Unit 4 – Section B – Psychology in Action
Anomalistic Psychology.
Specification:
The study of anomalous experience• Pseudoscience and the scientific status of parapsychology
• Methodological issues related to the study of paranormal cognition (ESP, including Ganzfeld) and paranormal action (psychokinesis)
Explanations for anomalous experience
• The role of coincidence and probability judgements in anomalous experience
• Explanations for superstitious behaviour and magical thinking
• Personality factors underlying anomalous experience
Research into exceptional experience
• Psychological research into and explanations for psychic healing, near death and out of body experiences, and psychic mediumship
This pack will cover the following part of the specification:
Explanations for anomalous experience
- The role of coincidence and probability judgements in anomalous experience
- Explanations for superstitious behaviour and magical thinking
- Personality factors underlying anomalous experience
For the role of coincidence and probability judgements we will look at:
1)Diaconis and Mosteller’s explanations for why we underestimate the probability of coincidences occurring
2)Probability judgements for ourselves and others
3)Whether underestimating the probability of coincidences occurring ties in with anomalous beliefs
Coincidence
Definition:Coincidence is where two or more events happen by chance to occur at the same time or inclose succession leading to an assumption that they are linked.
The probability of coincidences occurring are vastly underestimated by most people because of poor understanding of probability; for instance, most people will estimate that far more than 23 people are needed in a room for there to be a 50 50 chance of two of them sharing a birthday. Since people underestimate the probability of coincidences occurring, when they do occur they may seek to explain them by invoking the paranormal.
How can we account for coincidences occurring?
Diaconis and Mosteller (1989) identified factors that can account for the majority of coincidences.
1)A hidden cause may actually explain a coincidence. For instance you are at a party with an old friend and you suddenly think of a mutual friend you have not seen or thought of lately. The friend you are with suddenly mentions them - are you psychic? Probably not; probably you have both seen someone who reminded you of this person so your memory of them has reappeared. This is a cognitive explanation for coincidences occurring.
2)“Multiple end points” make coincidence more likely. For instance, someone sharing your exact birthday is a close match, but someone born on a day near you or on the same day in a different month may also count as a coincidence, but by counting multiple end points as a match it is far more likely that we will find coincidences happening to us.
3)The law of truly large numbers – if enough opportunities exist, even very unlikely coincidences will occur. For instance, billions of dreams occur every night so by the laws of probability some of the dreams will appear to show accurate precognition of what is about to happen to the dreamer.
Example:
Philip dreams that he witnesses a car accident and that the person involved in the road accident will share his name; the following week he does see a pedestrian being knocked over. He helps her and finds out that her name is Pippa. He then views his dream as a pre-cognitive experience, so he interprets it in a paranormal way.
If Philip’s dream is simply coincidence, what factors can account for the coincidences he experienced?
Probability judgements for ourselves and others
People find coincidences that happen to them far more surprising than similar coincidences occurring to others (Falk, 1989). If coincidence happens to us personally, then we are less likely to regard it as a product of chance and therefore likely to look for some other explanation; if it happens to others, then we are more likely to simply think it is chance or coincidence occurring. This notion predicts that we underestimate the probability of chance or anomalous occurrences happening to us.
Blackmore (1997) tested this idea. She published a questionnaire in The Daily Telegraph and asked readers to complete it and return it to her. The questionnaire consisted of ten statements such as
- There is someone called Jack in my family
- I have a scar on my left knee
Participants had to say whether each of the statements was true for themselves. She then asked participants to imagine that they stop the first person they come to in the street and this person is asked the questions; participants had to estimate how many of the ten statements would be true for the imaginary person. She received 6238 responses. The mean score for statements being true of oneself was 2.4. The mean estimation for statements being true of others was 3.6.
Does the study support the idea that people are less likely to think that coincidences happen to themselves? Explain your answer
Comment on one aspect of the methodology of the study and link this comment to the validity of the study
How do probability judgements link to belief in anomalous experience?
It is logical to predict that believers in the paranormal are worse at estimating probabilities of coincidence. Believers in the paranormal may simply be poorer at estimating the probability of coincidence. Since people in general find coincidence more surprising when it happens to themselves, those who are particularly bad at judging probability may find themselves looking for non-chance factors like the paranormal to explain their personal coincidences; this idea is known as the probability misjudgement hypothesis or probability misjudgement theory.
Blackmore asked her participants if they believed in the paranormal or not. She then compared the probability judgments of believers and non-believers, and found that there was no significant difference between them.
Does this study support the idea that probability misjudgement is the cause of anomalistic beliefs?
Other psychologists have also tested the idea that probability misjudgements cause anomalous beliefs.
