FACTORS UNDERLYING ANOMALOUS EXPERIENCE
To read up on factors underlying anomalous experience, refer to pages 659–678 of Eysenck’s A2 Level
Psychology.
Ask yourself
 Why do you think some people are more able to experience paranormal
phenomena than others?
 How do paranormal beliefs differ across cultures?
 How might self-deception account for paranormal phenomena?
What you need to know
COGNITIVE,
PERSONALITY, AND
BIOLOGICAL FACTORS
UNDERLYING
ANOMALOUS
EXPERIENCE



Cognitive factors
such as the sheep–
goat effect
Personality factors
such as fantasy
proneness (FP) and
extraversion
Biological factors
such as temporal
lobe lability and
electrohypersensiti
vity
FUNCTIONS OF
PARANORMAL AND
RELATED BELIEFS,
INCLUDING THEIR
CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE




Psychodynamic
functions
hypothesis
A lack of control as
a result of childhood
experience
Loneliness and
insecure attachment
Cultural significance
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF
DECEPTION AND SELFDECEPTION,
SUPERSTITION, AND
COINCIDENCE






Deception and selfdeception
Superstition
Perceptual and
memory errors
Superstitions and
the unconscious
Contemporary ideas
and research on
superstition
Coincidence
COGNITIVE, PERSONALITY, AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS UNDERLYING ANOMALOUS
EXPERIENCE
Cognitive Factors
A cognitive factor that affects anomalous experience is the sheep–goat effect, which refers to whether a
person is a believer or non-believer in the paranormal. Believers are “sheep” and non-believers “goats”.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE FOR COGNITIVE FACTORS
 Jones and Russell (1980, see A2 Level Psychology page 659) show how this
cognitive factor can affect paranormal experience. Sheep and goats watched a
demonstration of ESP; there were four groups of participants. One group of
each type observed a “successful” demonstration whereas the others
witnessed an unsuccessful demonstration. When asked to recall the
demonstration, the sheep who observed the unsuccessful demonstration had
distorted recall as they reported that it had been successful; whereas goats
were much better at recalling what actually happened irrespective of
whether the demonstration was successful or not.
 Wiseman, Smith, and Wiseman (1995, A2 Level Psychology page 659) showed
that being a sheep or a goat influenced what one recalled of a séance. During
the séance participants were asked to try to move objects placed in the
centre of the table. In reality, nothing ever moved. Sheep were much more
likely (40%) to report an object had moved than were disbelievers (14%).
Also, 20% of believers thought that something genuine had occurred; this
was 0% in the disbeliever group.
 Cognitive biases can also affect people’s belief in horoscopes (Wiseman &
Smith, 2002, see A2 Level Psychology page 660). Eighty participants were
asked to read and judge four horoscopes, two of which were labelled
“reading from your birth sign”, and the other two were labelled “reading from
another birth sign”. These were counterbalanced for each participant, but all
read the same four horoscopes. Prior to this, all participants completed the
Belief in Astrology Questionnaire. The findings showed cognitive biases do
affect horoscope readings as believers gave much lower generality scores
than disbelievers on all horoscopes and higher accuracy ratings.
EVALUATION OF COGNITIVE FACTORS
 Natural experiments. The above research studies are all natural
experiments because they test for a naturally occurring difference between
sheep and goats. The problem with this is that without a manipulated IV we
cannot control cause and effect and so we cannot conclude that being a sheep
is a causative factor in anomalous experience.
Personality Factors
One such personality trait that may affect anomalous experience is fantasy proneness (FP) and another is
extraversion.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE FOR PERSONALITY FACTORS
 Wilson and Barber (1983, see A2 Level Psychology page 661) proposed the
personality trait fantasy proneness based on their study of 27 excellent
hypnotic females (the FP group) and a control group of 26 females who
weren’t. They found that the majority of the FP group thought that their toys
had feelings and emotions, they assumed the roles of fantasy characters
during play, and they were praised by parents for fantasy play. As adults the
FP group spent more time fantasising during the day, experience fantasies as
“real as real”, have psychic abilities, and experience apparitions.
