Psi Phenomena Valid? New Evidence Examined
On this page
Why do some people experience 'the impossible' while others never do?
A personality test reveals why some people are prone to paranormal experiences.
In Barcelona, psychologist Álex Escolà-Gascón wanted to understand why some healthy, sane people report impossible experiences—ghosts, premonitions, strange coincidences—while others live their entire lives without such moments. In 2020, he tested a comprehensive new questionnaire on over 800 people, split evenly between firm believers and complete skeptics, to map the psychological terrain of the paranormal.
Key Findings
- The test worked reliably for both groups—it measured the same underlying traits in skeptics and believers alike.
- Believers scored significantly higher on four key areas: anomalous experiences themselves, certain personality patterns, suggestibility to influence, and altered states of consciousness (like deep absorption or daydreaming).
- The statistical models showed that specific psychological traits, not mental illness, predict who will report paranormal experiences.
What Is This About?
The researchers developed a detailed questionnaire called the MMSI-2 that asks about unusual experiences, thinking patterns, and personality quirks. They gave this to 804 adults with no history of mental illness—exactly half who believed in paranormal things and half who didn't. Then they used statistics to check if the questionnaire actually measured what it claimed to measure, and whether it worked the same way for both groups. They also looked for specific psychological patterns that might explain why believers report more strange experiences.
Psychometric validation study using confirmatory factor analysis and latent means analysis on a questionnaire measuring anomalous experiences and psychological traits, comparing 804 believers vs. non-believers.
The MMSI-2 demonstrated strong factorial invariance and reliability; believers scored significantly higher than non-believers on four latent variables including altered states of consciousness and suggestibility.
How Good Is the Evidence?
804 participants—about the passenger capacity of two Boeing 747s—split exactly 50/50 between believers and skeptics. This large, balanced sample allowed researchers to detect that believers scored higher across all four measured dimensions, with statistical confidence that this wasn't due to chance.
Supporters argue this validates anomalous experiences as real psychological phenomena worthy of study, showing that certain cognitive styles act as 'receptors' for psi. Skeptics counter that the study merely maps personality differences—believers are simply more suggestible and prone to unusual perceptual experiences—and that measuring subjective belief is not evidence of objective paranormal abilities.
Mainstream: The MMSI-2 identifies normal personality variations like suggestibility that lead people to misinterpret ordinary experiences as paranormal. / Moderate: Certain psychological traits (absorption, dissociation) create states where anomalous experiences are more likely to occur, whether through enhanced perception or cognitive filtering. / Frontier: The test measures genuine psi sensitivity, with specific psychological states serving as conduits for information that transcends normal sensory limits.
Many assume people who report paranormal experiences must be mentally ill or 'crazy.' This study specifically excluded anyone with psychiatric history and still found clear differences between believers and skeptics. The experiences correlate with traits like absorption and suggestibility—normal variations in human psychology—not pathology.
To demonstrate that these psychological traits facilitate actual psi abilities rather than just correlate with belief, we would need controlled experiments where people high in these traits perform better on objective psi tasks (like predicting random numbers) than control groups. This study provides a reliable measurement tool for such future research but does not itself test whether anomalous experiences reflect real information transfer or just internal psychology.
The results allowed accepting the 'strong factorial invariance' for the internal structure of the MMSI-2... latent means analysis indicated that believers had higher scores than non-believers in the 4 latent variables of the test.
Stance: Supportive
What Does It Mean?
Just as a musical taste quiz can predict whether you're introverted or extroverted, this psychological profile uses questions about imagination, perception, and unusual experiences to predict whether you're likely to notice (or believe in) 'impossible' coincidences around you.
When comparing two groups (like believers vs. skeptics), researchers must first prove their measurement tool works the same way for both groups—otherwise, score differences might reflect test bias rather than real psychological differences.
Understanding Terms
What This Study Claims
Findings
The MMSI-2 demonstrates strong factorial invariance between paranormal believers and non-believers, indicating the test measures the same underlying constructs reliably across both groups.
moderatePeople who believe in paranormal phenomena score significantly higher than skeptics on four latent variables: anomalous experiences, clinical personality tendencies, incoherent manipulations, and altered states of consciousness.
moderateClinical personality tendencies, suggestibility, and altered states of consciousness serve as significant psychological predictors for reporting anomalous experiences.
moderateMethodology
The MMSI-2 is a valid and reliable instrument for objectively evaluating anomalous phenomena in non-clinical populations.
moderateInterpretations
Differences between believers and non-believers reflect measurable psychological traits rather than psychopathology, as all participants were screened for psychiatric history.
moderateThis summary is for general information about current research. It does not constitute medical advice. The scientific interpretation of these results is debated among researchers. If personally affected, please consult qualified professionals.