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

People who report anomalous information reception have higher dissociation symptom scores

[version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]
PUBLISHED 23 Oct 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 communication with deceased individuals or mediumship have been dismissed as dissociative symptoms in the past, although current definitions of dissociative pathologies have been qualified to include distress from the disorder and functional disability. This study examined the relationship between dissociative symptoms and mediumship or anomalous information reception (AIR) in a large convenience sample.
Methods: Secondary analyses of cross-sectional survey data were conducted. The survey included demographics, the Dissociation Experience Scale Taxon (DES-T), and AIR data. Summary statistics and linear and logistic regressions evaluated the relationship between dissociative symptoms and AIR endorsement with and without covariates.
Results: 3,023 participants were included and 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. AIR experiences usually began in childhood (81%). Also, 53% had family members with similar AIR 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) non-claimants (11.8 ± 15.2; t = -10.3, p<0.0005). In total, 11% of non-claimants and 22% of claimants had a cut-off score greater than 30 (X 2 = 63.0, p=<0.0005).
Conclusions: Mean DES-T scores for all participants were lower than a clinical cutoff for pathological dissociation. Future studies comparing AIR claimants and non-claimants may benefit from using a more comprehensive measure of dissociative symptoms. In addition, evaluating the participant’s functional impairment would help discern the pathological versus non-pathological nature of purported AIR experiences.

Keywords

Dissociation, Anomalous information reception

Revised Amendments from Version 1

We have improved the manuscript based on feedback from our first reviewer. This version (within the constraints of a 1000 word article) includes clearer language, additional references and context of the larger literature, corrections in statistical reporting, and the addition of a Bonferroni multiple comparisons correction for the significance value cutoff.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Etzel Cardeña

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, 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 lives8.

A widespread belief possibly related to dissociative symptoms is the idea that it is possible to communicate with deceased individuals; people who report such experiences are called “mediums”9. A survey of 18,607 people in the United States and thirteen European countries found that 25% reported contact with the dead10. Some empirical literature suggests that in some cases the information obtained is accurate even under double-blind conditions1114. Claims of such abilities have been considered symptoms of dissociative disorders5,15,16. However, studies have not systematically demonstrated pathological dissociation in people who maintain mediumship claims compared to control groups or the general population17,18. Also, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th edition) requirements for pathological DID now include that “the person must be distressed by the disorder or have trouble functioning in one or more major life areas because of the disorder” and that “the disturbance is not part of normal cultural or religious practices”1.

In an effort to further our understanding on this topic, this study’s aim was to examine the relationship between self-report dissociative symptoms and anomalous information reception (AIR) about deceased humans in a large convenience sample of surveyed adults. We hypothesized that the prevalence of dissociative symptoms in people who claim these purported abilities would be the same as in those who do not maintain such claims.

Methods

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 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

Participants then completed he Dissociation Experiences Scale Taxon (DES-T)3 that distinguishes pathological dissociation with a cutoff score of 30 with an 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: the mean of the eight items; and a binary variable based on the >30 cutoff score3.

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 differences between variables by AIR status. Linear and logistic regressions examined the relationship between dissociative symptoms scores and AIR status. A conservative Bonferroni multiple comparison correction was applied to the α significance value designating 0.003 as the cutoff for a significant result (α = 0.05 divided by 19 items analyzed: seven demographic items, eight DES-T items, DES-T total, DES-T cut-off, linear and logistic regression). Statistics were performed with Stata 12.0 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, Texas).

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). Current spiritual/religious affiliation was different by AIR status.

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) compared to non-claimants (11.8 ± 15.2; t = -10.3, p<0.0005; Table 2). A linear regression model for DES-T total score and AIR status including all covariates found only race and education to be significant (F (3, 2947) = 73.2, p<0.0005). 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<0.0005). A logistic regression of the DES-T binary cutoff score and AIR status was significant with education(> college) and income (>$50,000) as significant covariates (LR X2 = 99.12, p< 0.0005).

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. * = significant at Bonferroni corrected α = 0.003.

