European Journal of Parapsychology, 2000, 15, 68-78

Belief in the Paranormal

and a Sense of Control over Life
Harvey J. Irwin
School of Psychology, University of New England, Australia

Abstract: This study explored the hypothesis that paranormal beliefs stem in part from a need for
control over life events. A sample of 174 Australian adults participated in a mail survey of
paranormal beliefs, three spheres of locus of control, the desirability of control over life, and efforts
to exert control over the physical environment.
Canonical correlation analysis identified two pairs of canonical variates. The first pair suggested
that a belief in broadly spiritual tenets tends to be endorsed by people, often women, who try to exert
strict control over their physical environment but who publicly repudiate any desire for control over
life events. The second pair of variates indicated that a belief in psi may be found among people,
especially women, with an acknowledged desire for control and a conviction that they have the
means to control events in the sociopolitical arena.
The study reinforces the appropriateness of indexing several aspects of the control domain and
seeking to relate these to clusters of paranormal beliefs. Additionally, the relevance of desire for
control to the intensity of psi belief is documented for the first time. On the other hand, the study did
not replicate the commonly observed association between paranormal belief and an external locus of
control, and thus caution must be exercised in drawing any inferences about the relative contributions
of aspects of the control domain to the development of paranormal belief.

In recent years a major focus of research into the nature of paranormal belief has been the
issue of the psychological functions served by these beliefs. Although the specific form of a
person’s paranormal beliefs may be governed by various social processes, it is generally
thought that there is an underlying “need to believe” (Krippner & Winkler, 1996) involving
essentially psychodynamic factors such as personality and more fundamental personal needs.
Thus, there is now a rapidly growing empirical literature on the psychological origins of belief
in the paranormal (for reviews of this literature see Irwin, 1993, 1999; Vyse, 1997; Zusne &
Jones, 1989). The objective of the present project was to investigate the intensity of paranormal
beliefs in relation to aspects of the person’s control over life events.
Several authors have speculated that endorsement of paranormal beliefs may be inspired
at least in part by a fundamental need to have a sense of control over one’s everyday life.
Alcock (1981, p. 40), Dag (1999), Frank (1977, pp. 556-557), Marks and Kammann (1980, p.
156), Schumaker (1990), Singer and Benassi (1981, p. 50), and Zusne and Jones (1982, p. 210)
all advocate the significance in this context of a basic human psychological need for a sense of
understanding of life events. An assurance of order and meaning in the physical and social
world is thought to be essential for emotional security and psychological adjustment (Heider,
1958; Lefcourt, 1973). Traumatic events and anomalous experiences, however, pose a
potential threat to a state of assurance, in essence because they can be taken to imply the world
sometimes is uncertain, chaotic, and beyond the individual’s understanding and mastery. By
incorporating a system of paranormal beliefs, it is said that the individual has a cognitive
framework for effectively structuring many events and experiences in life so that they appear
comprehensible and thereby able to be “mastered”, at least intellectually. Under this view
paranormal belief constitutes a cognitive bias through which reality may be filtered without
threatening the individual’s sense of emotional security.
There is some empirical support for the view that the intensity of paranormal belief is
related to aspects of control in the person’s daily life. The principal line of evidence concerns
the personality variable of locus of control, that is, people’s inclination to perceive their fate to
be in their own hands or alternatively, to be the consequence of external factors beyond their
personal control. People who regard personal outcomes largely as contingent upon their own
behaviour and attributes are said to have internal locus of control. By contrast, those with
external locus of control feel that most things that happen to them in life are due to other
powerful individuals and social institutions, luck, chance, or fate.
Although there may be some variation across cultures (Davies & Kirkby, 1985; Groth-
Marnat & Pegden, 1998; Tobacyk & Tobacyk, 1992), the general trend seems to be that
paranormal belief is associated with an external locus of control. This relationship has been
documented in regard to specific beliefs in ESP, precognition, psi more generally, witchcraft,
superstitions, spiritualism, reincarnation, and extraordinary life forms (Alprin & Lester, 1995;
Dag, 1999; Davies & Kirkby, 1985; Groth-Marnat & Pegden, 1998; Irwin, 1986; Polzella,
Popp, & Hinsman, 1975; Thalbourne, Dunbar, & Delin, 1995; Tobacyk & Milford, 1983;
