Paranormal beliefs and cognitive function: A systematic review and assessment of study quality across four decades of research

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 over-arching executive dysfunction.

Causal illusion in the core of pseudoscientific beliefs: The role of information interpretation and search strategies

“…Given the presumably greater heterogeneity of the sample recruited for Experiment 2 (general population through an online recruitment platform) compared with Experiment 1 (psychology students), we also included additional measures aimed to assess two variables which have been previously associated with variability in unwarranted belief endorsement: intelligence and level of education [25].…”

Social Worldviews Predict the General Factor of Paranormal and Generic Conspiracist Beliefs

“…Among the vast number of bizarre things in human behavior, from pseudoscience acceptance (e.g., Lobato et al, 2014) to bullshit receptivity (e.g., Pennycook et al, 2015), a significant amount of literature devoted to paranormal beliefs (Dean et al, 2022) and conspiracy beliefs (Hornsey et al, 2023;Stasielowicz, 2022).…”

“…Different paranormal beliefs (e.g., belief in witches, in the power of amulets, in astrology, in the influence of the moon, religious beliefs, etc.) can be combined and explained by a general tendency of a person to believe in supernatural phenomena, which, in turn, is associated with a high degree of development of the intuitive type of thinking, a humanistic view of the world, a low level of development of analytical thinking and the need for cognition, as well as emotional instability (Aarnio & Lindeman, 2005; Dean et al, 2022; Lindeman & Aarnio, 2006; Prichard & Christman, 2016). One of the most productive approaches to cover different paranormal belief is the work within the Revised Paranormal Belief scale (rPBS) dealing with seven domains: Traditional religious belief, psi, witchcraft, superstitions, spiritualism, extraordinary life forms, and precognition (Drinkwater et al, 2017; Tobacyk, 2004).…”

“…Thus, they evolved to solve recurring legacy problems. Indeed, thinking prone to believing in paranormal (Dean et al, 2022) and conspiracy theories (van Prooijen & van Vugt, 2018) differs in the frequency of occurrence of Type I error (i.e., ‘false positive conclusion’). In its turn, Type I errors are well-explained from an evolutionary standpoint and can be also connected to belief in a dangerous world (Cook et al, 2018).…”

“…Thus, many forms of unfounded beliefs are widely prevalent in across societies and provide personal cost and negative societal impact that make this issue of examining why people believe what they do to vital (Lobato et al, 2014). Some unfounded beliefs as paranormal beliefs and conspiracy beliefs received much attention in the literature (Dean et al, 2022;Hornsey et al, 2023).…”