What do we believe?

A recent UMR Research poll has provided a snapshot of what New Zealanders believe about a range of paranormal subjects. More than half accept that some people have psychic powers; on the other hand, only 24 percent think astrology can be used to predict people’s futures and two thirds do not believe aliens have visited the Earth.

Questions also assessed beliefs in God or a universal spirit, whether Jesus was a historical person, and life after death.

There were some interesting results, particularly where the data are broken down more finely by demographics and the intensity with which beliefs are held. Belief in life after death declines with age, so it would seem the growing sense of one’s own mortality isn’t a major factor in such belief. But belief in psychic powers increases with age, so it’s not just a case of increasing years bringing higher levels of scepticism.

While a majority (61 percent) believe in God, only 41 percent are absolutely certain or fairly certain about this, and belief is much less pronounced in men (52 percent) than women (72 percent). Women are also more likely to believe in life after death, psychic powers and astrology, while the sexes are evenly split on UFOs and whether Jesus was a real person.

Astrology takes a real hiding. Forty percent are absolutely certain it can’t predict the future, while only two percent hold the opposite view. Alien visitation also did rather poorly, with only 11 percent absolutely or fairly certain it has happened, as against 44 percent holding the contrary positions.

An Australian 2009 Nielsen poll makes for interesting comparisons. It seems the Aussies are slightly less likely to believe in psychic powers (49 percent), slightly more likely (68 percent) to believe in God or a universal spirit, about as likely to believe in UFOs, and much more likely (41 percent) to believe in astrology, although this last one may be just the way the question was asked (belief in astrology vs its ability to predict the future).

The poll (www.umr.co.nz/Media/WhatDoNewZealandersBelieveDec11.pdf) was conducted online from 21 to 28 September 2011 on a nationally representative sample of 1000 New Zealanders 18 years of age and over. Detailed quotas and weighting were used to ensure that the sample was as representative as possible. The first results were released in December; future reports based on the data will cover such subjects as beliefs about Maori culture and public faith in herbal remedies. It will be interesting to see how they turn out.

Yet more reasons why people believe weird things

Research at Victoria University of Wellington is shedding light on the often irrational processes by which people assess new information. This article is based on presentations to the 2010 NZ Skeptics conference.

Jacqui Dean was alarmed. The Otago MP had received an email reporting the deaths of thousands of people – deaths caused by the compound dihydrogen monoxide. Dihydrogen monoxide is commonly used as an industrial solvent and coolant, it is fatal if inhaled, and is a major component of acid rain (see dhmo.org for more facts about dihydrogen monoxide). Only after she declared her plans to ban dihydrogen monoxide did she learn of its more common name: water (NZ Herald, 2007).

Ms Dean’s honest mistake may be amusing, but when large groups of people fail to correctly assess the veracity of information that failure can have tragic consequences. For example, a recent US survey found 25 percent of parents believe that vaccines can cause autism, a belief that may have contributed to the 11.5 percent of parents refusing at least one recommended vaccine for their child (Freed et al, 2010).

Evidence from experimental research also demonstrates the mistakes people can make when evaluating information. Over a number of studies researchers have found that people believe:

  • that brand name medication is more effective than generic medication;
  • that products that cost more are of higher quality;
  • and that currency in a familiar form – eg, the US dollar bill, is more valuable than currency in a less familiar form – eg, a dollar coin (Alter & Oppenheimer, 2008; for a review, see Rao & Monroe, 1989).

Why is it that people believe these weird things and make mistakes evaluating information?

Usually people can evaluate the veracity of information by relying on general knowledge. But when people have little relevant knowledge they often turn to feelings to inform their decisions (eg Unkelbach, 2007). Consider the following question: Are there more words in the English language that start with the letter K or have K in the third position? When Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman and his colleague Amos Tversky (1973) asked this question most people said there are more words that start with the letter K. And they were wrong. People make this error because words that start with the letter K, like kite, come to mind more easily than words that have a K in the third position, like acknowledge, so they judge which case is true based on a feeling – the experience of ease when generating K examples.

