Brandon Jon Massullo1
James Houran2
Alex Escolá Gascón3
Ciarán O’Keeffe4
Kenneth Graham Drinkwater5
Neil Dagnall5*- 1Wooster Community Hospital, Wooster, OH, United States
- 2Integrated Knowledge Systems, Dallas, TX, United States
- 3Comillas Pontifical University, Madrid, Spain
- 4Buckinghamshire New University, High Wycombe, United Kingdom
- 5Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom
Introduction: ‘Apparitions, hauntings, and poltergeists’ are universally reported phenomena with significant psychological and social implications. Despite their prevalence, the scientific study of these anomalous experiences remains fragmented, and misinformation is widespread. To address this gap, a resource titled “Fact Sheet: Ghostly Episodes at a Glance” was developed to provide an evidence-based summary for educational and clinical use.
Methods: This preliminary study evaluated the Fact Sheet’s content validity through an AI-based verification procedure. Additionally, we assessed its accessibility, utility, and global favorability among four groups: lay percipients, lay non-percipients (information-seekers), clinical practitioners, and amateur paranormal investigators (information-providers).
Results: The Fact Sheet demonstrated strong content validity, accessibility, usefulness, and favorability across all groups. However, participants suggested refinements to enhance readability and contextual depth. Statistical analysis revealed small but significant differences in global favorability scores, with information-providers more strongly endorsing the resource than information-seekers.
Conclusion: These findings underscore the importance of scientifically-grounded, accessible resources in educating diverse audiences about anomalous experiences. The study highlights the value of data-driven public education in this domain and offers specific recommendations for improving future iterations of the Fact Sheet to boost engagement and comprehension in both educational and clinical settings.
Introduction
Encounters with ostensible spirits or non-human entities are central to many religio-spiritual traditions and practices (Plante and Schwartz, 2021; Santos and Michaels, 2022; Wilt et al., 2022). Their relevance also reaches secular contexts (Goldstein et al., 2007; Hill et al., 2018; Houran and Lange, 2001), with studies (e.g., Haraldsson, 1985; Laythe et al., 2018; Ross and Joshi, 1992) consistently indicating that a significant percentage of the general population has experienced ‘ghosts, hauntings, or poltergeists’ (collectively termed ‘ghostly episodes’ in this paper). For example, a large survey by the Pew Research Center (2009) found that 18% of Americans reported having seen or been in the presence of a ghost. Similarly, Moore’s (2005) survey indicated that around one-third of Americans believe in ghosts, with 37% reporting personal experiences that they interpreted as supernatural encounters. McClenon (2012) similarly found that 40% of respondents in a community survey had perceived an “apparition.” Another large-scale study by the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (ASSAP) found that 40% of UK respondents reported experiences they considered to be hauntings or encounters with ghosts (Castro et al., 2014). Poltergeist-like disturbances featuring physical anomalies—e.g., percussive knockings or objects displacements (Dullin, 2024)—are less common but still reported (Houran et al., 2019). Watt et al. (2015) noted that 12% of respondents had encountered unusual physical events they interpreted as poltergeist activity. Overall, these findings suggest that belief in, and experiences of, ghostly episodes are relatively widespread across different cultural contexts, highlighting an area of common curiosity and personal significance for many people (Goldstein et al., 2007; Hill et al., 2018; Houran and Lange, 2001).
The deeply emotional or psychological effects that ghostly episodes often elicit (Coelho et al., 2021; Evrard et al., 2021; Houran et al., 2022) can motivate percipients to seek academic or clinical support with understanding the nature or meaning of their experiences. Unfortunately, many lay-oriented websites, podcasts, and books sensationalize the topic or provide information of either inconsistent or dubious quality (Hill, 2017; Hill et al., 2018; Potts, 2004). For instance, many sources use various vernaculars to claim incorrectly that ghostly episodes have been ‘scientifically-validated’ as being ‘paranormal or demonic’ phenomena. We think that these assertions are fundamentally unethical for promoting or confirming emotion-based beliefs versus representing evidence-based conclusions from peer-reviewed research (see, e.g., Andrade, 2017). Such proclamations also can heighten people’s distress by fueling their pre-existing fears or anxieties about the ontological reality of supernatural forces (cf. de Oliveira-Souza, 2018; Lange and Houran, 1999). These circumstances—in tandem with a modern case study of a help-seeking ‘haunted person’—encouraged Houran et al. (2024) to develop a Fact Sheet promoting awareness and responsible education on the topic of ghostly episodes. Accordingly, their tool aims to normalize versus pathologize these phenomena in line with the person-centered philosophy of modern clinical approaches to anomalous experiences (Hastings, 1983; Rabeyron, 2022; Roxburgh and Evenden, 2016a; Taves and Barlev, 2023; Woods and Wilkinson, 2017).
In particular, fact or information sheets are concise, easy-to-read resources that provide essential information on specific topics, thereby helping to promote awareness and education among diverse audiences. By summarizing key facts and presenting them in an organized way, information sheets simplify complex topics and enable users to better understand and remember pertinent data or associated recommendations (Miller and Reynolds, 2004). Their simple and direct format, often including bullet points, graphics, or charts, helps to convey quickly main ideas without overwhelming the reader with too many details (Houts et al., 2006). Fact Sheets also are a practical way to raise awareness of particular issues, because they can be shared widely across digital and print formats and thus effectively reach a broad audience. This ease of distribution allows individuals, organizations, and communities to stay informed on important issues, which can encourage positive actions related to health, environmental, or social topics (Katz et al., 2012). And since Fact Sheets are often created by trusted experts or institutions, they are generally viewed as a reliable and valuable resource for education and advocacy (Redman et al., 2011).
The present research
Outdated or inaccurate information can lead to ineffective or harmful practices, which compromises client safety and trust in healthcare educators or providers (Bero et al., 1998). Quality-checking clinical and educational resources is essential to ensure that authorities rely on accurate, current information that supports effective decision-making and patient care. Clinical resources are foundational in guiding diagnosis, treatment plans, and patient interactions, so their accuracy can directly impact patient outcomes (Schulz and Grimes, 2005). Moreover, clinical resources that undergo thorough quality checks are more likely to reflect current research, evidence-based practices, and standardized guidelines. This supports consistent standards across different healthcare or educational settings (Shojania and Grimshaw, 2005).
Quality checks often involve verifying that information sources have been peer-reviewed or validating clinical recommendations against recent academic literature. This exercise not only enhances the credibility of clinical resources but also supports practitioners in maintaining professional competence (Carman et al., 2014). Therefore, quality assurance of clinical and educational information is critical to promote safety and excellence in educational or therapeutic delivery. Accordingly, we quality-checked Houran et al.’s (2024) “Fact Sheet: Ghostly Episodes at a Glance” (referred throughout this paper as simply “Fact Sheet”) in four respects: (a) validate its content against independent, peer-reviewed literature, (b) calculate its readability metrics to gauge its general accessibility, (c) assess the reactions of different target audiences to evidence-based information that specifically aims to demystify the topic, and (d) gain insights from different target audiences about potential improvements for future versions.
Method
Transparency and openness
Our study’s design, analysis, and research materials were not pre-registered, but the protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee at Integrated Knowledge Systems. Moreover, we strived to follow the Journal Article Reporting Standards (Kazak, 2018) and thus describe how we determined our research samples, all data exclusions (if any), specific research questions, applicable manipulations, and all measures and data abstractions.