Tobacyk, Nagot, & Miller, 1988; Tobacyk & Tobacyk, 1992). People with various sorts of
paranormal belief therefore seem to be inclined to maintain they are especially vulnerable to
external forces beyond their control.
At the same time, it should be appreciated that locus of control is not a unidimensional
trait; that is, people may differentiate the behavioural spheres over which they perceive
themselves to have control (Palenzuela, 1984; Paulhus, 1983). Thus, Davies and Kirkby
(1985) report that an external locus of control in relation to sociopolitical events was the
strongest predictor of belief in traditional religious tenets, spiritualism, and superstition,
whereas a belief in witchcraft and psi was related to an internal locus of control in personal and
interpersonal activities. By contrast, Thalbourne et al. (1995) observed that sociopolitical and
interpersonal locus of control did not correlate with the intensity of any paranormal belief, and
external control in the personal arena predicted the level of belief in psi, superstition,
spiritualism, and precognition. These seemingly contradictory data call for further investigation
of the possibility that the relationship between paranormal belief and locus of control varies in
subtle ways across subsets of belief and domains of control. Further, it may be too simplistic
to propose that the endorsement of paranormal beliefs as a whole is a function of a perceived
lack of control over one’s everyday life. Additional aspects of this “sense of control” call for
consideration.
One such construct is the so-called “illusion of control” (Langer, 1975; Presson &
Benassi, 1996), that is, people’s tendency to behave as if they had control over an event that in
reality is not open to their control. Blackmore and Troscianko (1985) found that subjects who
believed in ESP felt they exercised greater control over the outcome of a random coin-tossing
task than did non-believers, yet the two types of participant did not perform any differently on
the coin-tossing task itself. Similar results are reported by Ayeroff and Abelson (1976) and
Benassi, Sweeney, and Drevno (1979).
At first glance these findings might seem inconsistent with the relationship between
paranormal belief and an external locus of control. If endorsement of paranormal beliefs
creates an illusion of control over events that are not really controllable, why do believers still
see themselves as having little control over life events? It must be remembered, however, that
the illusion of control is a transitory and situation-specific phenomenon (Sweeney, Benassi, &
Drevno, 1980). The “illusion of control” experiments therefore need not imply that paranormal
believers function under a habitual delusion that they are in control of all facets of their life;
rather, believers may simply be susceptible to situations in which an illusion of control may be
elicited. In this regard it is particularly noteworthy that Burger and Cooper (1982) have
demonstrated that an illusion for control is found only among people with a high desire for
control. It is possible, therefore, that (at least some types of) paranormal believers feel they
have little control over life events and are susceptible to the illusion of control because they
additionally have a strong desire for control. The motivational factor of desirability of control
does not seem to have been taken into account in previous studies of paranormal belief.
Presumably related to the desirability of control is the behavioural characteristic of
endeavouring to exert control in one’s life. Irwin (1992) found that whereas paranormal
believers did not depict themselves as being controlling in their interactions with other people,
independent observers judged the believers to be more controlling in this respect than were
non-believers. It is not known whether paranormal believers behave in a controlling fashion
unconsciously or on the other hand, they feel it would be socially undesirable to admit to such
behaviour. In any event, there is some evidence that paranormal belief is associated with
efforts to exert control over the interpersonal domain. An objective of the present study was to
investigate if a similar relationship pertains in the case of attempts to exert control over the
physical environment.
Previous research has not adopted a comprehensive approach to the study of the
relationship between paranormal belief and aspects of control over one’s life. Each study
typically has focused on only one aspect of control, and some aspects of control have not even
been investigated in this context. Further, the control measure in past studies has usually been
correlated with each separate factorial dimension of paranormal belief rather than seeking
clusters of paranormal beliefs that relate in discriminable ways to the control domain. The
present study sought to redress these shortcomings by adopting a multivariate approach.
Specifically, the study sought to identify subsets of paranormal beliefs that relate differentially
to aspects of the control domain, namely, locus of control, desirability of control, and attempts
to exert control over the physical environment.