Generally speaking, information that is easy to recall, comprehend, visualise, and perceive brings about a feeling of fluent processing – the information feels easy on the mind, just like remembering words such as kite (Alter & Oppenheimer, 2009). We are sensitive to feelings of fluent processing (fluency), and we use it as a cue to evaluate information. For example, repeated information feels easy to bring to mind, and tends to be judged as more true than unrepeated information; trivia statements written in high colour contrast (Osorno is the capital of Chile) are easier to perceive and are judged as more true than statements written in low colour contrast (Osorno is the capital of Chile); and financial stocks with easy to pronounce ticker symbols (eg KAR) outperform those with difficult to pronounce ticker symbols such as RDO (Alter & Oppenheimer, 2006; Hasher et al, 1977; Reber & Schwarz, 1999).

Most of the time, fluently processed information is evaluated more positively – we say it is true, we think it is more valuable. And on the face of it, fluency can be a great mental shortcut: decisions based on fluency are quick and require little cognitive effort. But feelings of fluency can also lead people to make systematic errors. In our research, we examine how feelings of fluency affect beliefs, confidence, and evaluations of others. More specifically, we examine how photos affect people’s judgements about facts; how repeated statements affect mock- jurors’ confidence; and how the complexity of a name affects people’s evaluations of that person.

Can decorative photos influence your beliefs about information?

If we told you that the Barringer Crater is on the northern hemisphere of the moon, would that statement be more believable if we showed you a photo of the Barringer Crater? Because the photo is purely decorative – that is, it doesn’t actually tell you anything about the location of the Barringer Crater (which is in fact in Arizona) – you probably wouldn’t expect it to influence your beliefs about the statement.

Yet, evidence from fluency research suggests that in the absence of relevant knowledge, people rely on feelings to make decisions (eg Unkelbach, 2007). Thus, not knowing what the Barringer Crater is or what it looks like, you might turn to the photo when considering whether the statement is true. The photo might bring about feelings of fluency, and make the statement seem more credible by helping you easily picture the crater and bring to mind related information about craters – even though this would still give you no objective information about where the crater is located. In our research, we ask whether decorative photos can lead people to be more willing to believe information.

How did we answer our research question?

In one experiment, people responded true or false to trivia statements that varied in difficulty; some were easy to answer (eg, Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon), some were more difficult (eg, Turtles are deaf). Half of the time, statements were paired with a related photo (eg, a turtle). In a second study, people evaluated wine labels and guessed whether each of the wine labels had won a medal. We told people that the wine companies were all based in California. In fact, we created all of the wine names by pairing an adjective (eg, Clever) with a noun (eg, Clever Geese). Some of the wine labels contained familiar nouns (eg, Flower) and some contained unfamiliar nouns (eg, Quills). Half of the wine labels appeared with a photo of the noun.

What did we find?

Overall, when people saw trivia statements or wine names paired with photos, they were more likely to think that statements were true or that the wines had won a medal. However, photos only exerted these effects when information was difficult – that is, for those trivia statements that were difficult to answer and wine names that were relatively unfamiliar. Put more simply, decorative photos can lead you to believe claims about unfamiliar information.

Is one eyewitness repeating themselves as believable as three?

If you were a juror in a criminal case, you would probably be more willing to convict a man based on the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses, rather than the testimony of a single eyewitness. But why would you be more likely to believe multiple eyewitnesses? On the one hand, you might think that the converging evidence of multiple eyewitnesses is more accurate and more convincing than evidence from a single eyewitness, and indeed, multiple eyewitnesses are generally more accurate than a single eyewitness (Clark & Wells, 2008).

On the other hand, as some of the fluency research discussed earlier suggests, you may be more likely to believe multiple eyewitnesses simply because hearing from multiple eyewitnesses means hearing the testimony multiple times (Hasher et al, 1977). Put another way, it may be the repetition of the testimony, rather than the number of independent eyewitnesses, that makes you more likely to believe the testimony. In our research, we wanted to know whether it is the overlap of statements made by multiple eyewitnesses or the repetition of those statements that makes information more believable.

How did we answer our research question?

We asked subjects to read three eyewitness reports about a fictitious crime. We told half of the subjects that each report was written by a different eyewitness, and we told the other half that all three reports were written by the same eyewitness. In addition, half of these subjects read some specific claims about the crime (eg, The thief read a Newsweek magazine) in one of the eyewitness reports, while the other half read those same specific claims in all three reports. Later, we asked subjects to tell us how confident they were that certain claims made in the eyewitness reports really happened during the crime (eg, How confident are you that the thief read a Newsweek magazine?).

