Synchronicity

Part of a series on
Psychology
Outline History Subfields
Basic psychology Abnormal Affective neuroscience Affective science Behavioral genetics Behavioral neuroscience Behaviorism Cognitive/Cognitivism Cognitive neuroscience Social Comparative Cross-cultural Cultural Developmental Differential Ecological Evolutionary Experimental Gestalt Intelligence Mathematical Moral Neuropsychology Perception Personality Psycholinguistics Psychophysiology Quantitative Social Theoretical
Applied psychology Anomalistic Applied behavior analysis Art Assessment Aviation Biography of famous people Clinical Coaching Color Community Consumer Counseling Critical Educational Ergonomics Fashion Feminist Food Forensic Health History Humanistic Industrial and organizational Legal Media Medical Military Music Occupational health Pastoral Peace and war Political Positive Photography Psychometrics Psychotherapy Religion School Sex differences Sport and exercise Suicidology Systems Trading Traffic
Concepts Behavior Behavioral engineering Behavioral genetics Behavioral neuroscience Cognition Competence Consciousness Consumer behavior Emotions Feelings Human factors and ergonomics Intelligence Maslow's hierarchy of needs Mental state Mind Psychology of religion Psychometrics Sex differences Terror management theory
Lists Counseling topics Disciplines Organizations Outline Psychologists Psychotherapies Research methods Schools of thought Timeline Topics
Psychology portal
v t e

Synchronicity (German: Synchronizität) is a concept introduced by Carl Jung, founder of analytical psychology, to describe events that coincide in time and appear meaningfully related, yet lack a discoverable causal connection.^[1] Jung held that this was a healthy function of the mind, although it can become harmful within psychosis.^[2][3]

Jung developed the theory as a hypothetical noncausal principle serving as the intersubjective or philosophically objective connection between these seemingly meaningful coincidences. After coining the term in the late 1920s^[4] Jung developed the concept with physicist Wolfgang Pauli through correspondence and in their 1952 work The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche.^[5][6][7][8] This culminated in the Pauli–Jung conjecture.^{[9][10][11][12][13]} Jung and Pauli's view was that, just as causal connections can provide a meaningful understanding of the psyche and the world, so too may acausal connections.^[14]

A 2016 study found 70% of therapists agreed synchronicity experiences could be useful for therapy. Analytical psychologists hold that individuals must understand the compensatory meaning of these experiences to "enhance consciousness rather than merely build up superstitiousness". However, clients who disclose synchronicity experiences report not being listened to, accepted, or understood. The experience of overabundance of meaningful coincidences can be characteristic of schizophrenic delusion.^[15]

Jung used synchronicity in arguing for the existence of the paranormal.^[16] This idea was explored by Arthur Koestler in The Roots of Coincidence^[17] and taken up by the New Age movement. Unlike magical thinking, which believes causally unrelated events to have paranormal causal connection, synchronicity supposes events may be causally unrelated yet have unknown noncausal connection.

The objection from a scientific standpoint is that this is neither testable nor falsifiable, so does not fall within empirical study.^[18] Scientific scepticism regards it as pseudoscience. Jung stated that synchronicity events are chance occurrences from a statistical point of view, but meaningful in that they may seem to validate paranormal ideas. No empirical studies of synchronicity based on observable mental states and scientific data were conducted by Jung to draw his conclusions, though studies have since been done (see § Studies). While someone may experience a coincidence as meaningful, this alone cannot prove objective meaning to the coincidence.

Statistical laws or probability, show how unexpected occurrences can be inevitable or more likely encountered than people assume. These explain coincidences such as synchronicity experiences as chance events which have been misinterpreted by confirmation biases, spurious correlations, or underestimated probability.^[19][20]