 Gow et al. (2001 see A2 Level Psychology page 661) researched FP in a
sample of people who claimed to have seen a UFO or experienced an alien
abduction and compared them with a control group. They found reporting
any type of UFO experience was linked to heightened levels of FP and
stronger beliefs in paranormal activity.
 Parra and Villaneuva (2003, see A2 Level Psychology page 662) tested 30
participants, all of whom completed the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI)
and a Pre-Ganzfeld Questionnaire. The latter questionnaire measured
relaxation, mood, motivation, and expectation of success. The EPI measures
level of extraversion, a personality trait characterised by being outgoing and
seeking new experiences, and so it was predicted that extraverts would
manifest psi better than introverts. The results clearly demonstrated that
extraverts scored significantly better at ESP than the introverts.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE AGAINST PERSONALITY FACTORS
 Roberts (1997, see A2 Level Psychology page 661) noted that, at the time he
reviewed the evidence, only three main studies had been conducted (Ring &
Rosing, 1990; Bartholomew et al., 1991; Spanos et al., 1993), of which only
one had noted any significant link to FP. It is therefore unclear as to the role
of FP in experiences.
EVALUATION OF PERSONALITY FACTORS
 Cause and effect. The measures of fantasy proneness were taken post-event,
and so there is no way of clearly seeing if the FP caused the experience or the
experience caused the FP! This is also a weakness of the natural experimental
method because personality type cannot be manipulated as an IV, then
association rather than causation can be established. This means we cannot
say that FP causes anomalous experience.
 Control group. The use of control groups is a useful control as this enables
comparisons to be made.
 Extraversion as a confounding variable. This research on extraversion
shows that personality could bias the findings of ESP–Ganzfeld studies, so
this could be another confounding variable reducing the validity of the
findings. However, parapsychologists would counter this with the fact that
this just shows certain types of people are more receptive to ESP.
 Sample bias. The small sample size means the findings have limited
generalisability.
 Researcher bias. It is possible that the researchers’ expectations cued the
participants in some way and so the findings are due to this rather than real
differences between the different groups of participants.
 Self-report. The self-report nature of the surveys mean that the findings are
weakened by biases such as demand characteristics (guessing the aim of the
researcher and providing the results that are wanted) and social desirability
(exaggerating or minimising characteristics to in order to present themselves
in the best possible light.
Biological Factors
Two key biology factors that may underpin paranormal experiences are temporal lobe lability and
electrohypersensitivity, and both of these may be linked.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE FOR BIOLOGICAL FACTORS
 The Temporal Lobe Lability Hypothesis was proposed by Persinger (1983,
see A2 Level Psychology page 662). He proposed the temporal lobe has the
lowest electrical output, and so it would be most affected by
electromagnetism. The temporal lobe houses memories and fantasies so, if
over-stimulated, people could have strange occurrences.
 Persinger produced many papers showing differing levels of correlation
between temporal lobe stimulation and paranormal beliefs and experiences.
Persinger claimed he could “induce” an alien abduction experience in the
laboratory by stimulating the temporal lobes.
Blackmore (1994, see A2 Level Psychology page 663) tested Persinger’s claim
for a Horizon programme on the BBC, and has provided confirmation of
Persinger’s findings. She wore a special helmet that directly stimulated the
temporal lobes via magnetic fields, whilst sitting in a dimly lit room with
ping-pong balls over her eyes. After about 10 minutes, she reported an
abduction-like experience as she felt as if two hands had grabbed her and
were pulling her upwards followed by having her leg pulled, distorted, and
dragged up to the ceiling!
Research (Budden, 1994, see A2 Level Psychology page 663) on
electrohypersensitivity (which refers to the idea that some people are more
affected by electromagnetic output than others) consisted of case studies and
anecdotal evidence linking a range of electromagnetic sources to apparitions
and alien abduction experiences. For example, many people who claim
visitations appeared to live near electricity sub-stations, mobile-phone
transmitters, pylons, or television masts. Thus, it was concluded that
electromagnetic “pollution” was causing anomalous experiences, especially
ghosts and alien visitation, and that those who are electrically hypersensitive
are more affected by electromagnetic pollution.