Fact Sheet
Houran et al.’s (2024, pp. 200–202) “Fact Sheet: Ghostly Episodes at a Glance” (cf. Appendix A) is a 1,187-word resource developed by a multidisciplinary panel (Bertens et al., 2013) with expertise in quali-quantitative research across anomalistics and the social sciences. That team sourced key questions to answer in the Fact Sheet via informal conversations with research colleagues and known percipients of ghostly episodes. Then they used an iterative process of internal discussions and language refinements to produce the final version of the question-and-answer set that we evaluate here. Its content was not explicitly referenced or justified in its original source, although it drew heavily from recent research on the concept of Haunted People Syndrome (HP-S) (Laythe et al., 2021, 2022), combined with the results or conclusions from modern integrative works on ghostly episodes from parapsychological perspectives that were cited in the Fact Sheet. There can be various conventional explanations for one-off reports of ‘entity encounters’ or ‘haunted houses’ (Dagnall et al., 2020; Houran, 1997; Nickell, 2012), but HP-S specifically describes ghostly episodes recurrently manifesting to certain individuals as an interactionist phenomenon emerging from heightened somatic-sensory sensitivities that are stirred by ‘dis-ease’ states (i.e., when a person’s normal state of ‘ease’ becomes markedly disrupted or imbalanced), contextualized with paranormal belief or other sense-making mechanisms, and reinforced via perceptual contagion or threat-agency detection.
Respondent groups
We surveyed individuals spanning four distinct convenience samples that represented target audiences for the Fact Sheet, with two comprising ‘information-seekers’ and another two being ‘information-providers.’ We recruited these diverse groups via multi-prong approaches as described below. Note that our minimum sample was only 24 respondents per group, which some authors contend is more than adequate for certain sentiment studies (e.g., Guest et al., 2006). This also parallels other researchers who used smaller, targeted groups to investigate various issues in clinical settings ranging from spirituality (e.g., Eksi et al., 2016) to drug administrations (e.g., Syroid et al., 2002):
1. Lay percipients. Data derived from 8 men and 16 women (Mage = 47.5, SD = 9.98, range = 28–68 yrs) from the USA (n = 4), UK (n = 18), Portugal (n = 1) and UAE (n = 1), who were recruited via an email and social media outreach campaign.
2. Lay non-percipients. Data derived from 10 men, 17 women, and 1 respondent who preferred not to disclose gender (Mage = 50.9 yrs., SD = 9.36, range = 30–75 yrs) from the USA (n = 6), UK (n = 13), Austria (n = 1), Denmark (n = 1), Australia (n = 1), Ireland (n = 1), Iceland (n = 1), Kenya (n = 1), Wales (n = 1) and Canada (n = 2), who were recruited via an email and social media outreach campaign.
3. Clinical practitioners. Data derived from 7 men and 23 women (Mage = 42.6 yrs., SD = 11.47, range = 27–72 yrs) who were recruited via email or personal communication. This US-based sample includes an advanced practice registered nurse (n = 1), psychiatrists (n = 2), therapists (mental health, trauma, and marriage-family; n = 5), social workers (hospital and hospice; n = 5), Licensed Independent Social Workers (LISW; n = 4), mental health counselors (n = 12), and a joint social-worker and mental health counselor (n = 1).
4. Self-styled paranormal researchers (or ‘ghost-hunters’). Data derived from 20 men and 14 women (Mage = 49.5 yrs., SD = 7.86, range = 32–66 yrs) from the USA (n = 28), UK (n = 2), Australia (n = 2), Canada (n = 2) who were recruited via direct email or personal communication.
Questionnaire
In addition to indicating their Age, Gender, and Country of Origin, the respondents completed five quality-related items administered in a standardized order and involving a mix of Likert rating scales and open-ended questions: (1) Accessibility: On a scale of 1 to 4, how easy was it to understand the information on the Fact Sheet? [1 = Very difficult, 2 = Somewhat difficult, 3 = Somewhat easy, 4 = Very easy]; (2) “Did you experience any difficulties accessing or reading the Fact Sheet (e.g., font size, layout, terminology)? Please explain; (3) Utility: How well did the Fact Sheet help you understand the topic it covers? [1 = Very unhelpful, 2 = Somewhat unhelpful, 3 = Somewhat helpful, 4 = Very helpful]; (4) What information, if any, do you feel is missing from the Fact Sheet that would improve its usefulness?; and (5) Global Favorability: How likely are you to recommend this Fact Sheet to someone looking for information on this topic? [1 = Very unlikely, 2 = Somewhat Unlikely, 3 = Somewhat Likely, 4 = Very likely]. This latter index follows from the popular Net Promoter Score (NPS) approach. NPS is a clear metric that many businesses use to assess consumer satisfaction and loyalty. It centers around a single, key question: “How likely are you to recommend our product or service to a friend or colleague?” Its simplicity and ability to provide actionable insights have made NPS a widely adopted measure in customer experience management (Reichheld, 2003). We drafted the three metrics above specifically for this study, so there are no prior psychometric data to report.
Procedure
Our quality-check involved two complementary exercises. First, we worked as an expert panel (Bertens et al., 2013) to validate formally the Fact Sheet’s key statements against recent empirical literature. This included a rapid-type ‘critical review’ that considered our own work and independent studies alike. Unlike systematic reviews that involve exhaustive searches and long processing times, rapid reviews use targeted strategies for quickly identifying and synthesizing relevant literature to inform decision-making or research development (e.g., Tricco et al., 2017). The heading questions listed in the Fact Sheet were used as prompts in the AI language programs Consensus (Consensus AI, n.d.) and Co-Pilot (GitHub, n.d.). Further prompts included the key statements listed in Column 1 (effectively summary themes). We instructed both programs to provide academic references to support the answers. These were compared to the critical review references, which were confirmed in several cases. Any additional relevant references sourced by the AI programs were added to the list of empirical literature. Table 1 therefore presents a selection of this dually confirmed literature.
Table 1. AI-based content validation of the “Fact Sheet Ghostly Episodes.”
Second, the target audiences rated the accessibility, utility, and global favorability of the Fact Sheet using a standardized survey. A personal outreach campaign that included snowball sampling, as appropriate, helped to ensure that respondents met the inclusion criteria for this research. To clarify, personal outreach campaigns use direct appeals to selected individuals, often through personalized emails or social media messages, to invite them to participate in research. This tailored approach tends to increase response rates, as the personalized nature of the outreach can make respondents feel more valued and engaged (Groves et al., 2009). And because participants in personal outreach campaigns are often selected based on specific criteria, the resulting data can better represent a targeted audience, which is particularly useful when aiming for precision in demographic or behavioral data (Dillman et al., 2014). In particular, we emailed the Fact Sheet and our questionnaire to respondents across the four groups.
Results
Content validation
Table 1 supports the Fact Sheet’s major statements or conclusions (Column 1) with two or more peer-reviewed works. The representative lists of supporting literature in Column 2 and 3 did not derive from selective reporting, however, as both the Consensus and Copilot AI programs similarly validated the accuracy of the key statements asserted in the sheet. The studies cited from the AI rapid-type critical literature review include the authors’ own recent works and independent sources. Moreover, we should emphasize that both AI programs provided a mix of skeptical and sympathetic literature on ghostly episodes.
