Archive for the Psychology of Religion

Spirituality is a topic of recent interest. Mindfulness, for example, a concept derived from the Buddhist tradition, has captivated the imagination of clinicians who package it in convenient intervention programs for patients. Spirituality and religion have been researched with reference to potential health benefits. Spirituality can be conceptualised as the alignment of the individual with the whole, experientially, motivationally and in action. For spirituality to unfold its true potential it is necessary to align this new movement with the mainstream of science, and vice versa. Hence, both a historical review, and a systematic attempt at integration is called for, which we are trying to give here. It is useful to go back to one of the roots: parapsychology. Parapsychology was founded as a counter movement to the rising materialist paradigm in the 19th century. Adopting the methods of the natural sciences, it tried to prove the direct influence of consciousness on matter. After 125 years this mission must be declared unaccomplished. Surveying the database of parapsychological research it is obvious that it will not convince sceptics: Although there are enough exceptional findings, it has in general not been possible to reproduce them in replication experiments. This is, however, a characteristic signature of a category of effects which we call effects of generalised entanglement, predicted by a theoretical model analogous to quantum theory. Using this perspective, parapsychological effects can be understood, and the original aim of the founding fathers can be recovered, as well as a new, systematic understanding of spirituality be gained. Generalised entanglement is a formal and scientific way of explaining spirituality as alignment of an individual with a whole, which, according to the model, inevitably leads to non-local correlations.

This paper inspires new questions, possibilities, and challenges for the scientific study of spirituality, and other experiential phenomena. First, the authors offer a refreshing conceptualization of spirituality, one that is similar to that proposed for, and supported by recent neuroscientific study of, religious experience. To what extent are spirituality and religious experience similar at the neural descriptive level? How might they be different? Second, the authors draw creatively upon Weak Quantum Theory to suggest a potentially useful and powerful theoretical model—generalized entanglement—to account for/describe spirituality, parapsychology, and possibly other experiential phenomena. This framework has potential not only to legitimize the study of such phenomena within ‘mainstream science’ (without compromising valuable holistic understandings), but also guide new scientific inquiry on spirituality and other experiential phenomena. To what extent, though, must ‘scientific’ paradigms and assumptions be re-imagined to pursue such studies? Ultimately, this paper raises challenging questions regarding the identity of ‘science’ today, the answers to which (or, at least, serious reflection upon) are needed to forward meaningful inquiry of spirituality (or any other topic). What is the ‘job’ (and, thus, interpretive limits) of ‘science’ today (e.g., explanation, description, proving ‘reality-existence’ of ‘objects’ of study)? Do all ‘sciences’ hold the same set of assumptions/have the same interpretive limits? To what extent is ‘mainstream science’ monolithic?

Nina Azari in her commentary on our article in this issue “Spirituality: The Legacy of Parapsychology” has raised the issue of what it actually takes for something to be called science. Does causality come into the picture? If so, how does causality relate to our non-local model that seems to explicitly eschew the question of causality? The answer lies in what one is willing to accept as causality. If causality can be conceived broader than just efficient-mechanistic causality then certainly our model is causal. If one insists on efficient-mechanistic causality as the only and truly scientific notion of causality, it is not. But then, I would argue, this is a very restricted and also short sighted view which should be questioned, and eventually, disregarded. This is what we have set out to do.

A brief look at the empirical literature of the past ten years reveals the clear debate raging over the pertinence of paranormal study to the field of psychology. Each of the arguments put forward by sceptics and believers is the product of the epistemological context in which they find themselves. Each addresses a different issue, using different terminology and different scientific approaches. However, these studies do reveal certain personality traits among paranormal believers who use their paranormal beliefs to exercise mental control and organisation, to cope with and manage anxiety, while moderating this with a certain emotional intelligence. Anxiety could well be a common factor underlying all aspects of the personalities of paranormal believers. It seems necessary therefore to leave psychology out of any epistemological debate, in order to enable the study of how being a paranormal believer helps or hinders the individual and their relationships. Refocusing on the experiences of the individual may provide a consensus for future research in this field.