Method

Participants

The study was undertaken as a postal questionnaire survey of adults enrolled in an off-
campus Introductory Psychology course taught through the University of New England,
Australia. Students in this course generally are of mature age; most are in paid employment,
some are homemakers. Survey forms were completed by 174 students. The sample comprised
35 men and 139 women, ranging in age from 18 to 61 years (mean = 33.1, median = 32.5, s =
9.85).

Survey Materials

The survey inventory contained five questionnaires in the following order. One was a
brief form surveying basic demographic variables; three other questionnaires related to the
control domain; and the final scale indexed paranormal belief. Each of these will be described
in turn.
The first questionnaire asked respondents for their gender and age. These items were
included not only to ascertain basic sample characteristics, but also because there are reports
that at least some paranormal beliefs may vary with gender and age (Irwin, 1993).
There then followed self-report measures of three facets of control. The first of these was
Paulhus’s (1983) Spheres of Control (SOC) scale. The SOC relates to the concept of locus of
control; specifically, high scores on this measure denote internal locus of control, the
perception that life events are largely contingent on the individual’s own behaviour and
attributes. The SOC addresses perceived control in three factorially-determined, primary
behavioural spheres. Thus, one scale of the SOC, the Personal Efficacy scale, taps the level of
perceived personal achievement; the Interpersonal Control scale concerns control in social
relationships; and the Sociopolitical Control scale relates to control over sociopolitical events
that impact on the life of the individual. Each of the three scales of the SOC comprises 10
items, and responses are made on a 7-point Likert scale. Psychometric characteristics of the
SOC are reported to be sound (Paulhus, 1983).
A more motivational facet of the control domain involves the desirability of controlling
the events in one’s life. That is, irrespective of the degree to which people perceive they have
control over life events, individuals may differ in the extent to which they would like to have
such control. The latter dimension was indexed by the Desirability of Control (DC) scale
(Burger & Cooper, 1979), a 20-item scale with a 7-point Likert response scale. High scores on
the DC scale signify a strong desire for control. The DC scale has been widely used in
research into many different issues and it has well-established reliability and validity (Burger
& Cooper, 1979).
A third facet of control concerns the extent to which a person actually tries to exercise
control over their life. Recent research reviewed by Gibbs (1996) suggests that obsessive-
compulsive behaviours fundamentally represent an attempt to exert control over the
environment. On these grounds a measure of obsessive-compulsive tendencies was included in
the survey inventory. The Orderliness factor of the Four-Dimensional Personality Test (4DPT;
van Kampen, 1997) was selected for this purpose. The 4DPT Orderliness scale comprises 16
dichotomous (True/False) items; high scores on this measure may be taken as an index of the
extent to which the respondent endeavours to exert control over the physical environment.
Preliminary data reported by van Kampen (1997) suggest that the scale has satisfactory
psychometric qualities.
Paranormal beliefs were studied using Tobacyk's (1988) Revised Paranormal Belief Scale
´(PBS), an amended version of the scale originally developed by Tobacyk and Milford (1983).
The PBS incorporates an extremely broad view of the scope of “the paranormal”. Its 26 items
are distributed over 7 subscales relating to belief in traditional religion, psi, witchcraft,
superstition, spiritualism, extraordinary life forms (e.g., the Loch Ness monster), and
precognition. The response to each item is made on a 7-point Likert scale, with a higher rating
signifying stronger endorsement. Scores on individual subscales are computed as the average
rating recorded on the component items and thus have a range of 1 to 7. There has been
considerable debate over the construct validity and the factorial structure of the PBS (cf.,
Lawrence, 1995; Tobacyk & Thomas, 1997), but despite its shortcomings, the PBS arguably
remains the best available, and certainly the most widely used, multidimensional measure of
belief in the paranormal as the latter is broadly conceived.