 Jawer (2006, see A2 Level Psychology page 664) studied 112 participants, 62
of whom were “sensitives” and 50 comprised a control group. “Sensitives”
reported significantly more allergies and electrical sensitivity (had been
struck by lightening and had been affected by electrical appliances) and
seeing more apparitions and objects moving than the controls and so
supports the link between electrohypersensitivity and paranormal
experiences.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE AGAINST BIOLOGICAL FACTORS
 Blackmore and Cox (2000, see A2 Level Psychology page 663) tested out the
Temporal Lobe Lability Hypothesis in 12 people claiming alien abduction.
They were compared with 12 matched controls and a group of students. All
participants completed the Personal Philosophy Inventory, which is designed
to measure temporal lobe lability. However, the abductees scored lower on
temporal lobe lability. They were also asked about their experience of sleep
paralysis and the “abductee” group scored significantly higher in terms of
indicators of sleep paralysis. Thus, it was concluded that experience of alien
abduction may be more linked to a sleep paralysis episode than temporal
lobe lability.
 Spanos et al. (1993; see A2 Level Psychology page 663) discovered no
difference between an alien abduction group and control group on a
questionnaire measuring temporal lobe lability, therefore further
contradicting Persinger’s claims.
EVALUATION OF BIOLOGICAL FACTORS
 Cause and effect. The findings on temporal lobe lability and
electrohypersensitivity correlations do not state cause and effect.
 Lack of scientific evidence. Budden never tested out these ideas and simply
stuck to producing endless case study accounts of the after-effects. The ideas
were not tested experimentally or prospectively to “predict” visitations and
visions.
Lack understanding of electrohypersensitivity. Further research is
needed to pinpoint the exact mechanisms that cause electrohypersensitivity.
 Reductionist. The idea that temporal lobe lability and
electrohypersensitivity cause parapsychology experience is reductionist as
this ignores other factors, and, of course, research shows that cognitive,
personality, and many other factors are likely to play a part.
FUNCTIONS OF PARANORMAL AND RELATED BELIEFS, INCLUDING THEIR CULTURAL
SIGNIFICANCE
Psychodynamic Functions Hypothesis

One reason suggested for why people hold these beliefs is based on psychodynamic psychology. The
Psychodynamic Functions Hypothesis suggests early trauma (e.g. abuse) can lead to a belief in the
paranormal. Irwin (1992, see A2 Level Psychology page 664) suggests childhood trauma leads to childhood
fantasy (e.g. high imagination, prone to fantasy play, etc.) as a coping mechanism and this means the
trauma can be repressed into the unconscious. This manifests itself as either a paranormal experience or a
stronger belief in paranormal activities during adolescence and adulthood.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE FOR PSYCHODYNAMIC FUNCTIONS
 Lawrence et al. (1995, see A2 Level Psychology page 665) tested the
hypothesis using 80 students from the University of Edinburgh. They
completed measures on traumatic childhood experiences, belief in the
paranormal, and childhood fantasy. The initial correlations showed some
relationship between childhood trauma and paranormal experience, and also
with childhood fantasy. However, the correlation between childhood trauma
and paranormal belief just missed out on significance (P < 0.06). As a result of
this, Lawrence et al. modified the theory by stating childhood trauma can
affect paranormal experience, which in turn affects paranormal beliefs.
A lack of control as a result of childhood experience
The Psychodynamic Functions Hypothesis has been expanded to give a broader theory. The concept of
control and whether this is internal (feel have control of life) or external (feel external factors have control),
as suggested by Rotter (1954, see A2 Level Psychology page 665), has been added to the theory. External
locus of control is more closely associated with paranormal belief and so Irwin (2005, see A2 Level
Psychology page 665) suggests that paranormal beliefs arise because of a lack of control brought about not
just by childhood abuse/trauma but any childhood experience characterised by a lack of control (e.g. having
older siblings, having authoritarian parents, moving house a lot).