In an earlier study, Blackmore and Troscianko (1985) asked participants to assess how likely chance outcomes were; they found no difference between believers and disbelievers and their ability to estimate probabilities accurately.
However, in a second larger study believers did perform significantly worse on probability judgements.
Musch and Ehrenberg (2002) discovered an overall correlation between paranormal beliefs and error rates on performance at probability reasoning tasks. However, when they took general cognitive ability into account (they did this by looking at grades achieved at secondary school) this correlation disappeared; so apparent differences in performance at probability judgements may simply reflect differences in more general cognitive ability.
Does this research appear to have reliability? (Explain your answer)
Why might we argue that Musch & Ehrenberg’s research lacks internal validity?
How does the last point affect the conclusions we can draw from this research
Conclusion
To what extent have we supported the idea that poor probability judgement is the cause of anomalous belief?
For the explanations for magical thinking we will look at these three explanations of magical thinking
1)Contagion theory
2)Psychodynamic functions hypothesis (PFH)
3)Cognitive deficit hypothesis (CDH)
Magical thinking
When two (or more events) are casually connected in the person’s mind with no concern for whether that causal link is actually accurate. This kind of thinking can lead to superstitions
Can you think of an example of magical thinking?Explanation 1 – Contagion theory
The law of contagion - This is based on the principle of ‘once in contact, always in contact’. There is a tendency to believe that there can be a permanent transfer of properties from one object (usually animate) to another, by brief contact. It refers to the belief that things that have once been in contact with each other may influence each other through transfer of some of their properties via an ‘essence’. This influence remains after the physical contact has ceased and may be permanent. The ‘contact’ may be between an offensive or revered person or animal and a previously neutral object (e.g. a chair they sat in, or clothes that they wore)
Explanation 2 – PFH
The psychodynamic functions hypothesis (Irwin 1999) states that some people see life as chaotic and unpredictable and this makes them anxious; magical thinking and the superstitions that develop from it reduce this anxiety by offering the illusion of control over future events.
So if by performing a superstitious ritual each morning the person believes they will prevent bad things from happening, this will then reduce their anxiety and make them better able to cope because they have the illusion of more control over their life.
This hypothesis takes the position that the magical thinking is not accurate, but it is a coping strategy for some people. According to this hypothesis, magical thinking should increase in times of stress or uncertainty such as war, since it also increases the sense of control that people have in these times.
Explanation 3 – CDH
Irwin (1993) stated that cognitive deficits hypothesis believes that people who engage in magical thinking are “illogical, irrational, credulous, uncritical and foolish.” People who engage in magical thinking do so because they do not have the necessary cognitive resources to think in a more rational and logical way.
The hypothesis predicts that those who engage in magical thinking would score worse on a range of cognitive tasks than a rational control group. Many paranormal sceptics favour this hypothesis.
Evaluation of magical thinking
Evidence:
Lindeman and Saher (2007) tested the idea that adults who held superstitious beliefs had a childlike quality to how they attribute purpose, intention and lifelike qualities to objects.Over 1000 volunteers from Finland completed a superstition questionnaire and the 116 most superstitious and the 123 most sceptic were then surveyed by e-mail. The e-mail survey showed that participants who were superstitious attributed purpose and intention to non-living objects. The researchers concluded that the superstitious participants displayed childlike reasoning about the world, and have immature logical thinking processes.
Which explanation of magical thinking does this research support and why?
Comment on the implications of the strengths and weaknesses of this research.
Some studies have tested the prediction that paranormal belief will correlate negatively with IQ (the more believing you are, the lower your IQ) but only some studies have confirmed this (e.g. Wildman and Wildman, 1974) while others have found no relationship (Watt and Wiseman, 2002) and others have found a positive relationship (Jones et al, 1977).
Which explanation of magical thinking does this research link to?
Would you consider the evidence to be strong? Give a reason for your answer
Going back to an earlier point that was raised, why might we criticise publication of this research?
Other evaluation:
Why might the CDH explanation be socially sensitive?
Keinan (1994) found that residents living in areas under threat of military action during the Gulf War scored higher on measures of magical thinking than those who lived in areas that were not under threat.Dudley (1999) carried out an experiment where students either had to attempt solvable or unsolvable anagrams. Those in the unsolvable condition were unaware that the anagrams were unsolvable. The students in the unsolvable group increased their level of superstitious thinking and those in the solvable group did not. This finding has been replicated.
Which explanation of magical thinking does this research support and why?
Compare the methodologies used in these studies. What are the strengths and weaknesses?
Other evaluation:
This theory links to soft determinism because the environmental stressors make it more likely that people will develop magical thinking and superstitious behaviour, but individuals still have a degree of free will with regard to whether they show magical thinking.
So what?
