Keywords
Dissociation, Anomalous information reception
Dissociation, Anomalous information reception
Dissociation is conceptualized as the disruption to usually integrated functions of consciousness, memory, identity or perception of the environment1. Dissociative Identity Disorder is defined as a personality disorder, when two or more distinct identities or personalities are present, each with its own pattern of perceiving, relating to and thinking about the environment and self. The core clinical symptoms of dissociative disorders include amnesia, depersonalization, derealization, identity confusion and identity alteration. Dissociative states are prevalent in other psychiatric disorders, such as PTSD2,3, and are more prevalent in younger nonclinical populations3. Dissociative states exist on a continuum4–6, from nonpathological expressions, such as highway hypnosis and day-dreaming, to pathological states of derealization (surrealness), and depersonalization (absence of identity)7. Almost half of United States adults have experienced a dissociative episode in their lives3.
A widespread belief possibly related to dissociation is the idea that it is possible to communicate with deceased individuals; people who report such experiences are called “mediums”8. A survey of 18,607 people in thirteen European countries found that 25% reported contact with the dead9. Some empirical literature suggests that in some cases the information obtained is accurate even under double-blind conditions10–13. Claims of such abilities are often considered to be symptoms of dissociation disorders5,14,15, despite the fact that pathological dissociation studies have not systematically indicated increased prevalence in people who maintain these claims compared to control groups or the general population16,17.
This study’s aim was to examine the relationship between self-report dissociation symptoms and anomalous information reception (AIR) about deceased humans in a large convenience sample of surveyed adults. We hypothesized that the prevalence of pathological dissociative symptoms in people who claim these purported abilities would be the same as in those who do not maintain such claims.
These analyses were performed on data collected during a larger research study approved by the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) Institutional Review Board (approval number, wahh_2016_01). A survey was administered through SurveyMonkey.com with HIPAA compliant methods. Participants were recruited through the IONS Facebook page, IONS mailing lists, including the IONS membership list, and the IONS community networks.
The survey (Supplementary File 1) began with the study’s purpose and informed consent details. Date and country of birth, race, education, and childhood and current spiritual/religious affiliation and education were collected. Gender was collected on a subsample of participants. Participants indicated if they had experienced AIR or “mediumship,” defined as the “ability to mediate communication between spirits of the dead and the living or the empathic ability to feel the presence and energies of spirits,” age of onset (if applicable), and family history of AIR.
The Dissociation Experiences Scale Taxon (DES-T)18 distinguishes pathological dissociation with a cutoff score of 30, which captures 87% positive predictive value (Cronbach Alpha of 0.75)19,20. Respondents select a percent frequency for eight dissociative symptoms. The DES-T results in two variables: a continuous variable calculated from the mean of the eight items; and a binary variable based on the >30 cutoff score18.
Categorical variable percentages were calculated and presented qualitatively. Means, standard deviations and ranges of continuous variables were calculated. Covariates included gender, age, race, education, income, childhood spirituality and current spirituality, family history, and age of the claimed ability onset. Missing values were randomly distributed except for gender. T-test and chi-square tests evaluated relationships among the demographic variables. Linear and logistic regressions evaluated dissociation variables and AIR endorsement relationships. Statistics were performed with Stata 12.0.
In total, 3984 participants took the survey from May 4, 2016 to June 7, 2017. Participants were not required to complete all fields and thus only data from 3023 participants who answered the “AIR” question (question 49 of the survey) and completed the DES-T (question 75) were included. Most participants were from the United States (62.6%) followed by the United Kingdom (7.7%) and then Canada (6.3%), and the remaining participants represented thirteen other countries. Participants were mostly middle aged (51 years ± 16; range 17-96), female (70%), Caucasian (85%), college educated (88%), had an annual income over $50,000 (55%), were raised Christian (71%), and now affiliated as Spiritual but not Religious (60%; Table 1). Gender, race and current spiritual/religious affiliation were different between people who did and did not endorse AIR.
Mean ± standard deviation; t, Student’s two-sample t-test statistic; X2, chi-square statistic; p, probability.
AIR ability was endorsed by 42% of participants, with their first experience starting in childhood (81%), and 53% having family members with similar experiences. The mean DES-T score was 14.4 ± 17.3 (range 0-100) for all participants and was significantly higher for AIR claimants (18.2 ± 19.3) as compared to non-claimants (11.8 ± 15.2; t = -10.3, p<0.000; Table 2). A DES-T continuous variable linear regression model including all covariates found only race and education to be significant. Repeating the model with these covariates resulted in a highly significant DES-T difference between groups (F (3, 2947) = 73.2, p<0.0000). For the DES-T binary cutoff score, 11% of AIR non-endorsers and 22% of AIR endorsers had a cut-off score greater than 30 (X2 = 63.0, p<0.000). These values are significantly different with education (> college) and income (>$50,000) as covariates in a logistic regression (LR X2 = 99.12, p< 0.0000).
Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation. DES-T, Dissociation Experiences Scale Taxon; t - Student’s two-sample t-test statistic; p, probability.
In total, 42% of participants endorsed AIR experiences in this convenience sample, similar to other prevalence belief studies9,21,22. The overall dissociation mean score for AIR respondents fell below the clinical cutoff for pathological dissociation despite being higher than and different to non-endorser scores. Much debate exists for the use of cutoff scores18,23. Notably, the top five endorsed DES-T items were consistent with an AIR experience. Also, our total samples grand mean DES-T score was higher than observed in random general population samples19. This likely reflects the convenience sampling method for this survey, which reduces the generality of these findings. This outcome also does not clarify if AIR endorsers with high DES-T scores have the five core clinical symptoms of dissociation. Future studies comparing AIR claimants versus non-claimants may benefit by incorporating comprehensive dissociation symptom measurement, as well as their effects on the person’s functionality.
Dataset 1: Dissociation symptoms for those with and without self-report anomalous information reception. DT# are the Dissociation Experience Scale Taxon items. doi, 10.5256/f1000research.12019.d17135224
This work was supported by FUNDAÇÃO BIAL (grant number No. 257/14).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
The authors would like to thank Amira Sagher, Leena Michel and the Institute of Noetic Sciences.
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
No
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
No
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
No
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
No
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | |||
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | |
Version 3 (revision) 04 Jan 18 |
read | ||
Version 2 (revision) 23 Oct 17 |
read | read | |
Version 1 10 Aug 17 |
read |
Click here to access the data.
Spreadsheet data files may not format correctly if your computer is using different default delimiters (symbols used to separate values into separate cells) - a spreadsheet created in one region is sometimes misinterpreted by computers in other regions. You can change the regional settings on your computer so that the spreadsheet can be interpreted correctly.
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)