What did we find?

This study had two important findings. First, regardless of whether one or three different eyewitnesses ostensibly wrote the reports, subjects who read claims repeated across all three reports were more confident about the accuracy of the claims than subjects who read those claims in only one report. Second, when the claims were repeated, subjects were just as confident about the accuracy of a single eyewitness as the accuracy of multiple eyewitnesses. These findings tell us that repeated claims were relatively more fluent than unrepeated claims – making people more confident simply because the claims were repeated, not because multiple eyewitnesses made them.

Would a name influence your evaluations of a person?

Your immediate response might be that it shouldn’t – people’s names provide no objective information about their character. We hope that we make decisions about others by recalling information from memory and gathering evidence about a person’s attributes. Indeed, research shows that when we have knowledge about a topic, a person or a place, we do just that – use our knowledge to make a judgement- and we can be reasonably accurate in doing so (eg, Unkelbach, 2007).

But when we don’t know a person and we can’t draw on our knowledge, we might be influenced by their name. As we have described, when people cannot draw on memory to make a judgement, they unwittingly turn to tangential information to make their decisions. Therefore, when people evaluate an unfamiliar name, tangential information, like the complexity of that name, might influence their judgements. More specifically, we thought that unknown names that were phonologically simple – easier to pronounce – would be judged more positively on a variety of attributes than names that were difficult to pronounce.

How did we answer our research question?

We showed people 16 names gathered from international newspapers. Half of the names were easy to pronounce (eg, Lubov Ershova), and half were difficult to pronounce (eg, Czeslaw Ratynska). We matched the names on a number of factors to make sure any differences we found were not due to effects of culture or name length. So for example, people saw an easy and difficult name from each region of the world and names were matched on length. Across three experiments, we asked subjects to judge whether each name was familiar (Experiment 1), trustworthy (Experiment 2), or dangerous (Experiment 3).

What did we find?

Although the names were not objectively different from each other on levels of familiarity, trustworthiness, or danger, people systematically judged easy names more positively than difficult names. Put another way, people thought that easy-to-pronounce names were more familiar, more trustworthy, and less dangerous than difficult-to-pronounce names. So although we would like to think we would not evaluate a person based on their name, we may unwittingly use trivial information like the phonological complexity of a name in our judgements.

Conclusions

Why is it that people believe these weird things and make mistakes when evaluating information? Our research suggests that decorative photos, repetition of information, and a person’s name all influence the way people interpret information. More specifically, decorative photos lead people to think information is more credible; repetition leads mock-jurors to be more confident in eyewitness statements – regardless of how many eyewitnesses provided the statements; and an easy-to-pronounce name can lead people to evaluate a person more positively.

Relying on feelings of fluency can result in sensible, accurate decisions when we are evaluating credible facts, accurate eyewitness reports, and trustworthy people. But the same feelings can lead people into error when we are evaluating inaccurate facts, mistaken eyewitnesses, and unreliable people. More specifically, feelings of fluency might lead us to think false facts are true, be more confident in inaccurate eyewitness reports, and more positively evaluate an unreliable person.

A common finding across our studies is that the effect of fluency was specific to situations where people had limited general knowledge to draw on. In the real world, we might see these effects even when people have sufficient knowledge to draw on. That is because we juggle a lot of information at any one time and we do not have the cognitive resources to carefully evaluate every piece of information that reaches us – as a result we may turn to feelings to make some decisions. Therefore it is inevitable that we will make at least some mistakes. We can only hope that our mistakes are comical rather than tragic.

The authors thank Professor Maryanne Garry for her invaluable guidance and her inspiring mentorship on these and other projects.

References

Alter, A, Oppenheimer, D 2006: Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 103, 9369-9372.
Alter, A, Oppenheimer, D 2008: Psychonomic Bull. & Rev. 15, 985-990.
Alter, A; Oppenheimer, D 2009: Personality and Soc. Psych. Rev. 13, 219-236.
Clark, SE; Wells, GL 2008: Law & Human Behavior 32, 406-422.
Dihydrogen Monoxide – DHMO Homepage. (2010).dhmo.org
Freed, G; Clark, S; Butchart, A; Singer, D; Davis, M 2010: Pediatrics, 125, 653-659.
Hasher, L; Goldstein, D; Toppino, T 1977: J. Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior 16, 107-112.
NZ Herald 2007:www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10463579
Rao, A; Monroe, K 1989: J. Marketing Research, 26, 351-357.
Reber, R; Schwarz, N 1999: Consciousness & Cognition 8, 338-342.
Tversky, A; Kahneman, D 1973: Cognitive Psych. 5, 207-232.
Unkelbach, C 2007: J. Exp. Psych.: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 33, 219-230.