Studies concerning the changing landscapes of religiosity and spirituality in the lives of young people in England and Wales draw attention to decline in traditional religiosity and to growth in alternative spiritualities. The present study examined whether such alternative spiritualities occupy the same personality space as traditional religiosity. A sample of 2,950 13- to 16-year-old pupils attending 11 secondary schools in England and Wales completed the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity and an index of paranormal belief, alongside the abbreviated-form Junior Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised. The data demonstrated that these two forms of belief were related in different ways to Eysenck's dimensional model of personality space. While attitude toward Christianity occupied the space defined by low psychoticism scores (tender-mindedness) and high lie scale scores (social conformity), paranormal belief was related to high psychoticism scores (toughmindedness) and was independent of lie scale scores. These findings support the view that alternative spiritualities may be associated with different personalities.

Previous empirical studies concerned with the association between paranormal beliefs and conventional religiosity have produced conflicting evidence. Drawing on Rice's (2003) distinction between classic paranormal beliefs and religious paranormal beliefs, the present study proposed a modified form of the Tobacyk Revised Paranormal Belief Scale to produce separate scores for these two forms of paranormal belief, styled ‘religious paranormal beliefs’ and ‘classic paranormal beliefs’. Data provided by a sample of 143 undergraduate students in Northern Ireland and Wales, who completed the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity alongside the Tobacyk Revised Paranormal Belief Scale, demonstrated that conventional religiosity is positively correlated with religious paranormal beliefs, but independent of classic paranormal beliefs. These findings provide a clear framework within which previous conflicting evidence can be interpreted. It is recommended that future research should distinguish clearly between these two forms of paranormal beliefs and that the Tobacyk Revised Paranormal Beliefs Scale should be routinely modified to detach the four religious paranormal belief items from the total scale score.

Both spiritual experiences and mindfulness as a psychological variable have been identified as components of wellbeing and health. As there is uncertainty about their relationship, we have investigated the impact of spiritual experiences and mindfulness as well as their interaction on distress in chronically ill patients. The unidimensional Daily Spiritual Experiences Scale (DSES), the multidimensional Exceptional Experiences Questionnaire (EEQ), the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI), and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) were administered to 109 chronically ill patients. Fifty-eight patients (53%) reported regular and frequent spiritual or contemplative practice from different traditions over an average of 14.7 years (SD = 13.7). Patients with regular spiritual practice reported more positive spiritual experiences, were more mindful and less distressed (p < .001). A stepwise linear regression analysis revealed that the EEQ subscale “negative spiritual experiences” (NSE) was the most important single predictor for psychological distress (R²=.38; β=.63). In contrast, both the EEQ subscale “positive spiritual experiences” as well as the DSES that also captures positives daily encounters with a transcendental realm or entity did not account for a significant amount of variance in distress. Further analysis of the regression model (R²=.57), confirmed that NSE was still the largest predictor for distress (β=.61) and that mindfulness (β=–.38) and the interaction between mindfulness and NSE (β=–.23) were the most important buffers protecting individuals from distress. Thus, mindfulness seems not only to be a clinically important protective factor for buffering generic distress, but particularly for distress derived from NSEs. This suggests that in addition to directly facilitating well-being and health by means of positive spiritual experiences, at least some form of regular spiritual or meditative techniques seem to endow an individual with a certain degree of resilience against negative spiritual experiences that is likely a consequence of increased mindfulness. If these findings are vindicated by further studies, spiritual experiences should not be conceived and measured as univariate but rather multivariate constructs.

The psychology of belief in the paranormal has often been used to stigmatize believers but it has also been used with a more open-minded approach. This paper describes some research of this kind in which believers were found to report more mystical experience, have more creative personalities, report more manic and depressive experience, and more magical ideation, unwittingly suggesting a link with bipolar disorder and schizotypal personality. In addition, however, these six variables were all found to correlate positively and significantly with each other. The positive manifold suggested a single underlying factor, which indeed emerged from principal components analysis. It was speculated that the underlying factor was “transliminality”—a gating mechanism modulating the flow of information and affect from subliminal levels into supraliminal. Later studies have not as clearly confirmed the existence of the positive manifold but nevertheless the concept of transliminality may be a useful one for understanding paranormal experience and hence paranormal belief.