Conclusion - Which theory explains magical thinking better (base your conclusion on the evidence)? Explain your answer
For the explanations for superstitious behaviour we will look at these explanations:
1)Behaviourist
2)Psychodynamic functions hypothesis
Explanations of superstitious behaviour
Superstitious behaviour is behaviour which is based on a false belief of one occurrence causing another, so the behaviour is based on an inaccurate causal relationship.
Explanation 1: behaviourism - operant conditioning
Behaviourists would argue that operant conditioning may lead to superstitions. It is simply coincidence that the superstitious ritual (wearing a certain“lucky” pair of socks) occurs with the positive outcome (winning the football match), but the individual associates the socks with winning. The positive outcome (winning the match) is positively reinforcing, causing a repeat of the superstitious ritual (wearing the lucky pair of socks).
Once the superstition is believed, the individual may ignore instances of when the socks are worn and a match is lost because the conditioning that has occurred is so strong.
Furthermore, negative reinforcement may contribute to the wearing of the socks. This is because wearing the socks may reduce anxiety, which is an unpleasant thing to feel, caused by the thought of losing the match.
Think of a situation where a superstition may develop and what the positive and negative reinforcement may be
Situation
Superstition
Positive reinforcement
Negative reinforcement
Explanation 2: psychodynamic functions hypothesis
If people’s thoughts influence their behaviour, the psychodynamic functions hypothesis can explain why superstitions develop.
Using what you know about the PFH, explain how it could lead to superstitious thinking.
Another explanation – for luck!
A cognitive explanation - Superstitions provide an illusory sense ofcontrol. Coincidences are seen to be related and this illusory correlation is what cognitive psychologists would see as aform of confirmation bias. This is where we tend to interpret information which confirms our own beliefs.
Superstitions are more common in situations where there is a lack ofcontrol. For example, students taking exams can have control in the sense that they have worked hardduring the term and have revised in a systematic and effective manner. However, there isuncertainty (ie they are not in control of the actual questions that appear on the paper) and itcan also be a very stressful time. In these circumstances, psychologists have shown thatsuperstitious behaviour and thinking can increase.
Evaluation of explanations of superstition and further commentary
Skinner (1947) put very hungry pigeons in a box and then fed them. Over time they carried out odd behaviour e.g. one pigeon turned anti-clockwise that appeared ritualistic which was especially present before the arrival of food. Skinner argued that their odd behaviour was reinforced by the arrival of food, so they persisted in this behaviour. Later research has failed to replicate this finding, in that it has been noted that the pigeons perform odd behaviour all the time and it does not seem linked to the arrival of food.
Ground this to the behaviourist explanation of superstition, including any methodological comments
Maute (1996) set up an experiment in a library in which computers made loud noises. The people using them tried pressing various buttons to stop the noise. The noise stopped then started again; people were observed to frantically press whatever button they had pressed when the noise stopped the first time around. The pressing of the button had nothing to do with the stopping of the noise, so the participants had acquired a superstitious behaviour.
Ground this to the behaviourist explanation of superstition, including any methodological comments
All the above is about personal superstitions but superstitions can also be culturally influenced, both in terms of the quantity of them that people hold and what the precise superstitions are. For instance in the UK, 7 is judged to be a lucky number whereas in Thailand it is 9.
Explain how cultural transmission of superstitions may link to social learning theory
For personality factors we will look in detail at these factors:
1)Neuroticism
2)Creativity
And more briefly at these factors:
3)Extraversion
4)Fantasy proneness
5)Sensation seeking
6)Locus of control
Personality Factors underlying anomalous experience
Personality Factor 1: Neuroticism
Research has linked neuroticism to increased paranormal beliefs. Neuroticism is constantly being in a negative emotional state; if you are neurotic it means you are more likely to experience anxiety, anger, guilt and depression.
How can the psychodynamic functions hypothesis be used to explain neurotic people having wider belief in anomalistic experiences?
Research linking to neuroticism and anomalistic beliefs
Williams et al (2007) Neuroticism and paranormal beliefs
Aim: To research the possible link between paranormal beliefs and Eysenck’s personality traits (including extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism) in teenagers.
Procedure: 293 participants aged 13 to 16 from a Welsh state secondary school volunteered for the study (all were invited to decline a place on the study, none did). They were measured for their personality traits using the short form revised JEPI (Junior Eysenck Personality Inventory) and the Index of Paranormal Belief, which asks participants to answer using a five-point scale from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’ on questions such as: I believe in ghosts, I believe my horoscope and I believe it’s possible to contact the spirits of the dead. The variables were correlated.
Findings: There was no correlation between paranormal beliefs in extraversion and psychoticism, but a moderate and significant correlation between neuroticism and paranormal beliefs (+0.32). Another interesting finding to note is the strength of paranormal belief in this sample.