ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Research Note

People who report anomalous information reception have higher dissociation symptom scores

[version 1; peer review: 1 not approved]
PUBLISHED 10 Aug 2017
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background: Dissociative states exist on a continuum from nonpathological expressions, such as highway hypnosis and day-dreaming, to pathological states of derealization and depersonalization. Claims of anomalous information reception (AIR) are often dismissed as symptoms of dissociation disorder, despite other studies that show otherwise. This study examined the relationship of dissociation symptoms and AIR in a large convenience sample (n= 3,984).
Methods: These secondary analyses of cross-sectional survey data were examined. The survey included demographics, the Dissociation Experience Scale Taxon, and AIR data. Summary statistics and linear and logistic regressions evaluated dissociation variables and AIR endorsement relationships with and without covariates.
Results: 3023 respondents with complete data were included. 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%). 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 dissociation 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). In total, 11% of AIR non-endorsers and 22% of AIR endorsers had a cut-off score greater than 30 (X2 = 63.0, p=<0.000).
Conclusions: Both AIR claimants and non-claimants scored lower than the clinical cutoff for dissociation, with the claimants having significantly higher scores. 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, to discern the pathological versus non-pathological nature of purported AIR experiences.

Keywords

Dissociation, Anomalous information reception

Introduction

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 continuum46, 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 conditions1013. 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.

Methods

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.

Measure

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.

Statistical analysis

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.

Results

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.

Table 1. Demographic variables for participants by purported ability for anomalous information reception about deceased humans.

Mean ± standard deviation; t, Student’s two-sample t-test statistic; X2, chi-square statistic; p, probability.

Anomalous information
reception
Yes
(N=1257)
No
(N=1766)
Nt/X2p
Age, years
Range
51.7 ± 14.3
17-96
51.4 ± 16.4
17-89
2751-0.40.68
Gender (% female)80675195.900.01
Race (% Caucasian)878429704.760.03
Education (% ≥ some
college)
878929771.660.20
Income (% ≥ $50,000 annual
income)
393627682.320.13
Childhood spiritual/religious
affiliation (% Christian)
727129860.400.51
Current spiritual/religious
affiliation (% spiritual but
not religious)
6656299129.600.00

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).

Table 2. The eight item and total means, standard deviations, and mean difference sorted by highest mean percentage by anomalous information reception.

Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation. DES-T, Dissociation Experiences Scale Taxon; t - Student’s two-sample t-test statistic; p, probability.

Anomalous information
reception
DES-T ItemYes
(n=1257)
No
(n=1766)
Mean
difference
tp
5. Some people sometimes have the experience
of feeling that other people, objects, and the world
around them are not real.
25.8 ± 32.017.5 ± 26.78.3-7.10.0000
8. Some people sometimes find that they hear
voices inside their head which tell them to do things
or comment on things that they are doing.
25.5 ± 33.513.7 ± 25.711.8-4.90.0000
3. Some people sometimes have the experience
of feeling as though they are standing next to
themselves or watching themselves do something
and they actually see themselves as though they
were looking at another person.
22.2 ± 29.812.9 ± 22.99.3-9.70.0000
7. Some people find that in one situation they may
act so differently compared to another situation that
they feel almost as if they were two different people.
21.5 ± 30.617.6 ± 28.23.9-4.00.0001
6. Some people sometimes have the experience of
feeling that their body does not seem to belong to
them.
20.6 ± 30.013.4 ± 24.57.2-7.70.0000
1. Some people have the experience of finding
themselves in a place and having no idea how they
got there.
13.0 ± 23.37.8 ± 17.25.2-7.20.0000
2. Some people have the experience of finding
new things among their belongings that they do not
remember buying.
10.4 ± 21.56.9 ± 17.43.5-3.60.0003
4. Some people are told that they sometimes do not
recognize friends or family members.
6.6 ± 17.74.3 ± 14.32.3-110.0000
Total18.2 ± 19.311.8 ± 15.26.410.30.0000
Dataset 1.Dissociation symptoms for those with and without self-report anomalous information reception.
DT# are the Dissociation Experience Scale Taxon items.

Discussion

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.

Data availability

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

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3
VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 10 Aug 2017
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Wahbeh H and Radin D. People who report anomalous information reception have higher dissociation symptom scores [version 1; peer review: 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6:1416 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12019.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 10 Aug 2017
Views
73
Cite
Reviewer Report 21 Aug 2017
Etzel Cardeña, Center for Research on Consciousness and Anomalous Psychology (CERCAP), Department of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden 
Not Approved
VIEWS 73
This paper is a good example of why the F1000Research model is so bad... The manuscript is poorly written, does not show a good grasp of the relevant literature or that a good literature search was conducted, misrepresents some of its ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Cardeña E. Reviewer Report For: People who report anomalous information reception have higher dissociation symptom scores [version 1; peer review: 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6:1416 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.12999.r24906)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 23 Oct 2017
    Helané Wahbeh, Oregon Health & Science University, USA
    23 Oct 2017
    Author Response
    Response to Reviewer #1

    "This paper is a good example.....so that at the end the only publicly available version would have been an adequate one."
    -Thank you for you ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 23 Oct 2017
    Helané Wahbeh, Oregon Health & Science University, USA
    23 Oct 2017
    Author Response
    Response to Reviewer #1

    "This paper is a good example.....so that at the end the only publicly available version would have been an adequate one."
    -Thank you for you ... Continue reading

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3
VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 10 Aug 2017
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

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.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.