Procedure

A “plain language” statement was attached to the front of the survey inventory mailed to
potential participants. This sheet explained the objective of the study and stressed that
participation was voluntary and confidential. An appeal was made to participants to respond as
spontaneously and openly as possible.
Participants returned their completed questionnaires in a stamped envelope supplied by
the researcher.

Results

Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) for all research measures are given in
Table 1.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics on All Research Measures (N = 174)

M S
D
PBS
Traditional Religious Belief 1
4 .
. 6
6 8
0
Psi Belief 1
4 .
. 6
2 9
5
Witchcraft 1
3 .
. 7
9 2
6
Superstition 1
1 .
. 2
8 1
1
Spiritualism 1
4 .
. 7
1 7
2
Extraordinary Life Forms 1
3 .
. 1
5 9
3
Precognition 1
3 .
. 4
 8 8
0
SOC
Personal efficacy 6
5 .
2 7
. 4
8
5
Interpersonal 9
4 .
9 6
. 2
2
4
Sociopolitical 9
4 .
1 9
. 5
1
3
DC scale 1 1
0 3
1 .
. 4
2 0
4
4DPT Orderliness 1 3
0 .
. 2
9 7
1

Using SPSS software (SPSS, 1995) scores on the PBS scales were correlated with those
on the five indices of control. The Pearson correlation matrix is given in Table 2. These data
are presented principally for completeness of information. Although in some respects the
correlations might be considered to be suggestive of relationships between paranormal belief
and control, these data are an unreliable basis for deciding whether or not all aspects of the
control domain are relevant to all dimensions of paranormal belief, for two reasons: first, there
may be intercorrelations between the various facets of control and between the dimensions of
paranormal belief, and second, the zero-order correlations do not take due account of possible
artifactual effects of age and gender.

Table 2
Pearson Correlations between Paranormal Belief (PBS) and Predictors (SOC, DC, 4DPT)
(N = 174)

P S S D 4
B O O C D
S C C P
S T
e I o O
c r
n i d
o e
p r
o l
l i
i n
t e
i s
c s
a
l

Traditional
Religious - - . -
Belief . . 0 .
0 1 3 2
8 1 0
 *
*
Psi Belief .
. 1 .
0 7 1
0 * 3
Witchcraft .
. . 1 .
0 1 9 1
7 3 * 5
*
Superstitio - -
n - . . -
. 0 0 .
1 8 5 0
2 5
Spiritualis - .
m . . 1 .
0 0 5 0
0 4 * 5
Extraordin -
ary Life - . . .
Forms . 0 0 0
1 5 2 3
6
*
Precognitio -
n - . . .
. 0 0 0
0 2 9 6
5
Significance levels (uncorrected): *p < .05; **p < .01

Canonical correlation is a more suitable technique for this context. Canonical correlation
analyses the relationship between two sets of variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). In this
instance, one set of variables (conceptualised as the dependent variables) comprised the seven
dimensions of paranormal belief as indexed by the PBS. The other set of variables, the
predictors, comprised the five facets of control (three SOC scales, DC, and 4DPT Orderliness),
gender, and age. Analysis was conducted using SPSS MANOVA software.
Seven canonical correlations were identified (Wilks’ lambda = .597, p < .001). The first
canonical correlation was .44 (20% overlapping variance), and the second was .38 (18%
overlapping variance). “Peel off” significance tests for canonical variate pairs (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 1996) showed the remaining five canonical correlations (ranging from .33 down to .02),
did not add significantly in accounting for the relationships between the two sets of variables (p
= .273). In other words, the first two pairs of canonical variates accounted for the significant
relationships between the set of paranormal beliefs and the predictor set. Data on the first two
pairs of canonical variates are given in Table 3.