RESEARCH EVIDENCE FOR A LACK OF CONTROL
 Watts, Watson, and Wilson (2007, see A2 Level Psychology page 665) tested
the theory using 127 students from the University of Edinburgh. They
completed a range of questionnaires including ones on paranormal beliefs
and perceived childhood control. Irwin’s merged theory is supported
because when belief in the paranormal increased, perceived childhood
control decreased. This led to the conclusion that a lack of control in
childhood leads to insecurity and helplessness, and so this leads to a fantasydriven unconscious mechanism to cope with everyday uncertainty.
Loneliness and insecure attachment
Rogers, Qualter, and Phelps (2007, see A2 Level Psychology page 666) proposed that loneliness and/or
attachment style affected paranormal belief. Thus, paranormal experience may be a way of dealing with
loneliness and childhood insecurity, in particular, the avoidant attachment style may be able to explain
paranormal beliefs because it follows the Psychodynamic Functions Hypothesis idea that we ignore and
avoid dealing with the traumatic events of childhood.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE INTO LONELINESS AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT
 Over 250 participants from a range of backgrounds completed
questionnaires measuring paranormal beliefs, childhood trauma, loneliness,
and attachment style. Childhood trauma was the strongest predictor of
paranormal beliefs but other factors were also found to have a significant
effect, such as proneness to fantasy and social loneliness. Insecure
attachment and belief in the paranormal showed some relationship but not a
strong one.
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH INTO LONELINESS AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT
 Self-report biases. One drawback from this line of research is that all
studies are using questionnaires so we cannot rule out demand
characteristics, social desirability, and faulty memories affecting the findings.
 Multi-factorial. The number of factors identified shows that paranormal
belief is clearly multi-factorial and further research needs to be conducted in
this area to fully understand all of these links.
Cultural significance
The functions of belief in the paranormal are culturally relative, which means they differ across cultures.
Therefore, one culture may perceive a paranormal activity to be that—paranormal—yet another may see it
as a human-based skill.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE INTO CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
 Jahoda (1969, see A2 Level Psychology page 667) highlights research on a
tribe in New Guinea. Whiting studied their beliefs in ghosts, sorcery, and a
huge monster called marsalai and he was convinced that this was a simple
case of stimulus generalisation. That is, the New Guinea peoples were simply
generalising fear from real dangers onto paranormal dangers.
 Sleep paralysis is another example of how culture affects what is perceived
as paranormal experience. Sleep paralysis occurs when a person is
simultaneously awake and asleep during the rapid eye-movement (REM)
phase of sleep. A presence is often felt in the room that usually touches or sits
on the person having the paralysis. Many cultures see this as being
paranormal in nature, as highlighted below.
 For example, in Thai and Cambodian culture, the experience is called “pee
umm”, which is the perception that ghostly figures hold you down during
sleep. In Southern China (Hmong culture), it is referred to as “dab tsog”,
which means “crushing demon”. In Hungary, the experience is definitely
more paranormal as they tend to blame witches, fairies, and demon lovers.
The Kurdish people keep the theme of ghosts and evil spirits but believe it
only happens to people who have done something bad.
 Irwin (1993, see A2 Level Psychology page 668) has found many crosscultural variations in paranormal belief. The Paranormal Belief Scale was
standardised on Louisiana university students; in comparison to their beliefs,
Finnish students report lower belief scores for witchcraft and superstitions
but higher on extraordinary life forms. A similar pattern of low belief in
witchcraft and superstitions was found in a sample of Polish students, who
instead had stronger beliefs in psi (e.g. ESP and PK). Finally, Australian
students had stronger beliefs in spiritualism and pre-cognition.
In a more recent study, Belanti, Perera, and Jagadheesan (2008, see A2 Level
Psychology page 668) examined near-death experiences in the Mapuche,
Hawaii, Israel, Thailand, India, and many African regions and found the
content of these reflected the cultural experiences, religion, and education of
the different cultures.
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DECEPTION AND SELF-DECEPTION, SUPERSTITION, AND
COINCIDENCE
Deception
RESEARCH EVIDENCE INTO DECEPTION
 The cases of scientific fraud covered previously are examples of deception.
