Paranormal beliefs and cognitive function: A systematic review and assessment of study quality across four decades of research
📄 Original study ↗📌 Appears in:
Plain English Summary
Do paranormal believers think differently? This big review examined 71 studies spanning four decades and nearly 21,000 participants. The answer is a consistent yes: two-thirds found believers perform worse on cognitive tasks. The standout finding? Every study testing thinking style found believers lean on gut intuition over analytical reasoning. Believers also showed more confirmation bias, struggled with logical reasoning, and had trouble spotting randomness. The authors propose a tidy explanation: these scattered weaknesses may trace back to weaker executive function -- the brain's CEO managing planning and flexible thinking. But the field itself needs work. Only 3% of studies were preregistered, 7% calculated needed sample sizes, and 63% relied on college students. Studies averaged 43 statistical tests while barely correcting for multiple comparisons -- a recipe for false positives.
Actual Paper Abstract
Background Research into paranormal beliefs and cognitive functioning has expanded considerably since the last review almost 30 years ago, prompting the need for a comprehensive review. The current systematic review aims to identify the reported associations between paranormal beliefs and cognitive functioning, and to assess study quality. Method We searched four databases (Scopus, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and OpenGrey) from inception until May 2021. Inclusion criteria comprised papers published in English that contained original data assessing paranormal beliefs and cognitive function in healthy adult samples. Study quality and risk of bias was assessed using the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) and results were synthesised through narrative review. The review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was preregistered as part of a larger registration on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/uzm5v). Results From 475 identified studies, 71 (n = 20,993) met our inclusion criteria. Studies were subsequently divided into the following six categories: perceptual and cognitive biases (k = 19, n = 3,397), reasoning (k = 17, n = 9,661), intelligence, critical thinking, and academic ability (k = 12, n = 2,657), thinking style (k = 13, n = 4,100), executive function and memory (k = 6, n = 810), and other cognitive functions (k = 4, n = 368). Study quality was rated as good-to-strong for 75% of studies and appears to be improving across time. Nonetheless, we identified areas of methodological weakness including: the lack of preregistration, discussion of limitations, a-priori justification of sample size, assessment of nonrespondents, and the failure to adjust for multiple testing. Over 60% of studies have recruited undergraduates and 30% exclusively psychology undergraduates, which raises doubt about external validity. Our narrative synthesis indicates high heterogeneity of study findings. The most consistent associations emerge for paranormal beliefs with increased intuitive thinking and confirmatory bias, and reduced conditional reasoning ability and perception of randomness. Conclusions Although study quality is good, areas of methodological weakness exist. In addressing these methodological issues, we propose that authors engage with preregistration of data collection and analysis procedures. At a conceptual level, we argue poorer cognitive performance across seemingly disparate cognitive domains might reflect the influence of an overarching executive dysfunction.
Research Notes
First systematic review of this literature since Irwin (1993). Key methodological critique: field relies heavily on undergraduate samples (63%), lacks preregistration (3%), and fails to correct for multiple comparisons despite averaging 43 p-values per study. Proposes fluid-executive model as parsimonious explanation for cognitive deficits. Important for understanding individual-differences approach to psi belief, though does not directly test psi phenomena. Senior author Keith Laws has published extensively on cognitive neuropsychology and psi methodology.
Systematic review of 71 studies (N=20,993) examining associations between paranormal beliefs and cognitive functioning published 1980-2021. Study quality was assessed using the AXIS tool. Results show 75% of studies rated good-to-strong quality, with quality improving over time. Most consistent findings: paranormal belief associated with increased intuitive thinking style (8/8 studies), increased confirmatory bias, poorer conditional reasoning, and reduced perception of randomness. Two-thirds of studies document poorer cognitive performance in believers. Major methodological weaknesses identified: only 7% included a-priori power analyses, 3% preregistered, 63% used undergraduate samples, 17% corrected for multiple comparisons. Authors propose a fluid-executive model suggesting disparate cognitive deficits may reflect common underlying executive dysfunction.
Links
Related Papers
More in Methodology
Paranormal belief, conspiracy endorsement, and positive wellbeing: a network analysis
Planning Falsifiable Confirmatory Research
Addressing Researcher Fraud: Retrospective, Real-Time, and Preventive Strategies — Including Legal Points and Data Management That Prevents Fraud
Quantum Aspects of the Brain-Mind Relationship: A Hypothesis with Supporting Evidence
Experimental evidence of non-classical brain functions
📋 Cite this paper
Dean, Charlotte E, Akhtar, Shazia, Gale, Tim M, Irvine, Karen, Grohmann, Dominique, Laws, Keith R (2022). Paranormal beliefs and cognitive function: A systematic review and assessment of study quality across four decades of research. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267360
@article{dean_2022_paranormal_beliefs_cognition,
title = {Paranormal beliefs and cognitive function: A systematic review and assessment of study quality across four decades of research},
author = {Dean, Charlotte E and Akhtar, Shazia and Gale, Tim M and Irvine, Karen and Grohmann, Dominique and Laws, Keith R},
year = {2022},
journal = {PLoS ONE},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0267360},
}