BELIEF IN EXCEPTIONAL EXPERIENCE
To read up on belief in exceptional experience, refer to pages 678–685 of Eysenck’s A2 Level Psychology.
Ask yourself
 How can we explain psychic healing?
 What is an out-of-body experience?
 What is psychic mediumship?
What you need to
RESEARCH INTO
PSYCHIC HEALING


The
importance
of using
randomised
and doubleblind trials
to conduct
research into
psychic
healing as
opposed to
anecdotal
accounts
Evaluation of
research
RESEARCH INTO
OUT-OF-BODY
EXPERIENCES


Research
into common
characteristi
cs of out-ofbody
experiences
Evaluation of
research
RESEARCH INTO
NEAR-DEATH
EXPERIENCES


Research
into neardeath
experiences
including
themes and
stages
Evaluation of
research
RESEARCH INTO
PSYCHIC
MEDIUMSHIP


Research
into psychic
mediumship
including
hypotheses
such as the
survival
hypothesis
and the
Sceptical
Hypothesis
Evaluation of
research and
hypotheses
RESEARCH INTO PSYCHIC HEALING
Psychic healing refers to the passing of some form of energy from one person to another living being with
the aim of treating the individual. This can be the laying of hands on an individual or through prayer. There
are many anecdotal accounts about how healers have performed “miracles” and cured people of a variety of
ailments. Is this reliable or valid evidence?
Scientific research requires randomised and double-blind trials; that is, participants have an equal chance of
being in the healing or non-healing group and neither they, nor the doctors who examine them to see if
their condition has improved, know which condition they are in.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE INTO PSYCHIC HEALING
 Byrd (1998, see A2 Level Psychology page 678): Over a period of 10 months,
393 patients who were admitted to a coronary care unit were randomly
allocated into two groups—one received prayer healing (n = 192) and the
remainder acted as a control group (n = 201). The study was double blind
because the participants did not know if they had experienced directed
prayers or not. Significant differences were found in favour of the prayerhealing group, as they recovered better from their conditions.
 Sicher et al. (1998, see A2 Level Psychology page 679) also conducted a
double-blind randomised trial on the effects of healing on advanced AIDS
patients. Forty patients were randomly allocated to the healing or control
group. Both groups received 10 weeks of standard medical care. In addition,
the healing group received distant healing (meaning the patient and healers
never met so completely double blind) for 1 hour per day, 6 days per week
for the 10-week period of study. Significant differences were found; the
healing group experienced fewer AIDS-defining illnesses, fewer doctor visits,
fewer hospitalisations, and much improved mood.
 Abbott et al. (2001, see A2 Level Psychology page 679) compared face-to-face
healing versus simulated face-to-face healing and distant healing in sufferers
of chronic pain versus a control group of approximately 25 participants per
group. Participants were randomly allocated and the single-blind design was
used (participants did not know which condition they were in). All
participants had 30 minutes of “healing” per week for 8 weeks. No significant
differences in pain reduction were found across all groups. The face-to-face,
simulated face-to-face, and control groups all reported significant reductions
in pain; the distant healing group did not. This study does not support the
use of healing for the sufferers of chronic pain.
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH INTO PSYCHIC HEALING
 Double-blind design. This design controls for researcher and participant
effects: in the studies that involved directed prayer and distant healing the
healers and patients did not meet. Therefore these studies are well-designed
in that they control for researcher effects (healer expectations affecting the
participant—this was prevented as they did not meet) and participant effects
(participants being more motivated to get better if they knew they were in
the healing group—this was prevented because they did not know they were
in the healing groups).
 <strong>placebo></strong>placebo>Many psychologists would claim that
“positive results” from psychic healing studies are due to the placebo
effect. That is, it is the fact that the “patients” are expecting something to
happen, or believing it will work, that brings about positive changes, and not
the healing procedure itself. So the mere suggestion from a healer that the
healing process will work results in the person receiving the healing—
believing, acting, behaving, and thinking in a different way from usual.
However, the use of double-blind designs can counter this criticism.
 <strong>confounding style="font-weight:
bold;"></strong>confounding>Confounding variables. It should be noted
that even in randomised trials there still could be other variables (like
participant variables such as belief or current mental health state) that could
be affecting the outcome measures in conjunction with, or instead of, the
healing that participants received.
 <strong>contradictory style="font-weight:
bold;"></strong>contradictory>Contradictory findings. The effects of
healing are contradictory and therefore not reliable, as some research
reports significant effects and other research does not. Such inconsistencies
may be due to the effect of confounding variables. However, the lack of
reliability means we cannot be sure what the true effects of healing are.
RESEARCH INTO OUT-OF-BODY EXPERIENCES
An out-of-body experience (OoBE) is said to occur when individuals believe that they have had a sensation
of floating out of their own body and being able to see their own body and the environment surrounding it.
Very little research has tested the validity of OoBEs due to the obvious problem of the impossibility of