 Wiseman (2001, see A2 Level Psychology page 670) notes that some faith
healers assure people that they never accept money for their services to
show that there is no motive to deceive. In cases like this, though, people
often do pay.
 People may deceive to simply have some fun! This has been used to explain
why two women, Elsie Wright and Frances Griffiths, deceived the world for
66 years with their Cottingley Fairies photographs, which were eventually
revealed to be cut-outs fastened to the ground with hat pins!
 Wiseman (2001, see A2 Level Psychology page 670) highlights that the simple
use of body language and the positioning of hands, eye contact, etc. can
essentially “make” an observer look one way so that trickery can happen
undetected.
 A very unusual case of deception is reported by Randi (1982, see A2 Level
Psychology page 670). This involved psychic surgery being used with great
success. However, when he analysed the removed tissue he found that the
blood sample was from a cow and that the supposed tumour was in fact
chicken intestine. When confronted with the evidence, the psychic surgeon
reported that it is a well-known fact that, during the procedure, supernatural
forces change the tumour into something else once it has been removed from
the body.
Self-deception

Self-deception is when we mislead ourselves to accept as true what is most likely false. Irwin (2002, see A2
Level Psychology page 671) suggests that many psychologists agree self-deception to be the acceptance of
a belief in a self-serving way by people who have a motivation to believe in whatever is under
investigation.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE INTO SELF-DECEPTION
 Irwin investigated whether there was a relationship between self-deception
and belief in paranormal activity in a group of students. Thirty Australian
university students completed a range of questionnaires including the SelfDeception Questionnaire and the Revised Paranormal Belief Scale. From the
latter, a participant was given two scores: a Traditional Paranormal Belief
(TPB) score, which looked at belief in witchcraft, the devil, etc., and a New
Age Philosophy (NAP) score, which looked at belief in parapsychology,
reincarnation, and astrology. The results showed that TPB scores did not
correlate with self-deception but that NAP scores did. That is, beliefs
involving NAP are related to self-deception. However, not in the expected
direction as belief in NAP was related to low levels of self-deception!
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH INTO DECEPTION AND SELF-DECEPTION
 Difficult to study. Deception and self-deception are difficult to study due to
their very nature. How can you test how much someone is trying to deceive
you if they are successfully using deception?
 Cause and effect. The correlational design of Irwin’s research on selfdeception means that cause and effect cannot be established so all it can
show is that the two measures are related to each other.
 Sample bias. The small size of the sample considerably limits
generalisability.
Superstition
Superstition is defined as a belief or notion that is not based on reason or knowledge that highlights the
“significance” of some behaviour to the individual.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE INTO SUPERSTITION
 Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning states that learning is based on the
consequences of behaviour. In general terms, we are more likely to repeat a
behaviour if it is positively reinforced and less likely to repeat a behaviour if
it is punished.
One of the main assumptions of behaviourism is that general laws govern all behaviour (e.g. rewards),
irrespective of species. Therefore, Skinner (1948, see A2 Level Psychology page 672) studied superstition
in pigeons. Eight hungry pigeons were placed in their own Skinner boxes for just a few minutes per day,
where they received food pellets every 15 seconds. This procedure lasted for several days and towards the
end of this, the length of time between each delivery of pellets increased. Six of the eight pigeons began to
show strangely repetitive behaviour in between the delivery of food pellets. These included head tossing,
pendulum-type swinging of the head, hopping, and turning in an anti-clockwise circle. These behaviours
had not been seen prior to the study and they were not performed once the food was presented to them.
Thus, Skinner concluded that these behaviours are a form of superstition—the pigeons perform them as if
the delivery of food depended on them doing it. Thus, superstitions develop when we learn that behaving in
a certain way will be rewarded. This is a form of maladaptive learning because, in reality, the behaviour has
nothing to do with the reward.
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH INTO SUPERSTITION
 Experimental support. This approach to explaining superstitions has
experimental evidence from Skinner’s work with pigeons to suggest that
“random” rewarding leads to such a notion.