Superstitious? Me? That depends

When the Sunday Star-Times decided to survey the nation on how superstitious New Zealanders are and about what, Vicki Hyde got used as a guinea pig. Part One of her responses was published in the last issue of the NZ Skeptic. This is Part Two.

The Paranormal

Paranormal phenomena are things that cannot be explained and/or proven by current scientific methods. Put a number between 1 and 7 next to each item to indicate how much you agree or disagree with that item.

7 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree, 4 = Neutral

Astrology is a way to accurately predict the future.

1 – Having done lots of charts, I know it’s applied psychology – people will read into it what they want to. No accuracy, no prediction.

Psychokinesis, the movement of objects through psychic powers, does exist.

7 or 1 – If you’d said mental abilities instead of psychic powers, I would have agreed. We have a growing number of examples of neurological manipulation of an external environment, such as people able to move cursors around a computer screen by thinking at it. That’s real with the right kind of technology behind it. And pretty darned amazing, not to mention hugely inspiring for people with motor disabilities, given the possibilities for future development.

However, using psychic powers, a la X-Men, to shift things, that’s not been demonstrated.

During altered states, such as sleep or trances, the spirit can leave the body.

1 – Presupposes the existence of the spirit in the first place …

Out-of-body experiences (OOBEs) are fascinating and real in the sense that the people who experience them – me, for one! – feel as if they are real. However, neuroscience is starting to paint a very interesting picture of how these experiences occur and even how to induce them. This does not involve the spirit departing the body, nor have such experiences been able to demonstrate conclusive proof of knowledge gained solely from such a spirit wandering.

The Loch Ness monster of Scotland exists.

1 – Though it would be great if it did. Imagine a plesiosaur living in these times; that would be a magnificent survival story. But you only have to stop and think for a bit to see how unlikely it is. We’ve got much more chance for the Fiordland moose or the moa to pop up here than Scotland’s favourite cryptozoological beastie lurking in the depths.

The number ’13’ is particularly unlucky or particularly lucky

1 – Only if you’re culturally responsive to it. Other cultures don’t like four or seven or NEE!

Reincarnation does occur.

1 – I haven’t seen any good evidence for agreeing with this, and it presupposes a whole host of entities and processes to support it for which there is no evidence.

There is life on other planets.

7 – I’d prefer if it you said “likely to be life on other planets”, as we still don’t have any specific examples, but I’ll take a punt and be definite on this one. It’s a big universe out there and it would be rather presumptuous of us to assume that our planet was the only one to experience the right conditions for life to occur.

Most card-carrying skeptics would agree with this one. Where we tend to demur is the idea that that life must therefore be intelligent and buzzing our planet teasing the natives …

Some psychics can accurately predict the future.

1 – Only if you define accurately to mean “roughly right if you let them reinterpret what they said after the event”. Anything other than their very generalised predictions have failed on a regular basis. Here’s some examples:

For 2001, psychics predicted that:

  • the nine US Supreme Court judges would vanish without a trace
  • the Mississippi River would flood, forming a new ocean in the US heartland
  • Pope John Paul II would die and his successor would be Italian

And the big story they missed – the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in New York.

In 2005, professional psychics saw the usual mix of the banal and bizarre, including that:

  • terrorists would start World War III by shooting a nuclear missile into China
  • the winner of a new reality TV show would gain fame by killing and eating a contestant
  • the San Andreas Fault in California would have a massive rupture on June 17 with a death toll reaching 4,568,304

What did they miss – Hurricane Katrina, which made thousands homeless in the southern US, and the devastating earthquake that hit Pakistan and India in October, killing 73,000 people.

There are actual cases of witchcraft.

5 – It depends on your definition of witchcraft, which is a culturally and historically complex concept. Riding on broomsticks, outside the Harry Potter movies, is right out, though there might be a technological fix for that in the future, which could be fun.