testing the truth of self-report. Instead, research has focused on common characteristics across OoBEs.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE INTO OoBEs
 Alvarado (2000, see A2 Level Psychology page 680) reviewed the
phenomenology of OoBEs to examine if there were any key similarities.
Common characteristics include the experience of separation from the body;
others report seeing themselves come out of their own body and then return
to it. A minority (about 7%) experience an “astral cord”. This is a rope-like
structure that links the OoBE with the physical body to help it return. About
50% experience being in a body that is not their own, or experience a
different form of being, for example they claim to be “pure consciousness”, or
a ball of light or a cloud.
 Taking this further, Irwin and Watt (2007, see A2 Level Psychology page 680)
reviewed the circumstances of OoBEs and found a number of common
characteristics. For example, the mental state before and during the event
tends to be calm. The amount of sensory stimulation seems to have no clear
effect as some experience an OoBE after minimal sensory input such as lying
down in a dark room, whereas others have experienced a lot of sensory
stimulation. There can be some profound after-effects of an OoBE,
particularly if it happened in conjunction with a near-death experience (see
below). A final common experience is that the vast majority of experients are
happy to have another one!
Evaluation of research into OoBEs
 <strong>self-report></strong>self-report>The fact that research into OoBE
has to rely on self-report means that it has low scientific validity as such
research is open to a number of biases, including researcher expectancy,
when the researchers’ expectations cue the participants. This leads to
participant effects, such as demand characteristics, where participants report
what they think the researcher expects to hear. All of this questions the truth
and therefore the validity of the self-report.
RESEARCH INTO NEAR-DEATH EXPERIENCES
Generally, a near-death experience (NDE) is the perception reported by someone who was clinically dead
but revived or nearly died (this is the crucial difference between this and out-of-body experiences—the
latter can occur in non-life threatening situations).
RESEARCH EVIDENCE INTO NDEs
 The early work of Moody (1975, see A2 Level Psychology page 681) identified
15 themes that were quite common in NDE reports. These included finding
difficulty putting the experience into words, overhearing the news of their
own death, a dark tunnel, meeting others—usually family members, and a
review of their own life.
 Roe (2001, see A2 Level Psychology page 681) highlighted five stages of an
NDE, which could happen in any order: feelings of deep peace and wellbeing; a sense of separation from the body; entering darkness/passing
through a tunnel; seeing the light; and entering the light/beautiful garden.
van Lommel et al. (2001, see A2 Level Psychology page 681) examined NDEs
in survivors of cardiac arrest. They examined 244 cardiac patients who were
successfully resuscitated. Over 60 patients reported an NDE and these
individuals were compared to a control group who did not report one. There
were no differences between the groups on duration of cardiac arrest,
medication taken, or fear of death before the arrest. The NDE group reported
positive emotions (56%), awareness of being dead (50%), meeting with
deceased people (32%), and moving through a tunnel (31%). Some of the
NDE experients and control group were followed-up 2 years later. There
were many differences between these groups as the NDE experients were
found to be more loving, empathic (i.e. understood others better), got more
involved in their family, believed more in life after death, and appreciated the
ordinary things in life more so than the control non-NDE group.
 Parnia et al. (2001, see A2 Level Psychology page 681) interviewed all
survivors of cardiac arrest in a South of England hospital over a 1-year
period; just over 11% of the sample reported an NDE. The main features
included coming to a point of no return, feelings of joy and peace, and seeing
a bright light (interestingly, all of the NDE were non-practising Christians).
When comparing the NDE group with the other survivors, there were no
physiological differences between the groups except that the NDE had levels
of oxygen in their system that were twice as high as the other group.
 Greyson (2003, see A2 Level Psychology page 682) also examined NDEs in a
cardiac care unit. He conducted a 30-month survey on 1595 patients
admitted to a cardiac care unit. 10% of the entire sample reported having an
NDE and these were matched to controls based on medical diagnosis, gender,
and age. Members of the NDE group were more likely to have lost
consciousness, have had prior paranormal experiences, and to have an
approach-oriented death acceptance. This means that they perceive death as
a passage to a pleasant state (it should be noted that there were no
differences between the groups on fear of death).
Evaluation of research into NDEs
 <strong>prospective></strong>prospective>A strong positive of van
Lommel et al’s (2001) study is that it was prospective in nature and not
retrospective. That is, they examined the NDE just after it happened and
followed it over time (a retrospective study examines the events after they
have happened and can be years later so has the problems of memory recall).
 <strong>self-report.><></strong>self-report.><>The research on NDE is of
course self-report and so there is no way of being sure exactly how valid
(true) it is.
&
 Sample drop-off. In van Lommel et al’s study only some of the participants
were followed up 2 years later. This is likely due to sample drop-off, which
refers to the fact some of the participants will have dropped out, which
means the sample that is left is even less representative and so the