Statistical preliminaries
We measured the Fact Sheet’s ‘Accessibility, Utility, and Global Favorability’ using a common Likert scale (maximum possible score of 4). Table 2 shows that all the mean scores in the present samples were close to this upper limit, indicating that the four audience groups perceived the content quality quite positively. Moreover, we conducted correlational analyses among the three metrics using curvilinear functions. Figure 1 illustrates the trends of these functions, with alpha curves adjusted to a visibility of 0.60 using the Python programming language (Python Software Foundation, 2023). The parameters obtained for reproducing these functions were as follows (in order): (a) Ghost-Hunters: −0.397, 1.25, 0.238, 0.262, −1.536, and 1.135; (b) Clinicians: −1.632, −8.155, −3.942, 7.447, 13.839, and −17.435; (c) Lay Percipients: −125.776, 0.631, −2.637, 190.641, 1.793, and −63.894; (d) Lay Non-Percipients: −124.714, 0.744, 0.470, 186.548, −0.975, and −61.266; and (e) Total: 0.064, 0.822, −0.983, 0.571, 0.307, and 0.097. Overall, the curvilinear structures were parabolic and upward-trending, accounting for up to 40% of the total variance.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and content quality analysis.
Figure 1. Curvilinear functions of the Accessibility, Usefulness, and Global Favorability metrics for the “Fact Sheet.” The relationship structures show quadratic interdependencies with upward trends.
The functions of the Clinicians, Lay Non-Percipients, and Lay Percipients overall exhibited consistent structural patterns, suggesting that these groups interpreted the content and applications of the Fact Sheet in a relatively homogeneous manner and with minimal conceptual discrepancies. The total 3D correlation in Figure 1 revealed an upward trend, indicating positive interrelations among the three metrics of content quality. This was further supported by Kendall’s τ-b linear correlations, which ranged from 0.20 to 0.40. The hypothesis tests in Table 1, the mean scores approaching the maximum rating of 4, and the three-dimensional graphical representations collectively provide robust evidence for the conceptual clarity and functional validity of the Fact Sheet.
Accessibility metrics
The metrics in Table 3 indicate that the current version of the Fact Sheet is most suited to readers with a college-level or higher reading proficiency (United States standards), requiring some advanced vocabulary knowledge, strong comprehension skills, and experience with complex sentence structures. It may not be easily or uniformly accessible to the general public or readers with lower literacy levels, unless it is further explained by, or discussed in consultation with, educated researchers or practitioners. Still, both groups of information-seekers rated the accessibility of the content quite high, i.e., Lay Percipients (M = 3.79) and Lay Non-Percipients (M = 3.86). The perceived accessibility of the content also was on par between the information-seekers (aggregated M = 3.83) and information-providers (aggregated M = 3.80).
Table 3. Readability analysis of the “Fact Sheet Ghostly Episodes” via Scott’s (2024) software.
Utility metrics
Table 3 also shows that our groups of information-providers (aggregated M = 3.70) and information-seekers (aggregated M = 3.46) both rated the Fact Sheet as highly useful, though the former gave consistently higher ratings than the former in this respect. The open-ended feedback discussed outlines some probable reasons for this outcome, which involve issues with presenting technical information to a lay audience. Indeed, we observed no differences in the tool’s perceived utility across the Lay Percipients and Lay Non-Percipients.
Global favorability metrics
Recall that the overall impression of the Fact Sheet was assessed via a one-item index of ‘global favorability’ (i.e., “How likely are you to recommend this ‘Fact Sheet on Ghostly Episodes’ to someone looking for information on this topic?” on a 1–4 scale). The information-providers (aggregated M = 3.65) and information-seekers (aggregated M = 3.14) both had good impressions of the tool, indicating they were “Somewhat Likely” to “Highly Likely” to recommend it as a resource to others. However, as reported below, we observed some small but statistically significant differences among the groups’ ratings.
Group comparisons
Table 2 gives descriptive statistics and summarizes the analysis of differences on the metrics of Accessibility, Utility, and Global Favorability across the information providers (i.e., Clinicians vs. Ghost-Hunters) and information-seekers (i.e., Lay Percipients vs. Lay Non-Percipients). Ideally, no statistically significant differences emerge, as these could introduce variability and potential bias that may require further consideration. Although Accessibility and Usefulness showed no significant effects, we found some discrepancies on Global Favorability between Ghost-Hunters and both Clinicians and Lay Percipients. Multiple comparisons revealed that Clinicians scored significantly higher, which was not unexpected, given that the Fact Sheet was designed to align with professional needs in mental health and psychology.
To ensure a robust estimation, the Bayes Factor (BF) was included, with prior probabilities for the null and alternative hypotheses set at 50%. This approach integrates Bayesian hypothesis testing within the classical frequentist framework while maintaining the advantages of Bayesian inference. The BF values did not exceed 10, i.e., the commonly used threshold in this type of analysis due to its odds-based interpretation (Escolà-Gascón, 2022). This suggests that the observed significance for this metric should be considered marginal, as the statistical validity of the differences cannot be confidently established. This interpretation is further supported by effect size estimates based on explained variance (ω2 and ε2 coefficients), with a maximum effect size of 12%. The absence of significant differences is not necessarily problematic, as it may indicate that the Fact Sheet exhibits low inter-population variability. This, in turn, suggests that the tool’s structure is less susceptible to sociocultural biases.
Suggested refinements
Visual inspection of the participants’ open-ended feedback, supplemented by a thematic analysis via the popular AI language program ChatGPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023), suggested four categories of recommended improvements to future versions of the Fact Sheet involving (a) Accessibility and Readability, (b) Content Completeness and Utility, (c) Audience Tailoring and Tone, and (d) Additional Topics of Interest. Table 4 summarizes this set of feedback from the four target groups. All the audiences consistently lauded the Fact Sheet’s professional and balanced approach to contextualizing ghostly episodes, but they likewise called for improved readability, emotional support, and practical advice tailored to the specific needs of each audience.
Table 4. Summary of open-ended feedback on refining the “Fact Sheet on Ghostly Episodes.”
In particular, the amateur paranormal investigators recommended further simplifying the language, improving formatting with bullet points and shorter paragraphs, and offering multiple formats for accessibility. There was also suggestions to balance scientific rigor with emotional sensitivity. That is, some respondents thought that incorporating a gentler, more supportive or reassuring tone may enhance its impact or effectiveness, especially for percipients who are distressed about their anomalous experiences. Clinical practitioners expressed interest in more guidance on distinguishing paranormal experiences from hallucinations, strategies for therapists, and the inclusion of cultural and historical perspectives. Lay percipients sought content that is more engaging and less academic, with requests for examples, historical context, and clarification of different types of paranormal phenomena. They also wanted to explore physiological effects and multiple explanations for ghostly experiences. Lay non-percipients further suggested shortening sections for brevity, renaming the Fact Sheet for accuracy, and including more skeptical perspectives and clearer distinctions between various anomalous phenomena. Future efforts might thus strive to further simplify the current content or perhaps augment the text with images, tables, or figures to make the material more visually engaging (Nielsen and Loranger, 2006) or compatible with diverse learning styles (Clark and Paivio, 1991). Research indeed shows that people are more likely to remember information when it is paired with relevant images (McCrudden and Schraw, 2007). The Fact Sheet fits a single page when printed double-sided, though there might be room for some appropriate graphic(s) if the font size and content placement are adjusted.