In a strong cultural context, makutu, maleficus, pointing the bone, voodoo and a whole pile of other psychological techniques can certainly affect a compliant individual immersed in the belief system.

It is possible to communicate with the dead.

1 – Certainly not going by the current crop of rather banal, self- similar pronouncements by those professionals claiming to have this ability.

Taniwha do exist.

4 – Culturally yes, physically no. And this makes it different to the Loch Ness Monster or the Yeti, where people claim such things can be found and photographed.

During the 2002 furore over the Waikato taniwha lurking inconveniently in the path of the main south highway no-one went and actually looked for Karu Tahi. It was understood that the taniwha was a cultural matter, not a physical matter, and that regardless of that, it had a role to play in the debate about development.

Have you ever had a ‘paranormal’ experience – one that can’t be explained scientifically, or ‘proven’ in ways that a scientist would accept? If so, what was it?

Not one that I haven’t been able to think of an alternative non-paranormal explanation for.

You’ve got to remember that, based on general experiences and basic maths, you should experience a million-to-one coincidence roughly every two years – so the world will throw up mysterious experiences from time to time. How we explain those experiences by observation, examination, replication and just plain hard thinking is a lot of fun, and far more interesting than the quick jump to a paranormal pablum.

Lotto

How frequently do you buy a Lotto ticket?

Not in about 10 years.

If you buy one often, do you regularly use the same numbers? (Y/N)

Nope, but I do know what numbers to use to increase my winnings. Send me $10 and I’ll tell you how … 🙂

But seriously, you can improve your winnings by doing the following:

  • select sequences -most people think these can’t come up as they aren’t random, but they are as random as another other set of numbers (don’t choose 1, 2, 3, 4… or …37,38,39,40 as these are more likely to be chosen for sequences).
  • don’t choose any numbers with 7 in them; seven is commonly considered a lucky number, so when the numbers 7,10,17,23,27,33,37 came up in one draw, 21 people shared the first division prize and 80 people took the second division. The average number of winners at that time were 3 and 19 respectively, so any winner of that draw had a much smaller part of the pie.
  • don’t choose double digits or numbers ending in 0 – these are more likely to be picked by people playing numbers.

These strategies do not affect your chances of winning, but can be used to improve the amount you win. This is because you are not playing merely against the machine, but also against everyone who has a Lotto ticket. Pick the more ‘popular’ numbers and you’ll have to share the prize with more people. Select ‘uncommon’ numbers or ‘unlikely’ sequences and you have a good chance of not having to share the winnings.

Who said maths wasn’t useful …

Religion

Do you consider yourself to be a religious/spiritual person? (Y/N)

No. Ethical, yes; moral, yes; honourable yes, but I don’t think you have to be religious or spiritual for any of that.

If so, what religion/teachings do you follow?

I guess the closest I’d get to one would be the Golden Rule, found in many a religion and philosophy – variously described as “do as you would be done by”. Sure there are critiques of this ethic of reciprocity, but it’s not a bad one-liner to start with.

Conspiracy Theories

Below is a list of theories about the causes of important or controversial events. Please read through, and indicate how likely these are as actual explanations.

7 = very likely, 1 = extremely unlikely

The All Blacks were deliberately poisoned before the 1995 rugby world cup final

5 – Put enough people together in a group environment under stress and it’s not unlikely some will fall ill. ‘Course the circumstances can seem more suspicious depending on the situation, and I’d tip this one on the more likely side just because of the circumstances surrounding it. On the other hand, sh*t happens …

Princess Diana was killed by British secret service in order to prevent a Royal scandal

1 – I just don’t think they’re that competent …

A secret cabal of American and European elite control the election of national leaders, the world economy, and direct the course of history in their favour

1 – At some times, in some places, there have been powerful non-elected forces at work behind the scenes, but an all-powerful Illuminati seems very unlikely.

There is a deliberate political conspiracy to suppress the rights of minorities in NZ

3 – Not a conspiracy, but possibly just basic human psychology at work. Never put down to malice what can be achieved through thoughtlessness …

Of course, you could argue that democracy and consensus-building, by their very nature, are going to ride over minorities in their general quest for the greatest good for the greatest number. But I’d need a lot more red wine in me to get into that debate …

NASA faked the first moon landings for publicity

1 – Only the first?