Table 3
Correlations, Standardised Canonical Coefficients, Canonical Correlation, Proportion of
Variance, and Redundancies between Paranormal Belief (PBS) and Predictors
(SOC, DC, 4DPT, gender, age) for their Corresponding Canonical Variates (N = 174)

First Second
Canonical Variate Canonical Variate

C C C C
o o o o
r e r e
r f r f
e f e f
l i l i
a c a c
t i t i
i e i e
o n o n
n t n t
PBS set
Tradition .
 al 6 . - -
Religious 0 6 . .
Belief 8 1 4
2 0
Psi Belief . - .
0 . . 7
8 3 6 2
1 4
Witchcra - .
ft - . . 3
. 6 5 1
1 7 2
2
Superstiti .
on 0 - - -
6 . . .
1 2 4
4 5 1
Spirituali . .
sm 3 . 4 -
8 6 5 .
4 0
1
Extraordi
nary Life - - - -
Forms . . . .
2 4 1 5
4 0 8 8
Precognit . .
ion 3 . 4 .
5 5 1 3
8 1
Portion . . T
of 1 1 o
Variance 0 6 t
a
l

.
2
7
. . T
Redunda 0 0 o
ncy 2 2 t
a
l

.
0
4
Predictor set
SOC
Personal . . . .
0 3 3 0
9 4 5 6
SOC -
Interpers - . . .
onal . 3 5 2
4 5 7 9
0
SOC -
Sociopoli . . . .
tical 0 1 5 4
1 3 2 1
DC scale - -
. . . .
4 4 6 5
8 4 4 0
4DPT -
Orderline . . . .
ss 5 4 0 0
3 2 2 6
 Gender - - -
(M) . . - .
6 6 . 6
3 0 4 1
8
Age - - -
. . . .
1 2 0 0
4 2 1 3
Portion
of . . T
Variance 1 1 o
6 9 t
a
l

.
3
5
Redunda
ncy . . T
0 0 o
3 3 t
a
l

.
0
6
Canonica
l . .
correlatio 4 3
n 4 8

This table shows correlations between the variables and their canonical variates,
standardised canonical variate coefficients, within-set variance accounted for by the canonical
variates (percentage of variance), redundancies, and canonical correlations. Total percentage
of variance and total redundancy data indicate that relationship between canonical variates was
at best moderate in both instances.
Using the standardised canonical variate coefficients as a guide, the principal aspects of
paranormal belief that composed the first canonical variate were Traditional Religious Belief
and Spiritualism, together with Precognition and a lack of endorsement of both Witchcraft and
Extraordinary Life Forms. For convenience of further discussion this variate will be denoted
as “spirituality”, because the associated pattern of belief emphasises fundamental religious
concepts without the more occult and anomalous elements of the paranormal; an anonymous
referee of this paper, on the other hand, prefers to dub this variate “conventional, or highly
socialised, spirituality”. Among the set of predictor variables, Orderliness, a low Desire for
Control, and female gender correlated with the first canonical variate. Taken as a pair, these
variates suggest that people with a conventionally spiritual outlook are often women who show
a tendency to control their physical environment, yet at the same time they report a low desire
for control.
The second canonical variate in the paranormal belief set primarily comprised belief in
Psi, with a repudiation of Extraordinary Life Forms, Superstitions, and Traditional Religious
tenets. This variate henceforth will be referred to simply as “psi belief”, but the variate does
emphasise belief in psi processes at the exclusion of less strictly parapsychological concepts;
again, a referee has represented this variate as “unconventional or unsocialised” paranormal
belief. The predictor variables that correlated with the second canonical variate were Desire
for Control, internality on the SOC Sociopolitical scale, and female gender. The second pair of
canonical variates therefore may indicate that endorsement of psi belief might often be found in
people, particularly women, with an acknowledged desire for control and a conviction that they
have the power to control events in the sociopolitical arena.