Although not included as part of the participants’ suggested improvements, Appendix B provides our initial ‘children’s form’ of the Fact Sheet to address ghostly episodes or related fears reported by this vulnerable population. This version is certainly justified and should be helpful, because it is not uncommon for children of various ages to encounter ‘ghosts’ or other types of anomalous entities, including ‘deep’ imaginary friends that seemingly ‘come to life’ and exhibit a personality or will of their own (e.g., Drinkwater et al., 2024; Lange et al., 2023; Laythe et al., 2021; Little et al., 2021). Similarly, poltergeist-like disturbances often seem to focus on the presence of particular children or adolescents (for important discussions on this point, see Houran et al., 2022; Roll, 1977; Ventola et al., 2019). Muris et al. (2001) further reported that the vast majority of children they interviewed about nighttime anxieties referenced a fear of ghosts and monsters, which they attributed to negative information versus conditioning or modeling. Therefore, making the Fact Sheet accessible to young people who are naturally curious can help them to understand this topic (and their experiences, as applicable) in a way that is constructive and age appropriate. Child-friendly material also encourages early education, fosters critical thinking, and ensures that kids are not confused or misinformed by complex or misleading sources (Dwyer, 2023; Gilmour, 2024; Ku et al., 2023).
Discussion
Information sheets and clear-cut summaries of parapsychological topics have certainly been published before now (e.g., Palmer et al., 1989; Van Dyke and Juncosa, 1973; Zingrone et al., 2015). Instructive, freely available examples include (a) Psychology Today’s online overview of parapsychology.,1 (b) the Society for Psychical Research’s Psi Encyclopedia2 with its accessible articles across a vast array of psi-related subjects, and (c) the Windbridge Research Center’s various Fact Sheets on ‘mediumship’ phenomena and ‘end-of-life’ experiences penned from a pro-paranormal perspective3. But ours is perhaps the first Fact Sheet for both professional and lay audiences that collates key scientific information about the often-sensationalized topic of ghostly episodes. Its content draws on current, independent studies in peer-reviewed journals, and the descriptions avoid ideological bias (pro or con) concerning the ontological reality of controversial mechanisms like putative psi (e.g., Cardeña, 2018) or postmortem survival of consciousness (e.g., Wahbeh et al., 2023). Accordingly, our Fact Sheet speaks fairly both to information-seekers who have had anomalous experiences or not, and to those who believe in the paranormal or not. Note the title of the Fact Sheet is intentionally simple and accessible given that research suggests shorter titles are easier to understand and increase reader engagement (Letchford et al., 2015; Paiva et al., 2012; Subotic and Mukherjee, 2014).
Some readers might question the need for this resource in routine educational or clinical practice, so two points are worth noting here. First, many practitioners are likely to interact with percipients of the ‘mystical or paranormal’ at some point. In particular, thin-boundary (or encounter-prone) individuals consistently report various clinically-relevant issues like mood swings, substance use, memory aberrations, nightmares, and night terrors (Houran et al., 2002; Houran and Thalbourne, 2003; Lange et al., 2000; Thalbourne et al., 2003a; Thalbourne et al., 2003b; Thalbourne et al., 2001; Thalbourne and Houran, 2005), as well as an array of non-ordinary cognitions or experiences typically attributed to the supernatural (Evans et al., 2019; Kumar and Pekala, 2001; McClenon, 2012; Rosen et al., 2023; Roxburgh et al., 2024; Simmonds-Moore, 2024; Swami et al., 2024). Second, practitioners may neither know about nor understand the scientific literature on ghostly episodes. This can effectively limit their ability to facilitate responsible education or sense-making with percipients, a consideration that likewise applies to self-styled paranormal investigators who often lack professional training or credentials in scientific research (Hill, 2017; Hill et al., 2019; Potts, 2004). Some authors have nonetheless proposed systems for people to assess the quality of information that they source on ghostly episodes (e.g., Laythe et al., 2022, pp. 229–231), but this is not equivalent to having a ready-made, integrative, and accessible summary of key findings in this domain.
Though not representing strong or consistently significant effects, our sample of information-seekers nonetheless tended to rate the utility and global favorability of the Fact Sheet slightly lower than the information-providers. This raises questions of potential ideological biases and associated mediators or moderators of the acceptance of (or resistance to) scientific findings on ghostly episodes—especially when information-seekers want validation that their experiences were truly paranormal (cf. Rabeyron, 2022). This tool therefore cautions clinicians who might expect that these experiences are wholly explained by current scientific models, as well as amateur ghost-hunters who might assume that these experiences are mostly parapsychological in nature. These issues further speak to the literature on misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation—terms are often used interchangeably, yet describe distinct types of false or harmful information based on their intent and accuracy. Misinformation stems from a lack of awareness, disinformation thrives on deceit, and malinformation exploits truth for ulterior motives (Lewandowsky et al., 2017; Wardle and Derakhshan, 2017). Kandel (2020) even proposed three grades of ‘information disorder’ with increasing severity. We draw on this system to speculate that most public misinformation about ghostly episodes is likely “Grade 1” (i.e., a milder form in which the individual shares false information without the intent of harming others), although some examples probably involve Grade 2, i.e., “… a moderate form in which the individual develops and shares false information with the intent of making money and political gain, but not with the intent of harming people (Kandel, 2020, p. 280).
Despite the Fact Sheet’s beneficial content and features, our results suggest that its utility is restricted as a ‘standalone’ resource for some audiences (cf. Clarke et al., 2024). This situation means that information-providers might better use the tool as a discussion sheet whereby information-seekers are walked through the content to ensure a full and fair understanding of the material. On the other hand, information-seekers with good levels of education or verbal comprehension should be able to consult the Fact Sheet ‘as is.’ Another key audience for the Fact Sheet apart from clinical practitioners and self-styled paranormal investigators could be ‘paranormal tours’ operators, who typically mesh history and folklore for commercial entertainment (Houran et al., 2020). We should mention here that attendees are more likely to recommend or return for future tours when they feel they are learning something of value (Hill, 2017). Indeed, many paranormal tourists are seeking an opportunity for personal growth or cultural exploration (Hanks, 2018). Incorporating credible information also addresses the ethical responsibilities of operators, as misleading tourists can introduce legal complications if they feel deceived (Sharpley, 2018). Accordingly, a balanced approach—combining authenticity with open-minded speculation—tends to captivate paranormal tourists far more effectively than simply hearing sensationalized ghost stories (cf. Tarlow, 2005).
We acknowledge other important limitations with this research, such as our use of single-item measures that are sometimes criticized on psychometric grounds (Allen et al., 2022). Moreover, the results derived from smaller samples with a restricted measurement of respondents’ demographic variables that could have influenced the quality ratings. The present findings should therefore be considered preliminary and in need of cross-cultural verification. It might also be useful to correlate impressions of the Fact Sheet with respondents’ education levels and duration in their respective roles as clinical practitioners or self-styled paranormal investigators, as applicable. Regarding potential moderators of the percipients’ ratings, it also could have been instructive to understand the intensity of their ghostly episodes as measured by Houran et al.’s (2019) Survey of Strange Events, or to measure the time elapsed since the percipients’ ghostly episodes occurred, which might lead to either embellished recollections of anomalous experiences (e.g., Lange et al., 2004) or interpretations that are skewed for or against the paranormal (e.g., Drinkwater et al., 2019). Finally, we gauged only the perceived quality of the content versus its educational or clinical impacts on its intended audiences (see, e.g., Lam et al., 2025). Future research should therefore include outcome studies to confirm the tool’s capacity to facilitate efficacious sense-making for percipients or those seriously interested in credible scientific information on this topic.