I think the saddest thing about this one is that my kids, and a whole lot of other people, are growing up in a world where they’ve never seen a moon shot to inspire them with a sense of awe at what humanity is capable of achieving. When everyone in my fourth form class had a poster of the Bay City Rollers stuck to their desk-lid, I had the famous shot of Buzz Aldrin standing on the Moon. It still makes my heart lift.

The war in Iraq has less to do with promoting democracy than it does with controlling oil production in the East

6 – The reasons for going into Iraq were pretty shonky in the first place. But few things are done for just one reason …

Elvis Presley faked his death to escape the pressures of fame, the shame of his decline, or the unwanted attentions of the Mob

1 – Nope, he just carked it. Now if you’d cited Jim Morrison I might’ve wondered as I think he’d have been smart enough to pull it off …

World governments are hiding evidence that the earth has been visited by aliens

1 – Too big a story, too incompetent a collection to let that one run for any length of time.

The American government was either involved in, or knew about, the September 11 attacks before they happened

2 – I gather they were aware that an attack of some kind was being planned, but the rest of the conspiracy ideas around this are just sickening and demonstrably incorrect in many cases. People want to find an explanation for such things and someone to blame and, for some, governments or Big Business or the MIB or the Gnomes of Zurich serve as the first port of blame.

Superstitious? Me? That depends

When the Sunday Star-Times decided to survey the nation on how superstitious New Zealanders are and about what, I got used as guinea pig. Having done a lot of survey design and analysis during the course of my hodge-podge of an academic career, I often end up writing more about the questions than answering them. Add to that the tendency for being, as Margaret Mahy once characterised our group, “a person in a state of terminal caution”, and you can imagine the result.

Well, actually, you don’t have to imagine. Here, from the files of the Chair-entity, is the first half of the response the Star-Times got. See next issue for the rest.

Superstitions

The list below describes actions or events that are often considered lucky or unlucky. Please indicate the extent to which you would try to avoid each one OR make a particular effort to try to make it happen. (7 = I would do this, 1 = I would try hard to avoid this, 4 = Neutral)

• A black cat crossing your path

Not worried about this – 4? Course that might just be the Toxoplasma gondii speaking (a cat-borne parasite that sits inside the human brain making you more prone to car accidents – truly! look it up!)

• ‘Knocking on’ or ‘touching’ wood

5 – for cultural reasons, from time to time to emphasise a point. In much the same way that I’d say “God forbid” without actually expecting the old chap to take a personal hand in things.

• Tossing spilt salt over your shoulder

2 – wouldn’t usually bother, as it’s messy

• Walking under a ladder

2 – if only for safety reasons; I always look up.

When the Skeptics Conference opened one year on a Friday 13th, we had a ladder parked over the entrance doorway and everyone came through under it. We also had a box of mirror glass to break, chain mail letters to ignore, salt to spill, umbrellas to open inside – 13 superstitious activities in all. And it was the one conference where all the speakers ran to time and all the technology was cooperative …

• Throwing a coin into a fountain or well

5 – for cultural reasons (and often because the money is collected for a good cause, also to help future archaeologists have a good time 🙂

• Breaking a mirror

2 – not usually deliberately, though I had fun dropping a large box of mirror glass into the transfer station with suitably satisfying sounds of shattering – should have permanent bad luck as a result!

• Wearing a piece of lucky clothing or uniform to a sports game or an exam

4 – I don’t have anything like that in my wardrobe.

• Thinking about something you really want to happen/are looking forward to

7 – Huh? What’s superstitious about that? You don’t have to enlist the aid of creative visualisation or The Secret (TM) to daydream!

• Wishing on a falling star

7 – Doesn’t stop me from marvelling at the thought of tons of space dust landing on our planet every day, nor wondering what would happen were the thing to be a bit bigger and land in the Pacific …

• Looking at the new moon through glass

Wow, hadn’t heard of this one – what kind of astronomy writer does that make me?!

• Carrying a rabbit’s foot

1 – Kinda gross really. I’d rather wear a half-billon-year-old trilobite fossil (got a silver-mounted one for Christmas), but that’s only ‘cos it’s truly awesome to think it was once wombling around on the ocean floor, not because I think it will bring me luck.

