Lecture 8: Cognitive Factors Underlying Paranormal Belief n 1.Introduction n 2.Review of relevant cognitive factors n 3.Conclusion.

Lecture 8:Lecture 8:Cognitive Factors Underlying Cognitive Factors Underlying

Paranormal BeliefParanormal Belief

1.1. IntroductionIntroduction 2.2. Review of relevant cognitive Review of relevant cognitive

factorsfactors 3.3. ConclusionConclusion

One of every four One of every four Americans believes in Americans believes in

ghostsghosts

One of every four One of every four Americans believe they Americans believe they have had a telepathic have had a telepathic

experienceexperience

One in six Americans have One in six Americans have felt that they have been in felt that they have been in touch with someone who touch with someone who

had diedhad died

One in ten claim to have One in ten claim to have seen or been in the seen or been in the presence of a ghostpresence of a ghost

More than half believe in More than half believe in the Devil, and one in ten the Devil, and one in ten claimed to have talked to claimed to have talked to

the Devilthe Devil

One in seven say they One in seven say they have personally seen a have personally seen a

UFOUFO

Three in four read their Three in four read their horoscopes in the horoscopes in the

newspaper, and one in newspaper, and one in four say they believe in four say they believe in

astrologyastrology

Opinion Poll Data, Opinion Poll Data, Daily Mail, Daily Mail, 2/2/982/2/98

64% believe that some people have powers that 64% believe that some people have powers that cannot be explained by sciencecannot be explained by science

63% believe in God63% believe in God 52% believe in life after death52% believe in life after death 49% believe in ghosts49% believe in ghosts 49% believe in precognitive dreams49% believe in precognitive dreams 49% believe in heaven (only 28% believe in hell!)49% believe in heaven (only 28% believe in hell!) 47% believe in thought reading47% believe in thought reading 41% believe in communication with the dead41% believe in communication with the dead 34% believe in psychokinesis34% believe in psychokinesis 26% believe in angels26% believe in angels 25% believe in reincarnation25% believe in reincarnation

Anomalistic PsychologyAnomalistic Psychology

Anomalistic psychologyAnomalistic psychology may be defined as the may be defined as the study of extraordinary phenomena of behaviour study of extraordinary phenomena of behaviour and experience, including (but not restricted to) and experience, including (but not restricted to) those which are often labelled “paranormal”. It is those which are often labelled “paranormal”. It is directed towards understanding bizarre directed towards understanding bizarre experiences that many people have without experiences that many people have without assuming assuming a prioria priori that there is anything that there is anything paranormal involved. It entails attempting to paranormal involved. It entails attempting to explain paranormal and related beliefs and explain paranormal and related beliefs and ostensibly paranormal experiences in terms of ostensibly paranormal experiences in terms of known (or knowable) psychological and physical known (or knowable) psychological and physical factors.factors.

Illusion of ControlIllusion of Control(Langer, 1975)(Langer, 1975)

a tendency for people to perceive a random a tendency for people to perceive a random process as being potentially under their process as being potentially under their control, which is increased if the situation control, which is increased if the situation seems to incorporate elements of skill.seems to incorporate elements of skill.

Cf. New Hampshire Lottery (1964) with New Cf. New Hampshire Lottery (1964) with New Jersey Lottery (1971)Jersey Lottery (1971)

ESP: Ayeroff & Abelson (1976)ESP: Ayeroff & Abelson (1976) PK: Benassi, Sweeney & Drevno (1979)PK: Benassi, Sweeney & Drevno (1979) Coin-tossing: Blackmore & Troscianko (1985)Coin-tossing: Blackmore & Troscianko (1985) PK: Brugger, Regard & Landis (1991)PK: Brugger, Regard & Landis (1991)

Poor Estimation of Poor Estimation of ProbabilitiesProbabilities

The Birthday Problem:The Birthday Problem: How many How many people would you need to have at people would you need to have at a party to have a 50:50 chance a party to have a 50:50 chance that two of them share the same that two of them share the same birthday (ignoring year)?birthday (ignoring year)?