Knowledge is power as the saying goes (cf. Bacon, 1597-1996; Hobbes, 1668-1994). But when presented via sympathetic information sheets, knowledge also can serve as ‘permission slips’ for percipients to freely share their stories with practitioners or researchers. This is important since belief in paranormal and spiritual phenomena (including ghosts and non-human discarnate agents) often arises from lived experiences (Clarke, 1995; Cseh et al., 2024; Jackson et al., 2023), although percipients may be reluctant to discuss their experiences or beliefs for fear of being ridiculed or pathologized (Blinston, 2013; Mohr and Huguelet, 2004; Roxburgh and Evenden, 2016a, 2016b). Other times, percipients seek expert support for their fears of being hurt, going crazy, hurting someone else (i.e., a sense of responsibility toward others), or losing control (Siegel, 1986). We often find therefore that percipients are eager to share their accounts with interested professionals who are able to impart to them a sense of understanding, normalization, or contribution to science. It seems that both clinical and research approaches should correspondingly work in tandem to advance a holistic understanding of the nature or meaning of these often dramatic and even transformative occurrences. The reality is that ghostly episodes will likely never go away (Hill et al., 2018). Therefore, clinical and research professionals alike should become sufficiently educated to engage these reports with empathy and intellectual humility so that percipients may better understand and cope with this universal aspect of human experience.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by the Ethics Committee at Integrated Knowledge Systems. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
BM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration. JH: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. AE: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Formal Analysis. CO: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Investigation. KD: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ND: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
JH, CO, KGD, and ND jointly published a commercial book that was cited in the Fact Sheet promoted in this article.
The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The authors declare that Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. AI was used ONLY for data analytical purposes.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1585437/full#supplementary-material
Footnotes
1. ^https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/parapsychology
References
Allen, M. S., Iliescu, D., and Greiff, S. (2022). Single item measures in psychological science: a call to action [editorial]. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 38, 1–5. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000699
Altay, S., Berriche, M., and Acerbi, A. (2023). Misinformation on misinformation: Conceptual and methodological challenges. Social Media Society, 9. doi: 10.1177/20563051221150412
Alvarado, C. S., and Zingrone, N. L. (1995). Characteristics of hauntings with and without apparitions: an analysis of published cases. J. Soc. Psych. Res. 60, 385–397.
Bacon, F. (1597-1996). Meditationes sacrae and human philosophy. Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger Publishing.
Baker, I., and O’Keeffe, C. (2007). Ethical guidelines for the investigation of haunting experiences. J. Soc. Psych. Res. 71, 216–229.
Barrett, W. F. (1911). “Hauntings and poltergeists” in Psychical research. ed. W. F. Barrett (London, England: Henry Holt and Co), 187–210.
Becker, M. E. (2020). Hauntings, history, and fieldwork: A sensitive’s journey. Bedford, Pennsylvania: Ghost Excavation Books, Inc.
Bering, J., Smith, S., Stojanov, A., Halberstadt, J., and Hughes, R. (2021). The “ghost” in the lab: believers’ and non-believers’ implicit responses to an alleged apparition. Int. J. Psychol. Relig. 32, 214–231. doi: 10.1080/10508619.2021.1975400
Bero, L. A., Grilli, R., Grimshaw, J. M., Harvey, E., Oxman, A. D., and Thomson, M. A. (1998). Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. BMJ 317, 465–468. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7156.465
Bertens, L. C., Broekhuizen, B. D., Naaktgeboren, C. A., Rutten, F. H., Hoes, A. W., van Mourik, Y., et al. (2013). Use of expert panels to define the reference standard in diagnostic research: a systematic review of published methods and reporting. PLoS Med. 10:e1001531. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001531
Blinston, I. (2013). Disclosure of childhood spiritual encounter phenomena. J. Transp. Res. 5, 58–64.
Cardeña, E. (2018). The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: a review. Am. Psychol. 73, 663–677. doi: 10.1037/amp0000236
Carman, K. L., Dardess, P., Maurer, M., Sofaer, S., Adams, K., Bechtel, C., et al. (2014). Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Aff. 33, 223–231. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1139
Castle, T. (1991). Contagious folly: “an adventure” and its skeptics. Crit. Inq. 17, 741–772. doi: 10.1086/448611
Castro, M., Burrows, R., and Wooffitt, R. (2014). The paranormal is (still) normal: the sociological implications of a survey of paranormal experiences in Great Britain. Sociol. Res. Online 19, 277–283. doi: 10.5153/sro.3441
Clarke, B., Alley, L. J., Ghai, S., Flake, J. K., Rohrer, J. M., Simmons, J. P., et al. (2024). Looking our limitations in the eye: a call for more thorough and honest reporting of study limitations. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 18. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12979
Clarke, D. (1995). Experience and other reasons given for belief and disbelief in paranormal and religious phenomena. J. Soc. Psych. Res. 60, 371–384.
Clark, J. M., and Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 3, 149–210. doi: 10.1007/BF01320076
Coelho, C. M., Zsido, A. N., Suttiwan, P., and Clasen, M. (2021). Super-natural fears. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 128, 406–414. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.06.036
Coleman, M., and Liau, T. L. (1975). A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. J. Appl. Psychol. 60, 283–284. doi: 10.1037/h0076540
Consensus AI. (n.d.). Consensus [AI-powered academic search engine]. Available online at: https://consensus.app (Accessed January 03, 2025).
Cseh, O., Karsai, I., and Szabo, A. (2024). The relationship of life-changing spiritual experiences to current religious/spiritual attitudes and practices: a pilot study. Pastor. Psychol. 73, 227–238. doi: 10.1007/s11089-023-01120-9
Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., Munley, G., Parker, A., and Drinkwater, K. (2010). Paranormal belief, schizotypy, and transliminality. J. Parapsychol. 74, 117–141.
Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., O’Keeffe, C., Ventola, A., Laythe, B., Jawer, M. A., et al. (2020). Things that go bump in the literature: an environmental appraisal of “haunted houses”. Front. Psychol. 11:1328. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01328
Dean, C. E., Akhtar, S., Gale, T. M., Irvine, K., Grohmann, D., and Laws, K. R. (2022). Paranormal beliefs and cognitive function: a systematic review and assessment of study quality across four decades of research. PLoS One 17:e0267360. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267360
de Oliveira-Souza, R. (2018). Phobia of the supernatural: a distinct but poorly recognized specific phobia with an adverse impact on daily living. Front. Psych. 9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00590
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., and Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. 4th Edn. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Drinkwater, K., Dagnall, N., Houran, J., Denovan, A., and O’Keeffe, C. (2024). Structural relationships among mental boundaries, childhood imaginary companions, and anomalous experiences. Psychol. Rep. 127, 2717–2735. doi: 10.1177/00332941221123235
Drinkwater, K., Laythe, B., Houran, J., Dagnall, N., O’Keeffe, C., and Hill, S. A. (2019). Exploring gaslighting effects via the VAPUS model for ghost narratives. Austr. J. Parapsychol. 19, 143–179.