 Rewards are not always clear. Walking under a ladder or not stepping on
cracks in the pavement rarely leads to an observable reward (such as with
the pigeons getting food). Hence, it is not a complete explanation. On the
other hand, behaviourists would be just as quick to point out that the reward
for not walking under a ladder has simply not been identified yet and at some
point one will be found. Another behavioural explanation would be the
superstitious behaviour acts as a negative reinforce because anxiety is
relieved by the superstitious behaviour, e.g. touching wood.
 Extrapolation. The behaviourist assumption that there are general laws of
behaviour, which means that findings can be generalised to humans, can be
criticised because there are qualitative as well as quantitative differences
between humans and animals. For example, the much greater use of
cognition in humans that questions how well the findings would generalise.
Ignores cognition. Behaviourism ignores cognition because it is not
observable or measurable, which is a significant limitation, because faulty
cognitive processing may well account for superstition as the following
theory suggests.
Perceptual and memory errors
RESEARCH EVIDENCE INTO PERCEPTUAL AND MEMORY ERRORS
 Jahoda (1969, see A2 Level Psychology page 672) suggests that superstitions
are formed because of errors or faults in our perceptual and memory
systems. For example, “selective forgetting” means we remember only
superstition-confirming thoughts and behaviours.
 Lehmann’s (1898, see A2 Level Psychology page 672) study of séances
supports the fact there can be errors in our perceptual and memory systems.
The participants were asked to pick a line from a book. Lehmann then
organised the séance so that there was a blackboard just underneath a red
light with some unintelligible writing on it. The light was used because it is
very difficult to observe much under this light, so anything that might be seen
by a person at a séance would be an error in encoding and processing of
information. Participants identified the unintelligible writing as the line they
had chosen and so errors were confirmed.
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH INTO PERCEPTUAL AND MEMORY ERRORS
 Artificiality of the research means problems with demand
characteristics. The research set-up of a blackboard just underneath a red
light is highly artificial and so may have cued the participants. Thus, demand
characteristics, i.e. giving the researcher the findings being sought, may
better explain these results than genuine errors in processing. The
questionable validity of the study limits the support it provides for this
explanation.
 Self-deception may be more valid. The possibility of a message just for the
participants could have played into their self-importance and so they may
have deceived themselves that the message was the line from the book they
had chosen. Therefore self-deception may explain the findings rather that
errors in processing and memory.
Superstitions and the unconscious
RESEARCH EVIDENCE INTO SUPERSTITIONS AND THE UNCONSCIOUS
 Freud (1901, see A2 Level Psychology page 673) explains superstitions
through unconscious mechanisms. Unconscious fears and desires drive our
behaviour. Freud believed that superstitions are a form of projection
whereby the threats from these unconscious thoughts are dealt with by
attaching them to things in the outside world. One of Freud’s examples starts
with a person having a cruel thought about someone they care a lot about.
This causes guilt and an expectation of punishment. This hidden conflict
manifests in the conscious as a superstition that misfortune can be avoided if
a particular set of behavioural patterns are stuck to.

EVALUATION OF RESEARCH INTO SUPERSTITIONS AND THE UNCONSCIOUS
 Unverifiable and unfalsifiable. The unconscious cannot be tested; it is
extremely difficult to operationalise (measure) the unconscious or how much
anxiety is there and so Freud’s theory cannot be verified or falsified. How can
we know that our anxiety is manifested in Freud’s theory as superstitious? It
is just a theory as evidence is very limited: without such evidence we cannot
establish if it has any truth but nor can we reject it as invalid.
 Lacks scientific validity. The fact that Freud’s ideas cannot be falsified
means that it fails to meet this criterion proposed by Popper as a necessary
requirement of science. This means that Freud’s work can be considered to
lack scientific validity.