Discussion
 Although the results of the canonical correlation analysis provide the primary findings of
the study, brief comment may be made on the zero-order correlations (Table 2) in light of the
previous literature on locus of control. Broadly speaking, the correlations with the personal
and interpersonal facets of locus of control are consistent with but slightly weaker than those
reported by Davies and Kirkby (1985). The data for the sociopolitical scale of the SOC,
however, differ markedly between the two studies. Whereas Davies and Kirby found most
paranormal beliefs to be associated with external sociopolitical locus of control, the present
study found associations with internal sociopolitical control. One can but speculate on the
basis of this disparity. Given that the study by Davies and Kirkby was undertaken in England
and the author’s study was conducted in Australia, cultural factors may be important to
consider. Although the two countries adopt the Westminster system of government, radicalism
and political responsiveness to public protest may differ between England and Australia. This
factor might have played some role in generating the different pattern of correlations between
the two studies. At the same time it must be acknowledged that Thalbourne et al. (1995), also
using an Australian (if substantially younger) sample, failed to find any association between
paranormal beliefs and sociopolitical locus of control. The nature of these differences across
studies is somewhat elusive and does warrant further investigation. In the present context it is
as well to keep in mind that the findings may to some degree be specific to some idiosyncratic
characteristic of the sample used in this survey.
Two pairs of canonical variates were identified in the canonical correlation analysis. The
first pair suggests that a belief in broadly spiritual tenets tends to be endorsed by people, often
women, who try to exert strict control over their physical environment but who publicly
repudiate any desire for control over life events. The denial of the desirability of control
supports Irwin’s (1992) observation that although others may see paranormal believers as
controlling individuals, the believers themselves tend not to concede this. The findings for the
first pair of canonical variates is reminiscent also of reports of an association between
religiosity and obsessive-compulsiveness, rigidity or dogmatism (Alcock, 1981; Kaldestad,
1996; Maltby, 1998; Raphael, Rani, Bale, & Drummond, 1996). Thus, obsessive-compulsive
tendencies, or a relatively inflexible insistence that the world should operate in conformance
with one’s own views, may psychologically predispose some people to endorse broadly
spiritual beliefs; these tenets can then be taken as an authoritative rationale for the person’s
own dogmatism. Thus, under a narrowly religious outlook, a person can exert efforts to control
life events, yet deny personal involvement in such efforts: a higher authority is said to demand
that life should happen in a particular way. This is not to dismiss all religious beliefs as a
product of obsessive-compulsiveness, but merely to reaffirm the observation by Raphael et al.
(1996) that many people with this psychology are attracted to religious beliefs.
At the same time people with different psychodynamics may be attracted to other, non-
religious paranormal beliefs. The second pair of canonical variates suggests that a belief in psi
may tend to be found among people, especially women, with an acknowledged desire for
control and a conviction that they have the means to control events in the sociopolitical arena.
As noted above, the indication here for psi belief to be associated with an internal sociopolitical
locus of control is not consistent with the general trend of previous studies and could perhaps