2323

Precognitive Dreams (1)Precognitive Dreams (1)

Dreams will “come true” purely on the Dreams will “come true” purely on the basis of coincidental matches between basis of coincidental matches between dream events and future events (Paulos, dream events and future events (Paulos, 1988)1988)

If we label a dream as “apparently If we label a dream as “apparently precognitive” if chances of it “coming true” precognitive” if chances of it “coming true” are less than 1 in 10,000 and assume each are less than 1 in 10,000 and assume each person remembers one dream per night ...person remembers one dream per night ...

Precognitive Dreams (2)Precognitive Dreams (2)

… … over a full year, 96.42% of the over a full year, 96.42% of the population will not have such a dream BUT population will not have such a dream BUT ……

… … around 3.6% of the population WILL!around 3.6% of the population WILL!

That’s 9 million people in the US alone.That’s 9 million people in the US alone.

In fact, additional non-paranormal factors In fact, additional non-paranormal factors will lead to even greater numberswill lead to even greater numbers

Probability EstimationProbability Estimation Blackmore & Troscianko (1985) found Blackmore & Troscianko (1985) found

some significant differences between some significant differences between believers and non-believersbelievers and non-believers

Other studies have failed to do so (e.g., Other studies have failed to do so (e.g., Mathews & Blackmore, 1995; Mathews & Blackmore, 1995; Blackmore, Blackmore, 1997; Blackmore, Galaud & Walker, 19941997; Blackmore, Galaud & Walker, 1994))

Musch & Ehrenberg (2002) did find Musch & Ehrenberg (2002) did find correlation but claimed it reflected correlation but claimed it reflected general intelligence (Irwin’s reviews cast general intelligence (Irwin’s reviews cast doubt on this)doubt on this)

Poor Concept of Poor Concept of RandomnessRandomness

Would lead to a tendency to read Would lead to a tendency to read significance into random patternssignificance into random patterns

Subjective random number Subjective random number generation tasks (e.g., Wegenaar, generation tasks (e.g., Wegenaar, 1972)1972)

Repetition avoidance in random Repetition avoidance in random strings (Brugger, Landis & Regard, strings (Brugger, Landis & Regard, 1990)1990)

Reasoning ErrorsReasoning Errors

Wierzbicki (1985) produced Wierzbicki (1985) produced evidence suggesting that believers evidence suggesting that believers were poorer at syllogistic were poorer at syllogistic reasoning than non-believersreasoning than non-believers

Irwin (1991) unable to replicate – Irwin (1991) unable to replicate – suggested results might reflect suggested results might reflect experimenter/context effectsexperimenter/context effects

Roberts & Seager (1999) did Roberts & Seager (1999) did replicatereplicate

Critical ThinkingCritical Thinking

Alcock & Otis (1980) and Gray & Alcock & Otis (1980) and Gray & Mill (1990) claimed believers were Mill (1990) claimed believers were poorer at critical thinkingpoorer at critical thinking

Roe (1995) has criticised these Roe (1995) has criticised these studies on methodological groundsstudies on methodological grounds

Confirmatory BiasConfirmatory Bias

Believers in astrology ignoring those Believers in astrology ignoring those parts of a reading that do not fit?parts of a reading that do not fit?

Psychics ignoring failed predictions?Psychics ignoring failed predictions? Bias stronger in believers than Bias stronger in believers than

disbelievers?disbelievers?– Alcock & Otis (1980)Alcock & Otis (1980)– Russell & Jones (1980)Russell & Jones (1980)– Jones & Russell (1980)Jones & Russell (1980)– French (1992)French (1992)– Roe (1985)Roe (1985)

Lack of Knowledge of Lack of Knowledge of Conjuring TechniquesConjuring Techniques

Singer & Benassi (1981)Singer & Benassi (1981) Wiseman & Morris (1995)Wiseman & Morris (1995) Wiseman, Smith & WisemanWiseman, Smith & Wiseman