Dullin, E. (2024). A detailed phenomenology of poltergeist events. J. Sci. Expl. 38, 427–460. doi: 10.31275/20243263
Dwyer, C. P. (2023). An evaluative review of barriers to critical thinking in educational and real-world settings. J. Intelligence 11. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence11060105
Eksi, H., Takmaz, Z., and Kardas, S. (2016). Spirituality in psychotherapy settings: a phenomenological inquiry into the experiences of Turkish health professionals. Spiritual Psychol. Counsel. 1, 89–108. doi: 10.12738/spc.2016.1.0005
Escolà-Gascón, Á. (2020). Researching unexplained phenomena: empirical-statistical validity and reliability of the multivariable multiaxial suggestibility Inventory-2 (MMSI-2). Heliyon 6:e04291. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04291
Escolà-Gascón, Á. (2022). Handbook of statistics: Step-by-step mathematical solutions. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Evans, J., Lange, R., Houran, J., and Lynn, S. J. (2019). Further psychometric exploration of the transliminality construct. Psychol. Conscious. Theory Res. Pract. 6, 417–438. doi: 10.1037/cns0000163
Evrard, R., Dollander, M., Elsaesser, E., Cooper, C. E., Lorimer, D., and Roe, C. (2021). Exceptional necrophanic experiences and paradoxical mourning: studies of the phenomenology and repercussions of frightening experiences of contact with the deceased. Psychiatr. Evol. 86, 799–824. doi: 10.1016/j.evopsy.2021.05.002
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. J. Appl. Psychol. 32, 221–233. doi: 10.1037/h0057532
Gilmour, T. (2024). Critical thinking and media literacy in an age of misinformation (v2). Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc. Millington, Tennessee. 13. doi: 10.33774/apsa-2024-bsmtn-v2
Giordan, G., and Possamai, A. (2018). The sociology of exorcism in late modernity. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
GitHub. (n.d.). GitHub copilot [AI-based code completion tool]. Available online at: https://github.com/features/copilot (Accessed January 03, 2025).
Goldstein, D. E., Grider, S. A., and Thomas, J. B. (2007). Haunting experiences: Ghosts in contemporary folklore. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press.
Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., and Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey methodology. 2nd Edn. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., and Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough?: an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18, 59–82. doi: 10.1177/1525822X05279903
Hanks, M. (2018). Haunted heritage: The cultural politics of ghost tourism, populism, and the past. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press. Routledge.
Haraldsson, E. (1985). Representative national surveys of psychic phenomena: Iceland, Great Britain, Sweden, USA, and Gallup’s multinational survey. J. Soc. Psych. Res. 53, 145–158.
Hastings, A. (1983). A counseling approach to parapsychological experience. J. Transpers. Psychol. 15, 143–167.
Hill, S. A. (2017). Scientifical Americans: The culture of amateur paranormal researchers. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Co.
Hill, S. A., Laythe, B., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., O’Keeffe, C., Ventola, A., et al. (2019). “Meme-spirited”: II. Illustrations of the VAPUS model for ghost narratives. Austr. J. Parapsychol. 19, 5–43.
Hill, S. A., O’Keeffe, C., Laythe, B., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., Ventola, A., et al. (2018). “Meme-spirited”: I. A VAPUS model for understanding the prevalence and potency of ghost narratives. Austr. J. Parapsychol. 18, 117–152.
Hobbes, T. (1668-1994). Leviathan: With selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co, Inc.
Houran, J. (1997). Ambiguous origins and indications of “poltergeists”. Percept. Mot. Skills 84, 339–344. doi: 10.2466/pms.1997.84.1.339
Houran, J., Hill, S. A., Haynes, E. D., and Bielski, U. A. (2020). Paranormal tourism – market study of a novel and interactive approach to space activation and monetization. Cornell Hosp. Q. 61, 287–311. doi: 10.1177/1938965520909094
Houran, J., Kumar, V. K., Thalbourne, M. A., and Lavertue, N. E. (2002). Haunted by somatic tendencies: Spirit infestation as psychogenic illness. Mental Health Relig. Cult. 5, 119–133. doi: 10.1080/13674670210141061
Houran, J., and Lange, R. (2001). Hauntings and poltergeists: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Co.
Houran, J., Lange, R., Laythe, B., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., and O’Keeffe, C. (2019). Quantifying the phenomenology of ghostly episodes – part II: a Rasch model of spontaneous accounts. J. Parapsychol. 83, 25–46. doi: 10.30891/jopar.2019.01.03
Houran, J., Laythe, B., Lange, R., Hanks, M., and Ironside, R. (2023). Immersive study of gestalt variables in uncanny geographies. J. Soc. Psych. Res. 87, 65–100.
Houran, J., Little, C., Laythe, B., and Ritson, D. W. (2022). Uncharted features and dynamics of the South Shields poltergeist. J. Soc. Psych. Res. 86, 129–164.
Houran, J., Massullo, B., Drinkwater, K., and Dagnall, N. (2024). Team analysis of a help-seeking “haunted person”. Austr. J. Parapsychol. 24, 155–202.
Houran, J., and Thalbourne, M. A. (2003). Transliminality correlates positively with self-reported aberrations in memory. Psychol. Rep. 96, 1300–1304. doi: 10.2466/pms.2003.96.3c.1300
Houts, P. S., Doak, C. C., Doak, L. G., and Loscalzo, M. J. (2006). The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Educ. Couns. 61, 173–190. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.05.004
Ironside, R. (2018). Feeling spirits: sharing subjective paranormal experience through embodied talk and action. Text Talk 38, 705–728. doi: 10.1515/text-2018-0020
Jackson, J. C., Dillion, D., Bastian, B., Watts, J., Buckner, W., DiMaggio, N., et al. (2023). Supernatural explanations across 114 societies are more common for natural than social phenomena. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7, 707–717. doi: 10.1038/s41562-023-01558-0
Jawer, M. A., Massullo, B., Laythe, B., and Houran, J. (2020). Environmental “gestalt influences” pertinent to the study of haunted houses. J. Soc. Psych. Res. 84, 66–92.
Kandel, N. (2020). Information disorder syndrome and its management. J. Nepal Med. Assoc. 58, 280–285. doi: 10.31729/jnma.4968
Katz, D. L., Meller, S., and Williams, A. L. (2012). Public health strategies for preventing and controlling obesity in school and worksite settings. Prev. Med. 55, 260–S105. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.06.012
Kazak, A. E. (2018). Journal article reporting standards [editorial]. Am. Psychol. 73, 1–2. doi: 10.1037/amp0000263
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Rogers, R. L., and Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and Flesch Reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Millington, Tennessee: Naval Technical Training Command Research Branch.
Ku, K. Y. L., Fung, T. M. Y., Au, A. C. Y., Choy, A. Y. O., Kajimoto, M., and Song, Y. (2023). Helping young students cope with the threat of fake news: efficacy of news literacy training for junior-secondary school students in Hong Kong. Educ. Stud. 1, –19. doi: 10.1080/03055698.2023.2296345
Kumar, V. K., and Pekala, R. J. (2001). “Relation of hypnosis-related attitudes and behaviors to paranormal belief and experience: a technical review” in Lange Hauntings and poltergeists: Multidisciplinary perspectives. ed. J. Houran (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Co.), 260–279.
