     Bayesian analysis	90	12,406	0.09 0.08	[0.06, 0.11] [0.02, 0.15]	z = 6.33 BF = 5.1×10 9	1.2 × 10 -10	41.4	.005 .028
Independent replications b     Bayesian analysis	69	10,082	0.06 0.07	[0.03, 0.09] [0.01, 0.14]	z = 4.16 BF = 3,853	1.2 × 10 -5	36.1	.004 .035
Exact replications Modified replications	31 38	2,106 7,976	0.08 0.05	[0.02, 0.13] [0.02, 0.09]	z = 2.90 z = 3.00	.0018 .0013	31.7 38.9	.007 .004
Pre-2011 replications Post-2011 replications	30 39	2,193 7,889	0.09 0.05	[0.04, 0.15] [0.02, 0.08]	z = 3.20 z = 2.88	.0007 .004	39.5 32.3	.009 .003
Peer reviewed Not peer reviewed	35 34	7,477 2,605	0.06 0.06	[0.02, 0.10] [0.02, 0.10]	z = 2.93 z = 3.21	.0017 .0007	51.4   8.7	.001 .006

Note. In a Bayesian analysis, the analogue to the 95%CI is Crl, “credible intervals of the posterior distributions.” I ² is an estimate of the percent of variance across studies due to differences among the true effect sizes. τ ² is the between-studies variance.

^a Assuming a null ES of .01 and a variance of .005 (the observed variance, τ ², in the random-effects model), the statistical power of this meta-analysis is 0.95 ( Hedges & Pigott, 2001).

^b These analyses exclude Bem’s own experiments and the eleven experiments that had not been designed as replications of those experiments.