be an idiosyncrasy of the sample. That is, there may have been a common perception in this
sample that radical protest can influence governmental decisions, and such preparedness to
speak against the received view may be associated with a tendency to acknowledge an
(unorthodox) belief in psi. The predictive value of the desirability of control, on the other
hand, is specially noteworthy in light of the fact that this variable has not been utilised in
previous research on paranormal beliefs. A strong desire for control among psi believers might
well account for these believers’ reported susceptibility to a transitory illusion of control
(Blackmore & Troscianko, 1985). Additionally, at least in respect to a belief in psi, this
finding might be said to offer a measure of support for the hypothesis that paranormal belief
may be inspired in part by a fundamental need to have a sense of control over one’s everyday
life.
The latter interpretation nevertheless is not fully satisfactory, for a number of reasons.
First, the effect size (multivariate canonical R = .38) does little to encourage the view that the
control domain is the principal determinant of paranormal belief, as has been implied by some
commentators (e.g., Schumaker, 1990). Second, the generality of the hypothesis can perhaps
be queried in terms of the rather different pattern of findings for spiritual beliefs and psi belief;
the control domain appears to be implicated in different ways for the two types of paranormal
belief identified by the canonical correlation analysis.
 Third, and most important, is the fact that although the psi believers in this sample
evidently do desire control over life events, they also perceive themselves already to have some
sociopolitical control, and to the extent that neither personal nor interpersonal control is a
negative predictor, psi believers do not present themselves as lacking in the remaining arenas
of control. That is, psi belief might not be inspired by a perceived lack of control, as implied
by earlier writers, but more fundamentally by the perception that it is important to have control
over life events. This is not to dismiss other researchers’ observations of a correlation between
psi belief and an external locus of control, but that relationship might well prove to be
secondary when the desirability of control is taken into account. Thus, psi believers’ depiction
of themselves as at the mercy of powerful others or fate may be less a statement of perceived
locus of control than of the desire to have greater control than they actually do.
The findings of the present study should not, however, be overstated. The study arguably
is instructive in that it reinforces the appropriateness of indexing several aspects of the control
domain and seeking to relate these to clusters of paranormal belief. There is a clear indication
here that spiritual belief and psi belief may relate in different ways to the control domain. The
study nevertheless is inconclusive in that for its sample of participants the usual associations
between paranormal beliefs and an external locus of control largely were not evident, and thus
it would be inadvisable to draw any strong inference from the present data about the relative
roles of perceived need for control, desirability of control, and exerted control in the
development of paranormal belief. Further, the adequacy of obsessive-compulsive behaviours
as an index of exerted control rests on the validity of Gibbs’ (1996) view that obsessive-
compulsive behaviours do constitute an attempt to exert control over the environment. Finally,
the data are purely correlational, and any inference of causal processes must therefore be
tenuous. An anonymous referee has suggested, for example, that strong paranormal beliefs
might lead to feelings of loss of control, rather than vice versa. For these reasons constructive
replication of the study is called for.

