/
Middle Tennessee State University Middle Tennessee State University

Middle Tennessee State University - PowerPoint Presentation

stefany-barnette
stefany-barnette . @stefany-barnette
Follow
350 views
Uploaded On 2018-11-19

Middle Tennessee State University - PPT Presentation

http caponemtsuedu wlangsto PsychonomicsF18pptx William Langston amp Iska Frosh Comparing Paranormal Believers and SelfIdentified Geeks BACKGROUND RESULTS The data provide clear information about the role of identity in behavior and the relationships between identity and e ID: 730897

ghost identity belief amp identity ghost amp belief geek personality doi http org religious experience paranormal groups scale journal

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Middle Tennessee State University" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Middle Tennessee State Universityhttp://capone.mtsu.edu/wlangsto/PsychonomicsF18.pptx

William Langston & Iska Frosh

Comparing Paranormal Believers and Self-Identified Geeks

BACKGROUND

RESULTS

The data provide clear information about the role of identity in behavior, and the relationships between identity and experience and personality.

We have limited information from these data on how experience might turn into belief that might then turn into identity. Better measures and more comprehensive measures will allow us to follow the clues in these data.

DISCUSSION

References

Banziger, G. (1983). Normalizing the paranormal: Short-term and long-term change in belief in the paranormal among older learners during a short course. Teaching of Psychology, 10, 212-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top1004_6Batey, M. (2007). A psychometric investigation of everyday creativity. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of London.Glick, P., Gottesman, D., & Jolton, J. (1989). The fault is not in the stars: Susceptibility of skeptics and believers in astrology to the Barnum effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 572-583. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167289154010Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: A reexamination of Murray’s narcissism scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 588-599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2204Hergovich, A. (2004). The effect of pseudo-psychic demonstrations as dependent on belief in paranormal phenomena and suggestibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 365-380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00102-8Laythe, B., & Owen, K. (2012). Paranormal belief and the strange case of haunt experiences: Evidence of a neglected population. Journal of Parapsychology, 76, 79-108.Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018McCain, J., Gentile, B., & Campbell, W. K. (2015). A psychological exploration of engagement in geek culture. PLoS ONE, 10(11), e0142200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142200Nieto-Hernandez, R., Rubin, G. J., Cleare, A. J., Weinman, J. A., & Wesseley, S. (2008). Can evidence change belief? Reported mobile phone sensitivity following initial feedback of an inability to discriminate active from sham signals. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 65, 453-460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.04.005Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., & Freed, G. L. (2014). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics, 133, e835. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2365Raine, A., & Benishay, D. (1995). The SPQ-B: A brief screening instrument for schizotypal personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 9, 346-355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.1995.9.4.346Russell, D., & Jones, W. H. (1980). When superstition fails: Reactions to disconfirmation of paranormal beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 83-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014616728061012Tobacyk, J., & Milford, G. (1983). Belief in paranormal phenomena: Assessment instrument development and implications for personality functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1029-1037. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.5.1029Wiseman, R., Watt, C., Greening, E., Stevens, P., & O’Keeffe, C. (2002). An investigation into the alleged haunting of Hampton Court Palace: Psychological variables and magnetic fields. The Journal of Parapsychology, 66, 387-408.

OpenClosedBeliever(1)Langston, Hunt, Hubbard, Anderson, & Fehrman (in preparation): Prior belief did not bias participants’ attention to a video showing communication with a ghost(2)Nyhan, Reifler, Richey, & Freed (2014): Those with the least favorable attitudes towards vaccines didn’t change intent or decreased intent after interventionNieto-Hernandez, Rubin, Cleare, Weinman, & Wessely (2008): Provided feedback to people “sensitive” to cell phone signals that they couldn’t actually detect signals; no change in symptoms based on feedbackNon-believer(3)Glick, Gottesman, & Jolton (1989): Non-believers in astrology increased their belief when receiving positive descriptionsBanziger (1983): People relatively neutral on the subject of paranormal belief decreased belief after a short course(4)Hergovich (2004): Skeptics not persuaded by a “paranormal” demonstration

People can be divided into four groups based on prior belief and whether or not they are open to the possibility that evidence can influence their beliefs.

ParticipantsParticipants were recruited at the Shadow Walk ghost tours on the Murfreesboro, TN town square in October 2016 (N = 100) and from the Geek Media Expo in Franklin, TN in October 2016 (N = 148).Average age = 32.91 (SD = 11.26; 18-72; Nreporting = 215); 97 male, 116 female, 4 nonbinary; 136 had at least some college, 43 had a high school diploma or associates degree; 50 attended religious services weekly, 189 did not; 169 identified as a geek, 74 did not; 151 identified as a ghost believer, 90 did not; 106 reported probably or above on a ghost encounter, 85 were unsure, 53 had not encountered a ghost.The ghost walkers were older (38.11 vs. 29.83, t[213] = 5.57, d = .73); the percentage of women was greater for the ghost walkers (66% vs. 48%); and the percentage attending weekly religious services was higher for the ghost walkers (28% vs. 16%). There were no differences in education or ghost encounters between the two populations.