Lam, S. K. K., Cheung, C. T. Y., Tong, W., Chien, W. T., Chiu, C.-D., Van Emmerik, A., et al. (2025). Effects of an online psychoeducational program for people with dissociative symptoms: a randomized controlled trial. Res. Soc. Work. Pract. doi: 10.1177/10497315251340902
Lange, R., Greyson, B., and Houran, J. (2004). A Rasch scaling validation of a “core” near-death experience. Br. J. Psychol. 95, 161–177. doi: 10.1348/000712604773952403
Lange, R., and Houran, J. (1999). The role of fear in delusions of the paranormal. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 187, 159–166. doi: 10.1097/00005053-199903000-00005
Lange, R., Houran, J., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., and Caputo, G. B. (2023). Perceptual bandwagon effects with “deep” imaginary companions. J. Sci. Expl. 37, 602–615. doi: 10.31275/20232645
Lange, R., Thalbourne, M. A., Houran, J., and Storm, L. (2000). The revised Transliminality scale: reliability and validity data from a Rasch top-down purification procedure. Consciousn. Cogn. 9, 591–617. doi: 10.1006/ccog.2000.0472
Langston, W., Hubbard, T., Fehrman, C., D’Archangel, M., and Anderson, K. (2020). The role of personality in having a ghost experience and the role of personality and experience in the development of ghost belief. Pers Individ Diff. 163:110077. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110077
Laythe, B., Houran, J., Dagnall, N., and Drinkwater, K. (2021). Conceptual and clinical implications of a “haunted people syndrome”. Spirit. Clin. Pract. 8, 195–214. doi: 10.1037/scp0000251
Laythe, B., Houran, J., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., and O’Keeffe, C. (2022). Ghosted ! Exploring the haunting reality of paranormal encounters. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Co.
Laythe, B., Houran, J., and Little, C. (2021). The ghostly character of childhood imaginary companions: an empirical study of online accounts. J. Parapsychol. 85, 54–74. doi: 10.30891/jopar.2021.01.07
Laythe, B., Houran, J., and Ventola, A. (2018). A split-sample psychometric study of haunters. J. Soc. Psych. Res. 82, 193–218.
Letchford, A., Moat, H. S., and Preis, T. (2015). The advantage of short paper titles. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2:150266. doi: 10.1098/rsos.150266
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., and Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 353–369. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008
Lincoln, M., and Lincoln, B. (2015). Toward a critical hauntology: bare afterlife and the ghosts of Ba Chúc. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 57, 191–220. doi: 10.1017/S0010417514000644
Little, C., Laythe, B., and Houran, J. (2021). Quali-quantitative comparison of childhood imaginary companions and ghostly episodes. J. Soc. Psych. Res. 85, 1–30.
Maher, M. (2015). “Ghosts and poltergeists: an eternal enigma” in Parapsychology: A handbook for the 21st century. eds. E. Cardeña, J. Palmer, and D. Marcussion-Clavertz (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Co.), 327–340.
Maraldi, E. O. (2017). Letter to the editor: the scientific investigation of anomalous self and identity experiences. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 205:900. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000000762
McAndrew, F. T. (2020). The psychology, geography, and architecture of horror: how places creep us out. Evol. Stud. Imag. Cult. 4, 47–62. doi: 10.26613/esic.4.2.189
McClenon, J. (2012). A community survey of psychological symptoms: evaluating evolutionary theories regarding shamanism and schizophrenia. Mental Health Relig. Cult. 15, 799–816. doi: 10.1080/13674676.2011.637913
McCrudden, M. T., and Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 19, 113–139. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7
Miller, C. K., and Reynolds, C. M. (2004). Educating patients about lifestyle modifications for weight management: benefits of a brief and simple fact sheet. Am. J. Health Promot. 18, 325–328. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-18.5.325
Mohr, S., and Huguelet, P. (2004). The relationship between schizophrenia and religion and its implications for care. Swiss Med. Wkly. 134, 369–376. doi: 10.4414/smw.2004.10322
Moore, D. W. (2005). Three in four Americans believe in paranormal: Little change from similar results in 2001. Washington, D.C.: Gallup News Service.
Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Ollendick, T. H., King, N. J., and Bogie, N. (2001). Children’s nighttime fears: parent–child ratings of frequency, content, origins, coping behaviors and severity. Behav. Res. Ther. 39, 13–28. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00155-2
Nickell, J. (2012). The science of ghosts: Searching for spirits of the dead. Amherst, New York: Prometheus.
O’Keeffe, C., Houran, J., Houran, D. J., Drinkwater, K., Dagnall, N., and Laythe, B. (2019). The Dr. John Hall story: A case study of putative “haunted people syndrome.” Ment. Health Relig. Cult. 22, 910–929. doi: 10.1080/13674676.2019.1674795
OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT-4 (GPT-4) [computer software]. Available online at: https://www.openai.com/gpt-4 (Accessed January 03, 2025).
Paiva, C. E., Lima, J. P. S. N., and Paiva, B. S. R. (2012). Articles with short titles describing the results are cited more often. Clinics 67, 509–513. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2012(05)17
Palmer, G., and Hastings, A. (2013). “Exploring the nature of exceptional human experiences: recognizing, understanding, and appreciating EHEs” in The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of transpersonal psychology. eds. H. L. Friedman and G. Hartelius (Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley Blackwell), 333–351.
Palmer, J. A., Honorton, C., and Utts, J. (1989). Reply to the National Research Council study on parapsychology. J. Am. Soc. Psych. Res. 83, 31–49.
Parsons, S. T. (2015). Ghostology: The art of the ghost hunter. Surrey, United Kingdom: White Crow Books.
Parsons, S. T. (2018). Guidance notes for investigators of spontaneous cases: apparitions, hauntings, poltergeists and similar phenomena. London, United Kingdom: Society for Psychical Research.
Pew Research Center. (2009). Many Americans mix multiple faiths. Available online at: https://www.pewforum.org (Accessed February 03, 2025).
Plante, T. E., and Schwartz, G. E. (Eds.) (2021). Interaction with the divine, the sacred, and the deceased: Psychological, scientific, and theological perspectives. Routledge/Taylor \u0026amp; Francis. doi: 10.4324/9781003105749
Playfair, G. L. (1980). This house is haunted: The true story of the Enfield poltergeist. Surrey, United Kingdom: White Crow Books.
Potts, J. (2004). “Ghost hunting in the twenty-first century” in From shaman to scientist: Essays on humanity’s search for spirits. ed. J. Houran (Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press), 211–232.
Python Software Foundation. (2023). Python (version 3.9.21) [programming language]. Available online at: https://www.python.org (Accessed February 03, 2025).
Rabeyron, T. (2022). When the truth is out there: counseling people who report anomalous experiences. Front. Psychol. 12:693707. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.693707
Rabeyron, T., and Loose, T. (2015). Anomalous experiences, trauma, and symbolization processes at the frontiers between psychoanalysis and cognitive neurosciences. Front Psychol. 6:1926. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01926
Redman, B. K., et al. (2011). Quality of health information for consumers on the web: a systematic review. Health Commun. 26, 125–134. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2010.507988
Roll, W. G. (1977). “Poltergeists” in Handbook of parapsychology. ed. B. B. Wolman (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold), 382–413.