• Standing chopsticks upright in a bowl of food

1 – For culturally sensitive reasons. I lived for five years in Japan, so I would no more do this than put my hat on the table in the wharekai. That said, I once had the most appalling meal of my life in a Japanese restaurant in London and, as a mark of disgust, I stuck the hashi upright when I left. Don’t think the staff noticed – they were French and Korean, which might explain the absolutely awful food …

• Finding a four-leaf clover

4 – Fun in a vaguely interesting way, but not exactly an exciting pastime.

• Crossing your fingers

5 – For cultural reasons or to make a point verbally (see knock on wood above).

Urban Legends – or are they?

Below is a list of (sometimes controversial) theories and beliefs (some of which are definitely true, by the way). Please read through, and indicate how likely these are to be true.7 = Very Likely, 1 = Very Unlikely

• If you go swimming within an hour of eating you’re more likely to get cramp and drown

1 – I’ve researched this one – my son wanted to do it as a science fair project, but we figured getting ethical consent to experiment on his classmates would be difficult!

• The food colourants cochineal and carmine are made from crushed beetles

7 – Cochineal definitely, not so sure about carmine as I don’t know much about that apart from the colour name. Though I daresay these aren’t used much today with synthetic alternatives being available.

• We use only ten percent of our brains

1 – This hoary old one comes up all the time and is a total misinterpretation of the original quote that just doesn’t seem to die.

• Eating carrots improves your eyesight

1 – I love the story of Bomber Command putting this about to try to disguise the development of radar during WWII.

Course, if you want to use this as a metaphor for having a balanced diet and needing some of the vitamins/minerals carrots can give you, then it’s probably better to eat the carrot than not eat it. Don’t overdo it though or you’ll end up looking vaguely jaundiced (there have been cases of that in New Zealand)!

• If you spend too much time at a tanning salon, you can cook your internal organs

2 – Hmm, I’m sure Mythbusters have done something on this but, like so many of their things, I remember them doing it but not the results. I think it unlikely, particularly if the sessions are being run to proper standards. If you just stayed in there it’s possible there many be some low-level thermal damage, but I suspect it would take a long time and/or would not penetrate much.

• Using a cellphone at a petrol station can cause an explosion

2 – Ah, a Mythbusters episode I do remember. They had to go through some highly convoluted situations to get finally an explosion. It doesn’t look like ordinary usage can do this, which doesn’t stop people being told to switch their phones off. Course, they shouldn’t have their phones on in the car in the first place, but that’s another story …

• Pet baby alligators have grown to enormous size in sewers after being flushed down the toilet

5 – For a certain value of enormous which I suspect is pretty small. You can flush a baby alligator down the toilet, depending on the sewerage system you have, and it can grow down there if the rats don’t get it first. Ever read Harlan Ellison’s short piece about the giant albino alligators living on the dope flushed down the sewers of New York? Now there’s an urban legend to conjure with!

• The seasons are caused mainly by changes in the earth’s distance from the sun during its orbit

5 – Not an urban legend as such. Having an elliptical orbit helps, as does having a planet with a 23.5 degree tilt. You could also argue that local variation has as important a role – in Auckland, the oak trees tend to be green one day, then brown and on the ground the next, with hardly any autumn to show for it; in Arrowtown, the autumnal colours are spectacular.

• As long as you pick up a piece of food dropped on the floor within 5 seconds it won’t be contaminated by germs

5-3 – Depends where you drop it of course, as some surfaces are more contaminated than others. I always had the 5-second rule with my kids – helps build the immune system as well as save money!

•There is a giant black cat living wild in the South Island countryside

5 – Fence-sitting on this one. If you’d said ‘panther’ I’d give it a 1 straight away as extremely unlikely – those things are humongous (hip height to an adult, weighing the same as Dan Carter!).

But there could be a ‘giant’ black cat, as in one (or more) larger than the ordinary moggy out there. Feral cats can get very big. That said, none of the videos or photos to date have indicated that the cat/s are particularly large once you take into account distance, scale effects, the cat running etc.

My Habits

How frequently have you done any of the following?

(Answer daily/weekly/monthly/once a year/occasionally/etc)

• Visited an astrologer

Never. Though I used to cast charts while studying astrophysics at university! That’s how I learned it was more a matter of psychology than anything else.