(1995; following Besterman,(1995; following Besterman,

1932)1932)

Population SterotypesPopulation Sterotypes

Marks (2000; after Marks & Marks (2000; after Marks & Kammann, 1980)Kammann, 1980)

Lund (1939) – “star” is favourite Lund (1939) – “star” is favourite response using Zener cardsresponse using Zener cards

Rigby (1989)Rigby (1989) French (1992)French (1992)

Perceptual BiasesPerceptual Biases

Blackmoore & Moore (1994)Blackmoore & Moore (1994) Brugger et al. (1993)Brugger et al. (1993)

Lack of Knowledge of Lack of Knowledge of “Cold Reading” & the “Cold Reading” & the

Barnum EffectBarnum Effect Cold reading – a technique that can be Cold reading – a technique that can be

used to give complete strangers the used to give complete strangers the impression that you know all about them impression that you know all about them (Hyman, 1977; Dutton, 1998; Roe, 1995)(Hyman, 1977; Dutton, 1998; Roe, 1995)

The Barnum Effect – one aspect of cold The Barnum Effect – one aspect of cold reading, relying on the fact that people reading, relying on the fact that people often accept vague, general and often accept vague, general and ambiguous statements as descriptive of ambiguous statements as descriptive of their own unique personalities (their own unique personalities (Dickson & Dickson & Kelly, 1985; Furnham & Schofield, 1987; Kelly, 1985; Furnham & Schofield, 1987; Snyder, Shenkel, & Lowery, 1977)Snyder, Shenkel, & Lowery, 1977)

Subjective ValidationSubjective Validation

““This occurs when two unrelated This occurs when two unrelated events are perceived to be related events are perceived to be related because a belief, expectancy, or because a belief, expectancy, or hypothesis demands or requires a hypothesis demands or requires a relationship" (Marks, 2000, p. 41).relationship" (Marks, 2000, p. 41).

Electronic Voice Electronic Voice PhenomenonPhenomenon

It is claimed (e.g., Raudive, 1971) that It is claimed (e.g., Raudive, 1971) that by leaving a tape-recorder in record by leaving a tape-recorder in record mode or by recording from a radio set mode or by recording from a radio set between stations, messages from the between stations, messages from the spirit realm can be recordedspirit realm can be recorded

Interpretation of the vague sounds Interpretation of the vague sounds recorded is often entirely subjective recorded is often entirely subjective (Smith, 1972; Ellis, 1975)(Smith, 1972; Ellis, 1975)

Examples of EVP (1)Examples of EVP (1)

““The coward”The coward”

““We’re sorry”We’re sorry”

““Get out, get out, get out of my house”Get out, get out, get out of my house”

Examples of EVP (2)Examples of EVP (2)

““Come and find the cake”Come and find the cake”

Supposed to say “Someone’s in the Supposed to say “Someone’s in the way”!way”!

Universality ofUniversality ofCognitive BiasesCognitive Biases

It would make sense in evolutionary terms for It would make sense in evolutionary terms for humans to develop cognitive systems that humans to develop cognitive systems that can readily detect patterns and regularities, can readily detect patterns and regularities, causes and effects, in the environment. The causes and effects, in the environment. The fact that people claim to detect regularities fact that people claim to detect regularities even when confronted with true even when confronted with true randomness, or that people often perceive randomness, or that people often perceive causal relationships where none exist, may causal relationships where none exist, may be a small price to pay from an evolutionary be a small price to pay from an evolutionary perspective.perspective.

(French, 1993, p. (French, 1993, p. 195)195)

AcknowledgementAcknowledgement

With thanks to Hilary Evans, With thanks to Hilary Evans, proprietor of the Mary Evans proprietor of the Mary Evans Picture Library, for permission to Picture Library, for permission to use illustrations featured in this use illustrations featured in this presentation. These illustrations presentation. These illustrations must not be reproduced in any must not be reproduced in any form without permission from the form without permission from the Mary Evans Picture Library.Mary Evans Picture Library.