MeasuresIdentityGhost: “I consider myself to be a ghost believer”; three identity questions if “yes”, “part of who I am,” “how I describe myself,” and “wouldn’t be the same if stopped” (ghost identity scale ∝ = .86; derived from McCain, Gentile, & Campbell, 2015).Geek: “I consider myself to be a ‘geek’”; three identity questions if “yes”, “part of who I am,” “how I describe myself,” and “wouldn’t be the same if stopped” (geek identity scale ∝ = .85; derived from McCain, Gentile, & Campbell, 2015).Religious: Median split on religious intensity (1-3 = no, N = 106; 4-5 = yes, N = 74).ExperiencePersonal ghost encounter (number of encounters, properties of an encounter).BeliefBelief scale derived from the Paranormal Belief Scale (PBS; Tobacyk & Milford, 1983): Ghost belief was assessed with the question “I believe in the existence of ghosts” (Wiseman, Watt, Greening, Stevens, & O’Keeffe, 2002), 2 PBS items, “The soul continues to exist though the body may die,” and “It is possible to communicate with the dead,” plus “It is possible for places to be haunted” (Laythe & Owen, 2012; ∝ = .87). The Extraordinary Life Forms and Precognition subscales of the PBS were also included (alphas .88 and .77). All items were anchored with Strongly Disagree and Strongly Agree.BehaviorGhost tours, ghost investigations.Attending religious services weekly.Going to a geek convention (based on where they were surveyed).PersonalitySchizotypal Personality Questionnaire-Brief (SPQ-B, Raine & Benishay, 1995): 22-item scale; three subscales, cognitive-perceptual factor (CPF; magical thinking/unusual perception), interpersonal factor (IF; social anxiety), and disorganized factor (DF; odd behavior). Answered “yes” or “no.”Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (Hendin & Cheek, 1997): 10 items (e.g., “I dislike sharing the credit of an achievement with others”). All items were anchored with Strongly Disagree and Strongly Agree.Biographical Inventory of Creative Behaviors (BICB; Batey, 2007): 33 creative activities to endorse (e.g., “made a collage”). Answered “yes” or “no.”Demographic itemsAge, gender, education level.

METHOD

Questions:What is the difference between boxes (1) and (2)? Hypothesis: If a belief is part of a person’s identity, they will be less likely to accept contradictory evidence (“who I am” vs. “a thing I happen to believe”; we are treating “open” and “closed” as belief specific; a state, not a trait).Lewandowsky, Ecker, Seifert, Schwarz, & Cook (2012): Strong investment in a worldview makes it difficult to accommodate contradictory information (p. 120)Russell & Jones (1980): Believers experience more negative emotion when beliefs are disconfirmed.What’s going on in boxes (3) and (4)?Can “skeptic” be an identity? What experiences support it?This research is an attempt to explore some aspects of identity to evaluate the questions above:What does identity do (relationships with behavior, experience, and personality)?What is identity? Where does it come from? Can we get clues as to how a believer moves into box (2) or a skeptic into box (4)?

Ghost Identity-Behavior

Geek Identity-Behavior

Religious Identity-Behavior

What is the relationship between identity and behavior?

Ghost identity more likely to tour and investigate; no relationship with weekly attendance or geek attendance.

Geek identity less likely to tour, less likely to attend weekly, more likely to attend a geek convention (note the issue with the measure); no relationship with investigating.

Religious identity more likely to tour, more likely to attend weekly, less likely to to attend geek; no relationship with investigating.

RESULTS (cont’d.)

Ghost-Religion Groups

Ghost-Geek Groups

What are the relationships between identity and experience and personality?

Ghost identity-religious identity: experience has both ghost groups higher, SPQ-B CPF has ghost-only group highest.

Ghost identity-geek identity: experience has both ghost groups higher, BICB and DF have both geek groups higher; CPF neither differs from ghost-only, both eithers differ from double.

Geek identity-religious identity: narcissism and CPF have geek higher than religious; BICB and DF have both geek groups higher.

What is the possible source of belief as identity?

Personal ghost experience is the strongest predictor of ghost identity.

Step

B

B

SE

R

2

F

(1, 114)

∆R

2

FchangepStep 1Personal ghost experience.38.08.1825.49<.001

Mediatorabcc'abCIPMGhost belief.16.37.30.35.06.01-.15.16

This relationship is mediated by belief in ghosts.

Geek-Religion Groups

Exper

-

ience

Narc-

issism

BICB

SPQ-B

CPF

SPQ-B

IF

SPQ-B

DF