differences found between the NDE experients and the control group may be
exaggerated by the small sample and so lack validity.
 Small samples. Parnia et al. (2001) noted that the NDE sample was only four
people. Therefore, generalisability is low to other NDE groups and the
findings about the high oxygen levels may be skewed data from such a small
sample (e.g. it happened to have four people with high oxygen levels). This
means we cannot be sure about the role of oxygen in NDE experiences.
 Correlational data. The “causality” between the NDEs and the after-effects
cannot be inferred. Many believe that the experience changes your views;
however, we cannot be sure this is the case if we do not measure this before
and after a NDE. Similarly, nor can we conclude that high oxygen causes NDE
experiences as oxygen level has not been manipulated and so associations
only can be identified.
RESEARCH INTO PSYCHIC MEDIUMSHIP
Psychic mediumship refers to a type of relationship that a living person says they have with spirits.
Mediums tend to claim that they can communicate with spirits and pass on messages to loved ones “left
behind” in the “earthly” world. It is practised as part of many religions across the globe. There are many
hypotheses about mediumship, ranging from the survival hypothesis (i.e. our spirit survives after death and
can communicate) to the Sceptical Hypothesis (which predicts that the mediums’ messages are so general
that they can apply to anyone).
RESEARCH EVIDENCE INTO PSYCHIC MEDIUMSHIP
 The Sceptical Hypothesis was tested out in a series of studies run by
Robertson and Roy (2001; 2004, see A2 Level Psychology pages 682–683). 44
recipients of information were compared with 407 non-recipients. The
control group was used to see if any information from the medium was so
general that it could be accepted by them. The researchers recorded nongeneral readings as a “hit target”. The average “hit target” score for a
recipient was hugely significantly larger than the non-recipient group.
Robertson and Roy rejected the Sceptical Hypothesis; however, they wanted
to test it again.
 In a follow-up study Robertson and Roy (2004, see A2 Level Psychology page
683) tested 10 mediums whom they ensured had no prior knowledge of the
recipients. They again found that the scores for recipients were much higher
than those of the non-recipients. The probability of this happening by chance
was one in one million. They added in further controls be ensuring that
factors like body language (medium and recipients in separate rooms) and
verbal responses of the recipients (recipient instructed to give no verbal
responses) could not influence the medium. The scores for recipients were
again higher than for non-recipients, and so again Robertson and Roy
rejected the Sceptical Hypothesis.
 O’Keeffe and Wiseman (2005 see A2 Level Psychology page 683) tested five
mediums and controlled for sensory leakage, which occurs when the
mediums pre-search via the internet or telephone directories for information
on their recipients. In addition, how quickly the recipient answers “yes” or
“no” can be very useful feedback for a medium.
 O’Keeffe and Wiseman controlled for this by making sure all participants
were unknown to the medium prior to the study and that they did not
respond with “yes” or “no” answers. They also tested for the generality of
mediums’ statements by asking recipients to rate the accuracy of their own
reading and to then assess if readings from other recipients apply to them
too (called a decoy). The findings showed that not one recipient had their
highest score when they were a recipient. This means that for each recipient
a decoy set of statements was rated as more accurate than their own. This
naturally led O’Keeffe and Wiseman to accept the Sceptical Hypothesis.
EVALUATION OF RESERACH INTO PSYCHIC MEDIUMSHIP
 Lack of standardisation. In conclusion, there is conflicting evidence for the
genuineness of mediumship but the studies described here used different
techniques to score accuracy. Therefore, it is hard to rule out that it was the
technique causing the conclusions, not the ability of the mediums. This is
another example in which a set protocol ought to be agreed by researchers
and then studies can be comparable.
 Participant effects. The recipients in Robertson and Roy’s research may
have been biased in favour of reporting that the messages were more
relevant than they actually were. For all the controls the method still relies
on participants’ self-report on how relevant the messages were, and
therefore may be open to demand characteristics, the bias in which
participants give the researcher the results they expect to find.
So what does this mean?
Research into exceptional experience is difficult because there is no scientific way to test OoBE or NDE;
instead, self-report has to be used as evidence and this is subject to a number of biases that question
validity. However, not all exceptional experiences are completely lacking in scientific validity as psychic
healing has been tested using double-blind designs and findings do show that the healing had some effect.
Psychic mediumship has also been tested in a controlled manner, e.g. ensuring the medium did not know
the recipients and that they could not be influenced by body language or participants’ responses. However,
such research does still rely on participants’ self-report on how relevant the messages were, and therefore
may be open to demand characteristics, so the validity of any evidence for psychic mediumship can be
questioned.
Over to you
1. Outline and evaluate research into psychic healing, out-of-body, and/or near-death experience and
psychic mediumship. (25 marks)