Rating the Incidence of an Altered State of Consciousness as a Function of the Rater's Own Absorption Score

Abstract

Why is it that raters differ in their assessment of subjective experience? Assuming that the rater's personal involvement or experience with the subject matter would determine the location of a diagnostic threshold, individual differences in rating would be indexed by the former. In this study, independent judges were asked to assess introspective reports for the appearance of an altered state of consciousness. The rater's own absorption score was determined, and a negative correlation (r = −0.48) was found between the number of instances of an altered state of consciousness (ASC) assessed and absorption score. Interrater disagreement regarding subjective experience may therefore be a function of variability in absorption.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Glicksohn

, The Induction of an Altered State of Consciousness as a Function of Sensory Environment and Experience Seeking, Personality and Individual Differences, 12:10, pp. 1057–1066, 1991.

Ericsson

K. A.

Simon

H. A.

, Verbal Reports as Data, Psychological Review, 87:3, pp. 215–251, 1980.

Nisbett

R. E.

Wilson

T. D.

, Telling More than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes, Psychological Review, 84:3, pp. 231–259, 1977.

Ludwig

A. M.

, Altered States of Consciousness, Archives of General Psychiatry, 15, pp. 225–234, 1966.

Tart

C. T.

, States of Consciousness, Dutton, New York, 1975.

Dittrich

von Arx

Staub

, International Study on Altered States of Consciousness (ISASC), Part 1: Theoretical Considerations and Research Procedures, Revue Suisse de Psychologie, 40:3, pp. 189–200, 1981.

Dittrich

von Arx

Staub

, International Study on Altered States of Consciousness (ISASC): Summary of the Results, German Joumal of Psychology, 9:4, pp. 319–339, 1985.

Uebersax

J. S.

, Diversity of Decision-Making Models and the Measurement of Interrater Agreement, Psychological Bulletin, 101:1, pp. 140–146, 1987.

Uebersax

J. S.

, Validity Inferences from Interobserver Agreement, Psychological Bulletin, 104:3, pp. 405–416, 1988.

10.

Roche

S. M.

McConkey

K. M.

, Absorption: Nature, Assessment, and Correlates, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59:1, pp. 91–101, 1990.

11.

Pekala

R. J.

Wenger

C. F.

Levine

R. L.

, Individual Differences in Phenomenological Experience: States of Consciousness as a Function of Absorption, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48:1, pp. 125–132, 1985.

12.

Council

J. R.

Kirsch

Hafner

L. P.

, Expectancy Versus Absorption in the Prediction of Hypnotic Responding, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50:1, pp. 182–189, 1986.

13.

Glicksohn

, Belief in the Paranormal and Subjective Paranormal Experience, Personality and Individual Differences, 11:7, pp. 675–683, 1990.

14.

Tellegen

, Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire, University of Minnesota, 1982.

15.

Naish

P. L. N.

, Hypnosis and Signal Detection: An Information-Processing Account, in What is Hypnosis? Current Theories and Research, Naish

P. L. N.

(ed.), Open University Press, Milton Keynes, pp. 121–144, 1986.