Address for correspondence:

Assoc. Prof. Harvey Irwin
School of Psychology
University of New England
Armidale, NSW 2351
Australia
e-mail: [email protected]

References

Alcock, J. E. (1981). Parapsychology: Science or Magic? A Psychological Perspective.

Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
Alprin, L., & Lester, D. (1995). Belief in reincarnation and locus of control. Psychological
Reports, 76, 1018.
Ayeroff, F., & Abelson, R.P. (1976). ESP and ESB: Belief in personal success at mental
telepathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 240-247.
Benassi, V.A., Sweeney, P.D., & Drevno, G.E. (1979). Mind over matter: Perceived success at
psychokinesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1377-1386.
Blackmore, S., & Troscianko, T. (1985). Belief in the paranormal: Probability judgements,
illusory control, and the “chance baseline shift”. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 459-
468.
Burger, J.M., & Cooper, H.M. (1979). The desirability of control. Motivation and Emotion, 3,
381-393.
Dag, I. (1999). The relationships among paranormal beliefs, locus of control and
psychopathology in a Turkish college sample. Personality and Individual Differences,
26, 723-737.
Davies, M.F., & Kirkby, H.E. (1985). Multidimensionality of the relationship between
perceived control and belief in the paranormal: Spheres of control and types of
paranormal phenomena. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 661-663.
Frank, J.D. (1977). Nature and functions of belief systems: Humanism and transcendental
religion. American Psychologist, 32, 555-559.
Gibbs, N.A. (1996). Nonclinical populations in research on obsessive-compulsive disorder: A
critical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 16, 729-773.
Groth-Marnat, G., & Pegden, J. (1998). Personality correlates of paranormal belief: Locus of
control and sensation seeking. Social Behavior and Personality, 26, 291-296.
Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
Irwin, H.J. (1986). The relationship between locus of control and belief in the paranormal.
Parapsychological Journal of South Africa, 7, 1-23.
Irwin, H.J. (1992). Origins and functions of paranormal belief: The role of childhood trauma
and interpersonal control. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 86,
199-208.
Irwin, H.J. (1993). Belief in the paranormal: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of
the American Society for Psychical Research, 87, 1-39.
Irwin, H.J. (1999). An Introduction to Parapsychology (3rd ed.). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Kaldestad, E. (1996). The empirical relationships between standardized measures of religiosity
and personality/mental health. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 37, 205-220.
Krippner, S., & Winkler, M. (1997). The “need to believe.” In G. Stein (Ed.), The
Encyclopedia of the Paranormal. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 441-453.
Langer, E.J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
32, 311-328.
Lawrence, T.R. (1995). How many factors of paranormal belief are there? A critique of the
Paranormal Belief Scale. Journal of Parapsychology, 59, 3-25.
Lefcourt, H.M. (1973). The function of the illusions of control and freedom. American
Psychologist, 28, 417-425.
Maltby, J. (1998). Religious orientation and rigidity. Journal of Psychology, 132, 674-676.
Marks, D., & Kammann, R. (1980). The Psychology of the Psychic. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus
Books.
Palenzuela, D.L. (1984). Critical evaluation of locus of control: Towards a reconceptualization
of the construct and its measurement. Psychological Reports, 54, 683-709.
Paulhus, D. (1983). Sphere-specific measures of perceived control. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 44, 1253-1265.
Polzella, D.J., Popp, R.J., & Hinsman, M.C. (1975). ESP? Paper presented at a meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Chicago.
Presson, P.K., & Benassi, V.A. (1996). Illusion of control: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 493-510.
Raphael, F.J., Rani, S., Bale, R., & Drummond, L.M. (1996). Religion, ethnicity and
obsessive-compulsive disorder. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 42, 38-44.
Schumaker, J.F. (1990). Wings of Illusion: The Origin, Nature and Future of Paranormal
Belief. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Singer, B., & Benassi, V.A. (1981). Occult beliefs. American Scientist, 69, 49-55.
SPSS [Computer software]. (1995). Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
Sweeney, P.D., Benassi, V. A., & Drevno, G. (1980, September). Transience of illusory
control. Paper presented at a meeting of the American Psychological Association,
Montreal, Canada.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics (3rd ed.). New York:
HarperCollins.
Thalbourne, M.A., Dunbar, K.A., & Delin, P.S. (1995). An investigation into correlates of
belief in the paranormal. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 89,
215-231.
Tobacyk, J.J. (1988). A revised Paranormal Belief Scale. (Unpublished manuscript, Louisiana
Tech University, Ruston, LA)
Tobacyk, J.[J.], & Milford, G. (1983). Belief in paranormal phenomena: Assessment
instrument development and implications for personality functioning. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1029-1037.
Tobacyk, J.J., Nagot, E., & Miller, M. (1988). Paranormal beliefs and locus of control: A
multidimensional examination. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 241-246.
Tobacyk, J.[J.], & Thomas, A. (1997). How the big orthogonal seven is really the oblique
seven. Journal of Parapsychology, 61, 337-342.
Tobacyk, J.J., & Tobacyk, Z.S. (1992). Comparisons of belief-based personality constructs in
Polish and American university students: Paranormal beliefs, locus of control, irrational
beliefs, and social interest. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23, 311–325.
van Kampen, D. (1997). Orderliness as a major dimension of personality: From 3DPT to
4DPT. European Journal of Personality, 11, 211-242.
Vyse, S.A. (1997). Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Zusne, L., & Jones, W.H. (1982). Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Extraordinary
Phenomena of Behavior and Experience. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zusne, L., & Jones, W.H. (1989). Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Magical Thinking (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.