Urban Legends and Paranormal Beliefs: The Role of Reality Testing and Schizotypy

Abstract

Recent research suggests that unconventional beliefs are locatable within a generic anomalous belief category. This notion derives from the observation that apparently dissimilar beliefs share fundamental, core characteristics (i.e., contradiction of orthodox scientific understanding of the universe and defiance of conventional understanding of reality). The present paper assessed the supposition that anomalous beliefs were conceptually similar and explicable via common psychological processes by comparing relationships between discrete beliefs [endorsement of urban legends (ULs) and belief in the paranormal] and cognitive-perceptual personality measures [proneness to reality testing (RT) and schizotypy]. A sample of 222 volunteers, recruited via convenience sampling, took part in the study. Participants completed a series of self-report measures (Urban Legends Questionnaire, Reality Testing subscale of the Inventory of Personality Organization, Revised Paranormal Belief Scale and the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire Brief). Preliminary analysis revealed positive correlations between measures. Within schizotypy, the cognitive-perceptual factor was most strongly associated with anomalistic beliefs; disorganized and interpersonal produced only weak and negligible correlations respectively. Further investigation indicated complex relationships between RT, the cognitive-perceptual factor of schizotypy and anomalistic beliefs. Specifically, proneness to RT deficits explained a greater amount of variance in ULs, whilst schizotypy accounted for more variance in belief in the paranormal. Consideration of partial correlations supported these conclusions. The relationship between RT and ULs remained significant after controlling for the cognitive-perceptual factor. Contrastingly, the association between the cognitive-perceptual factor and ULs controlling for RT was non-significant. In the case of belief in the paranormal, controlling for proneness to RT reduced correlation size, but relationships remained significant. This study demonstrated that anomalistic beliefs vary in nature and composition. Findings indicated that generalized views of anomalistic beliefs provide only limited insight into the complex nature of belief.

Understanding Conspiracy Theories

“…However, conspiracy theories might appear to satisfy some epistemic motives at the expense of others. For example, conspiracy belief has been linked to the conjunction fallacy (Brotherton & French, ; Dagnall, Denovon, Drinkwater, Parker, & Clough, ), which is an error of probabilistic reasoning whereby people overestimate the likelihood of co‐occurring events (Tversky & Kahneman, ). Other researchers have shown that projection of one’s own personal beliefs onto others is associated with conspiracy belief—that is, the belief that “they conspire” is in part the result of the belief that “I would conspire” (Douglas & Sutton, ).…”

Psychometric assessment of the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale

“…IPO-RT. The IPO-RT assessed proneness to reality testing deficits [58][59][60]. Specifically, the capacity to differentiate self from non-self, intrapsychic from external stimuli, and to maintain empathy with ordinary social criteria of reality [57].…”

Lucid Dreaming, Nightmares, and Sleep Paralysis: Associations With Reality Testing Deficits and Paranormal Experience/Belief

“…this paper examined the degree to which reality testing predicted lucid dreaming. Congruent with this perspective, researchers use the IPO-RT as an indirect, proxy measure of intuitive thinking style (Dagnall et al, 2017). This approach derives from the work of Epstein (1990Epstein ( , 1994, who developed cognitive-experiential selftheory, which differentiates experiential (fast, automatic, holistic, and characterized by proneness to generalization/association) and rational (slow, intentional, effortful, and logical) processing.…”

“…Recognizing this, the present paper treated the IPO-RT as a multidimensional measure. The factorial structure selected derived from Dagnall et al (2017), who identified four factors: hallucinations (auditory and visual), delusional thinking (beliefs contrary to reality), social deficits (difficulties reading social cues), and sensory/perceptual confusion (inability to understand feelings and sensations). These factors accounted for 55% of response variance and were conceptually congruent with the construct of reality testing within the IPO-RT (Bell et al, 1985;Caligor and Clarkin, 2010).…”

“…This perspective derives from an information-processing approach to belief generation (see Langdon and Coltheart, 2000). Consequently, researchers use the IPO-RT to assess proneness to reality testing deficits (Irwin, 2004;Dagnall et al, 2017). Particularly, as an index of the tendency to engage in subjective-intuitive thinking (Denovan et al, 2017).…”