Rosen, C., Park, S., Baxter, T., Tufano, M., and Giersch, A. (2023). Sensed presence, attenuated psychosis, and transliminality: at the threshold of consciousness. Psychopathology 56, 359–370. doi: 10.1159/000528572
Ross, C. A., and Joshi, S. (1992). Paranormal experiences in the general population. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 180, 357–361. doi: 10.1097/00005053-199206000-00004
Roxburgh, E. C., and Evenden, R. E. (2016a). ‘They daren’t tell people’: therapists’ experiences of working with clients who report anomalous experiences. Europ. J. Psychother. Counsel. 18, 123–141. doi: 10.1080/13642537.2016.1170059
Roxburgh, E. C., and Evenden, R. E. (2016b). ‘Most people think you’re a fruit loop’: clients’ experiences of seeking support for anomalous experiences. Counsel. Psychother. Res. 16, 211–221. doi: 10.1002/capr.12077
Roxburgh, E. C., Vernon, D., and Schofield, M. B. (2024). Sensory processing sensitivity, transliminality, and boundary-thinness as predictors of anomalous experiences, beliefs, and abilities. Curr. Psychol. 43, 30098–30106. doi: 10.1007/s12144-024-06619-9
Sanford, J. R. (2016). Facing our demons: psychiatric perspectives on exorcism rituals. Hilltop Rev. 8, 87–93.
Sangha, L. (2020). The social, personal, and spiritual dynamics of ghost stories in early modern England. Hist. J. 63, 339–359. doi: 10.1017/S0018246X1800047X
Santos, C., and Michaels, J. L. (2022). What are the core features and dimensions of “spirituality”? Applying a partial prototype analysis to understand how laypeople mentally represent spirituality as a concept. Psychol Relig Spiritual. 14, 10–20. doi: 10.1037/REL0000380
Schulz, K. F., and Grimes, D. A. (2005). Sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical. Lancet. 365, 1348–1353. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07737-8
Scott, B. (2024). About us. Available online at: https://readabilityformulas.com/about-us/ (Accessed January 03, 2025).
Shojania, K. G., and Grimshaw, J. M. (2005). Evidence-based quality improvement: the state of the science. Health Aff. 24, 138–150. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.24.1.138
Siegel, P. (1986). “Parapsychological counseling: six patterns of response to spontaneous psychic experiences” in Research in parapsychology 1985. eds. D. H. Weinger and D. I. Radin (Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press), 172–174.
Simmonds-Moore, C. A. (2024). Exploring the correlates and nature of subjective anomalous interactions with objects (psychometry): a mixed methods survey. Front. Psychol. 15:1365144. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1365144
Smith, A. E., and Senter, R. J. (1967). Automated readability index. Springfield, Virginia: AMRL-TR. Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories.
Storm, L., and Goretzki, M. (2021). The psychology and parapsychology of spiritual emergency. J. Sci. Expl. 35, 36–64. doi: 10.31275/20211889
Subotic, S., and Mukherjee, B. (2014). Short and amusing: the relationship between title characteristics, downloads, and citations in psychology articles. J. Inf. Sci. 40, 115–124. doi: 10.1177/0165551513511393
Swami, V., Pietschnig, J., Stieger, S., Voracek, M., and Tran, U. S. (2024). Transliminality – converging evidence of associations with and openness to experience and its facets. Z. Psychol. 232, 269–278. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000576
Syroid, N. D., Agutter, J., Drews, F. A., Westenskow, D. R., Albert, R. W., Bermudez, J. C., et al. (2002). Development and evaluation of a graphical anesthesia drug display. Anesthesiology 96, 565–575. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200203000-00010
Tarlow, P. (2005). “Dark tourism: the appealing ‘dark’ side of tourism and more” in Niche tourism: Contemporary issues. ed. M. Novelli (Burlington, Massachusetts: Trends and Cases), 47–57.
Taves, A., and Barlev, M. (2023). A feature-based approach to the comparative study of “nonordinary” experiences. Am. Psychol. 78, 50–61. doi: 10.1037/amp0000990
Thalbourne, M. A., Crawley, S. E., and Houran, J. (2003a). Temporal lobe lability in the highly transliminal mind. Personal. Individ. Differ. 35, 1965–1974. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00044-8
Thalbourne, M. A., and Houran, J. (2005). Patterns of self-reported happiness and substance use in the context of transliminality. Personal. Individ. Differ. 38, 327–336. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.04.011
Thalbourne, M. A., Houran, J., Alias, A. G., and Brugger, P. (2001). Transliminality, brain function, and synesthesia. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 189, 190–192. doi: 10.1097/00005053-200103000-00009
Thalbourne, M. A., Houran, J., and Crawley, S. E. (2003b). Childhood trauma as a possible antecedent of transliminality. Psychol. Rep. 93, 687–694. doi: 10.2466/pr0.2003.93.3.687
Tricco, A. C., Langlois, E. V., and Straus, S. E. (2017). Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Van Dyke, P. T., and Juncosa, M. L. (1973). Paranormal phenomena—briefing on a net assessment study. A working note prepared for the Advanced Research Projects Agency (WN-8019-ARPA). Available online at: https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/International_Security_Affairs/paranormal_briefing.pdf (Accessed January 03, 2025).
Ventola, A., Houran, J., Laythe, B., Storm, L., Parra, A., Dixon, J., et al. (2019). A transliminal ‘dis-ease’ model of poltergeist ‘agents. J. Soc. Psych. Res. 83, 144–171.
Wahbeh, H., Delorme, A., and Radin, D. (2023). Rating the persuasiveness of empirical evidence for the survival of consciousness after bodily death: a cross-sectional study. J. Anomal. Exp. Cogn. 3, 78–109. doi: 10.31156/jaex.24125
Wardle, C., and Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making Council Europe Available online at: https://edoc.coe.int/en/media/7495-information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-research-and-policy-making.html (Accessed February 03, 2025).
Watt, C., Wiseman, R., and Tierney, I. (2015). Paranormal belief and perceptions of deceptive behavior. Front. Psychol. 6:1516. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01516
Wilt, J. A., Stauner, N., May, R. W., Fincham, F. D., Pargament, K. I., and Exline, J. J. (2022). Who engages with supernatural entities? An investigation of personality and cognitive style predictors. Imagin. Cogn. Pers. 41, 373–414. doi: 10.1177/02762366211065677
Woods, A., and Wilkinson, S. (2017). Appraising appraisals: role of belief in psychotic experiences. Lancet Psychiatry 4, 891–892. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30434-0
Keywords: encounter experiences, fact-checking, information sheet, public education, scientific literacy, sense-making
Citation: Massullo BJ, Houran J, Escolá Gascón A, O’Keeffe C, Drinkwater KG and Dagnall N (2025) Quality-checking a novel “fact sheet” on ghostly episodes. Front. Psychol. 16:1585437. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1585437
Edited by:
Luca Ronconi, University of Trento, ItalyReviewed by:
Ana Paula Fernandes Rodrigues, Federal University of Paraíba, BrazilJames McClenon, Retired, Chesapeake, United States
Copyright © 2025 Massullo, Houran, Escolá Gascón, O’Keeffe, Drinkwater and Dagnall. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Neil Dagnall, bi5kYWduYWxsQG1tdS5hYy51aw==