Contemporary ideas and research on superstition
Contemporary research has expanded on early work into faulty cognitive processing.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
 Lindemann and Arnio (2006, see A2 Level Psychology page 674) categorised
participants into intuitive thinkers who tend to “trust their hunches”, and
therefore use little reasoning, and analytical thinkers who tend to “have
explainable reasons for decisions”. 239 Finnish volunteers completed a
battery of questionnaires aimed to test their superstitious beliefs, analytical
thinking, and intuitive thinking. Roughly half of the sample were
superstitious and the other half sceptics. The findings clearly showed that the
superstitious participants relied much more on intuitive thinking than the
sceptics and much less on analytical thinking in general decision making.
Lindemann and Arnio concluded that superstition can be explained using dual-coding processes. The dualprocessing refers to the fact we all process intuitively and analytically it is just that in superstitious people
they process more intuitively when it comes to strange phenomena.
EVALUATION
 Cause and effect. The argument here could be one of cause and effect. Thus,
we cannot be sure if general thinking causes a person to be superstitious or if
their general thinking is an effect of their superstition.
 Self-report criticisms. Questionnaires may not be the best method to test
out processing as we may not have full conscious awareness of the processes
used. Instead, the general population should be sampled to make the findings
more representative.
 Reductionism. The classification of the groups into superstitious versus
sceptics is, like any classification, oversimplified as this does not account well
for individual variation.
Coincidence
Psychologists are obviously interested in coincidences because many anomalistic experiences are based on
“strange occurrences”. But how many are simply coincidences that can be explained by the laws of
probability? So if coincidence has the probability of occurring to every one in one million people per day,
and the UK has a population of 61 million then 61 coincidences should happen per day, e.g. somebody
ringing you just as you are thinking about them could lead you to thinking you have pre-cognitive power.
Many of these may be seen as being anomalistic in nature when it is simply what should happen by chance!
Coincidence and belief in paranormal activity
Blackmore and Troscianko (1985, see A2 Level Psychology page 676) conducted a classic study into the
link between belief in the paranormal and coincidences and probability. They ran a series of experiments
testing out the beliefs and probability judgements of sheep (believers in psi) and goats (non-believers in
psi). They found that sheep are more likely to see a coincidence as being something “out of the ordinary”
because they are more likely to overlook probability explanations for events in favour of anomalistic
explanations.
The sample for this research was 50 schoolgirls so it lacks generalisability. However, a second sample of
100 volunteers (aged 12–67) were tested on their understanding of probability (results happening by
chance) and the same results were found, that is “sheep” overlook probability and prefer “coincidence” as
an explanation.
So what does this mean?
Overall, it can be clearly seen that cognitive, personality, and biological factors affect people’s anomalistic
experiences and beliefs, which need to be taken into account when conducting research.
Generally, it would appear that individuals who experience some form of trauma in childhood are more
likely to believe in things paranormal. This appears to be linked to lack of control in childhood and a
consequent fear of lack of control in adulthood accompanied by a belief in the paranormal as a way of
coping with lack of control. Social loneliness and proneness to fantasy also appear to be linked to beliefs,
whereas coping strategies and attachment style do not.
Research into different cultures’ interpretations of sleep paralysis and near-death experience shows that
anomalistic phenomena are shaped by culture. There are many examples of deception in anomalistic
research, however, testing whether self-deception exists has been less clear as neither Traditional
Paranormal Belief (TPB) nor New Age Philosophy (NAP) correlate with high levels of self-deception.
Superstition has been explained using a number of approaches—learning, psychodynamic, and errors in
perceptual and cognitive processing. However, superstition is difficult to research: the role of unconscious
processes cannot be verified or falsified and we cannot be sure if general thinking causes a person to be
superstitious or if their general thinking is an effect of their superstition. Research into coincidence
suggests that those who believe in parapsychology are more likely to accept coincidence as an explanation
and overlook the probability that the event is due to chance.
Over to you
1. (a) Discuss cognitive factors underlying paranormal beliefs. (10 marks)
(b) Discuss the functions of paranormal and related beliefs, including their cultural significance. (15
marks)
2. (a) Outline biological factors underlying anomalous experience. (5 marks)
(b) Discuss the psychology of deception, self-deception, superstition, and/or coincidence in anomalous
experience. (20 marks)