CONCLUSIONES

The present research employed an approach that combined several extant measures of paranormal belief (an initial 124-item super measure). Factorial analysis allowed removal of items that shared covariance whilst supplementing with additional items. Following on from phase I (64-items), where omissions were recognised, new items were constructed and added during phase II. This developed further the MMUpbs measure. The current phase (II) demonstrated that MMUpbs was strongly correlated across all existing measures and sub-measures (ASGS; RPBS, TPB and NAP). As predicted, positive correlations occured between paranormal belief measures: ASGS; RPBS; MMUpbs; RPBS subscales, TPBrasch and NAPrasch. Examination of each subsequent factor highlighted that each possessed good face validity and each had good internal reliability.

The MMUpbs (.93) was comparable in terms of reliability with existing measures RPBS (.94) and ASGS (.89). This revealed positive inter-measure correlations between the

145

existing paranormal belief measures (RPBS and ASGS) and the new factors. MMUpbs correlated with the subscales of the established measures of paranormal belief RPBS (NAP and TPB) as well as the global items introduced to extend item development (see Table 3. Inter-measure correlations, p.129).

Phase II, employed a 50-item version of the MMUpbs. This was composed of the 47 remaining items extracted from phase I plus three accompanying items designed to increase subscale coherence and breadth. Following further literature review the astrology, extra-terrestrial and ESP subscales each received and extra item. The MMUpbs performed equally well, demonstrating excellent internal reliability, concurrent validity and convergent validity. This revealed high positive correlations between the MMUpbs and established paranormal measures (ASGS and RPBS). There were also, positive correlations observed between the MMUpbs and other study variables (e.g., RT, Dagnall et al., 2010d) and three global questions (Drinkwater et al., 2012), which were equivalent to those obtained with the ASGS and RPBS.

Similarly, when used in multiple regression and median split analysis findings aligned closely with those produced using established paranormal measures. Subscales demonstrated good to excellent internal reliability. Justification for regression and median splits was to aid a more meaningful comparison between first, second and third phases through the examination of existing literature (Irwin, 1993; Thalbourne and Lange, 2000; Dagnall et al., 2007), which has used these methods interchangeably.Finally, the MMUpbs subscales of phase II produced a similar factorial pattern as phase I.

Conversely, there are differences realized in phase II of this thesis with regard to correlational analysis of specific global items 1, 2 and 3 and the full and subscale measures. Whilst important to ask a respondent whether he/she believes in the existence of the paranormal, assessing the veracity of multi-faceted measures compared alongside individual/global items proved useful. It is important to examine standalone and individual item measures in the context of item design, because of individual item composition new item design. Evidence suggests that the question physiognomies20 _{and respondent}

characteristics may affect the reliability of responses in surveys (Krosnick, 1991; Krosnick and Fabrigar, 1997). The use of such global single items may need further development

20 _{Physiognomies: This relates to an anomalous happening which may fall beyond the realm of the ordinary}

146

and the complexity of items (1 and 3) may have played a part in the miscomprehension of such items (see Jinks, 2012a; Houran and Lange, 2012). In this context, there is a need to consider the correlational differences between Global item 2 and both the subscales of the RPBS (NAP and TPB) but to investigate item design for future measures.

In this context, Lange et al. (2000) proposed that an alternative two-factor solution comprising New Age Philosophy (NAP) and Traditional Paranormal Belief (TPB). As NAP contains 11-items measuring belief in psi, reincarnation, altered states, and astrology, while TPB assesses belief in concepts, such as the devil and witchcraft (Irwin, 2004) we can already see that there is a distinct difference in the composition of both factors. Global item 2 simply states ‘do you believe in the paranormal’ and as such correlates more significantly with NAP (.65) than TPB (.31). Maybe the difference is simply a sense of control over external stimuli on an individual level (within these elements of the NAP subscale items), reinforced by personal experience (Irwin, 1992; Lawrence et al., 1995). Whereas, lower level correlation with TPB may be of a consequence of associated beliefs maintaining control over the more external aspects on a social level (from TPB type items), and beliefs are culturally reinforced (Ember and Ember, 1988, Goode, 2000).

The results of phase (II) produced 48-items and allowed for a 7-factor solution of paranormal belief. This new measure indicated possesses psychometric properties comparable to the existing, already established measures of paranormal belief (ASGS and RPBS). The MMUpbs has some important advantages. First, it contains some reversed items and therefore is less prone to response bias; although, as noted in the phase I discussion, the use of reversed/negative worded items can be problematic. Second, it is composed of several component subscales (7 in total), which can stand as independent measures of paranormal belief. These subscales may be of value to researchers wishing to distillate the individual facets of belief in the paranormal. What seems important is the amount of distillation or reduction that takes place when accounting for factor analysis (variance shared) and the items and measures within a common core.

The potential to further paranormal belief understanding within those relationships, to the extrapolated factors, remains the purpose of this research. As it stands, the 7 distinct factors now allow measurement of belief in a sub-range of paranormal beliefs, astrological, ghosts etc. which points to a more diverse measure. Whilst, composition of the MMUpbs potentially enhances paranormal belief investigation, further research needs to approve and assess the current measure. In addition, respondents holding more consistent and informed

147

beliefs about the paranormal may reveal more about belief. In this context, psychometric measures produce a generalised overview of belief (homogenised) derived from individual perspectives. Jinks et al. (2013) suggests that investigation of the correlates/beliefs held by these exceptional believers compared to current existing believers needs further consideration within item/measure design.

The final point is one that will be further explored in the overall discussion, but needs inclusion briefly here; the potential for two differing types of measures (1 item per factor with two forced choice answers agree vs. disagree). This kind of answer polarity may form the basis of a more reductionist approach, but allows discussion and development to extend future studies.

5.6. Conclusion

In conclusion, the present research adds to the existing research regarding item measurement and design, but raises some important questions of the legitimacy of the items used within both paranormal and anomalous belief questionnaires, and what these responses represent. For example, Krosnick, (1991) raises concerns about reliability of responses, and how perception of items differs across respondents. Clearly, there is an affect from how specific questions appear and ultimately perceived (Krosnick, 1991). In this context, Jinks et al. (2013) believes that questionnaires are not all necessarily homogenous devices successfully extracting ‘informed beliefs’ possessing a rational basis. The idea that a measure exactly classifies believers into distinct groups is something that needs further investigation, and is why only superficial knowledge gained from multifaceted and unidentified conclusions reached by the measures professing to deliver a more encompassing level of belief (Jinks et al., 2013).

Importantly, a question remains as to how many sub-factors (between 7 and 8- factors) best represent a measure of paranormal belief, and whether (like the RPBS) the current MMUpbs functions as a multidimensional/general paranormal measure (see Irwin, 2009; Tobacyk and Milford, 1983). Furthermore, research frequently employs total RPBS scores alongside individual factors (e.g., Aarnio and Lindeman, 2005; Darwin et al., 2011; Hergovich, 2003; Wolfradt, 1997) and conceptualise paranormal belief as a latent factor (Darwin et al., 2011; Hergovich et al., 2008).

148

Consequently, previous phases have included additional items, individual scores and a composite measure. This endorsed adequate measurement of individual facets, and produced both a global and individual subscale structure.

149

Chapter 6. Phase III - Refining the MMUpbs (validation of current MMUpbs)