Anomalous Information
Reception
Yes
N - 1,257
No
N - 1,766
Nt/X2p
Age51.7 ± 14.351.4 ± 16.42751−0.40.68
Range
(17–96)
Range
(17–89)
Gender (% Female)80.0%67.2%5195.990.01
Race (% Caucasian)86.5%83.6%29704.760.03
Education (% ≥ some college)87.3%88.9%29771.660.20
Income (% ≥ $50,000 annual income)38.6%35.7%27682.320.13
Childhood Spiritual/Religious
Affiliation (% Christian)
71.7%70.6%29860.440.51
Current Spiritual/Religious Affiliation
(% Spiritual but not religious)
65.9%56.1%299129.6<0.0005*

Table 2. The eight item and total means, standard deviations, and mean difference sorted by highest mean percentage by AIR endorsers.

* = significant at Bonferroni corrected α = 0.003.

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 ± 26.78.3-7.7<0.0005*
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 ± 25.711.8-11.0<0.0005*
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 ± 22.99.3-9.7<0.0005*
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 ± 28.23.9-3.6<0.0005*
6. Some people sometimes have the experience of feeling that
their body does not seem to belong to them.
20.6 ± 30.013.4 ± 24.57.2-7.2<0.0005*
1. Some people have the experience of finding themselves in
a place and having no idea how they got there.
13 ± 23.37.8 ± 17.25.2-7.06<0.0005**
2. Some people have the experience of finding new things
among their belongings that they do not remember buying.
10.4 ± 21.56.9 ± 17.43.5-4.95<0.0005
4. Some people are told that they sometimes do not recognize
friends or family members.
6.6 ± 17.74.3 ± 14.32.3-4.0.0001*
Total18.2 ± 19.311.8 ± 15.26.410.3<0.0005*
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 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” in this convenience sample. The prevalence of “contact with the dead” in other studies is variable: 10%21, 25–30%10, 29%22, and 42%23. The overall mean dissociation experience score for AIR claimants fell below the clinical cutoff for pathological dissociation despite being higher than and different to non-claimants scores. Much debate exists for the use of cutoff scores3,24. 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 generalizability of these findings. This outcome also does not clarify if AIR endorsers with high DES-T scores have the five core clinical symptoms of dissociation1. Future studies comparing AIR claimants and non-claimants may benefit from the using a more comprehensive measure of dissociative symptoms. In addition, evaluating participant’s functional impairment would help discern the pathological versus non-pathological nature of purported AIR experiences.

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.d17135225

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 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6:1416 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12019.2)
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 2
VERSION 2
PUBLISHED 23 Oct 2017
Revised
Views
23
Cite
Reviewer Report 01 Dec 2017
Adrian Parker, Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 23
The version I have seen is basically sound but needs some attention to the issues that I raise below. As a native (UK) English speaker, I can endorse that the English in this version is correct (with the exception of ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Parker A. Reviewer Report For: People who report anomalous information reception have higher dissociation symptom scores [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6:1416 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.13998.r27912)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Reader Comment 04 Jan 2018
    Helané Wahbeh, Oregon Health & Science University, USA
    04 Jan 2018
    Reader Comment
    Thank you for your thoughtful comments to our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in an attempt to address your feedback.
     
    Regarding complexity of dissociative pathology:
    We have ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Reader Comment 04 Jan 2018
    Helané Wahbeh, Oregon Health & Science University, USA
    04 Jan 2018
    Reader Comment
    Thank you for your thoughtful comments to our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in an attempt to address your feedback.
     
    Regarding complexity of dissociative pathology:
    We have ... Continue reading
Views
29
Cite
Reviewer Report 06 Nov 2017
Colin A. Ross, The Colin A. Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma, Richardson, TX, USA 
Approved
VIEWS 29
This is an interesting study with a large N. Within the limitations of the methodology, it tells us that individuals with anomalous information reception (AIR) tend to be somewhat more dissociative than those without such experiences. This is consistent with ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Ross CA. Reviewer Report For: People who report anomalous information reception have higher dissociation symptom scores [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6:1416 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.13998.r27178)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
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 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 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.