•Looked up your (or someone else’s) horoscope

Occasionally. Not for a long time though. That’s because I got to the point of thinking that being told to be wary of someone simply because they were a Scorpio was as distasteful as being told to be wary of Samoans or Jews. Stereotyping people in the name of entertainment is nonetheless stereotyping them, to all our detriment.

So when someone asks me my star sign, I say I’m an Asparagus.

• Watched a TV psychic (eg, John Edward, Colin Fry)

Sadly, yes, from time to time, but only in a professional capacity in order to make an informed comment.

• Visited a Tarot reader

Once, just to see how they operated.

• Looked up your (or someone else’s) biorhythm profile

Couple of times as a teenager. Seemed to have no relationship whatsoever to what was going on.

• Visited a palm reader

Haven’t encountered one. I’d be intrigued to hear what they think of my lifeline – it doesn’t end but disappears into my wrist skin.

• Prayed to St Christopher to help you find something

No you idiot, that’s St Anthony!

• Visited a psychic

Not personally, but have been to psychic readings and book launches and other promotional marketing activities by the performers involved in this growing industry. Seen the same old dreary parlour tricks time after time, which is sad, ‘specially when you see vulnerable people being ripped off.

• Attended a séance

No.

• Watched ‘Sensing Murder’

Sadly, yes, from time to time, but only in a professional capacity in order to make an informed comment. I find such psychological manipulation ethically objectionable, especially as an excuse for exploitainment. (Isn’t that a fine word – we need to introduce it into the idiom!)

Psychic hotlines cast a dreary spell

An Auckland University study reveals the costs-financial and emotional-of telephone psychics.

There are no published reports estimating how many people use psychic hotlines in New Zealand, but belief in paranormal phenomena is widespread. It is also not known how much is spent on psychic hotlines in New Zealand, but it is known to be a billion dollar business in the US.

Psychics are encouraged to keep the caller on the phone for at least 15 minutes, generating $40-$60 per call. In America, one service had approximately six million callers spending an average of $60 (NZ$90). Likewise, New Zealand psychic hotlines can charge from $2.99 (excluding GST) to $4.99 per minute.

In this context, psychic hotlines aim to make as much money as possible and exploit human vulnerabilities as quoted on a website:

“In turn, the other end is a person who has been set up with a phone by the psychic company. The scammer will keep the unsuspecting victim on the phone for as long as possible as they are being charged minute by minute and the charges are astronomical. Most of the scammers are just good actors and incredibly skilled at keeping people intrigued.”

Frederick Woodruff, an American telephone psychic, wrote candidly about his experience working on a psychic hotline in his book, Secrets of a Telephone Psychic. He confesses:

“So, imagine sitting by a phone that has been converted into another worldly pipeline-waiting for it to ring. And if rent is due, I am hoping it will ring, and ring a lot.”

One woman, Sarah Lassez, describes her experiences addicted to psychic hotlines in her book, Psychic Junkie. She writes:

“It goes without saying that I couldn’t afford these readings. The issue of my massive debt and barely-there unemployment cheques versus my tendency to spend a lot on psychics was one I knew I had to address, but the problem was that stopping just didn’t seem to be an option. No. I had to think of something else, and was thus quite pleased with myself when I discovered the free three minutes that Psychicdom and a couple other sites offered.”

As a psychologist, I was fascinated to explore why individuals would ring psychic hotlines. I was particularly interested in individuals who were ‘addicted’ to ringing the hotlines. In total, I interviewed 17 women and one male (this study is ongoing). All but one sought guidance for relationship issues. Most were recruited on an online support group for ‘psychic junkies’. The ages ranged from early 20s to 60 years of age. Most of the women were single. Most participants in the sample were raised as Catholics and they either became ‘spiritual’ or changed their religion over time. Most of the women dabbled in other psychic phenomena such as tarot card reading, astrology, runes, numerology, and angel cards. Two of the women considered themselves psychic and one of these psychics worked on a psychic hotline for a short time.

Two of the women were befriended by their hotline psychics. One woman psychic lured a woman to join a psychic development group. The woman was not happy when the development group (after one session) did not provide her with information about her lost cat. The other woman became ‘friends’ with another phone psychic. The woman would visit the phone psychic at her home. The woman disclosed that the psychic told her that she worked as a phone psychic since she lost her teeth and she didn’t want any face to face contact, but she had to provide some income to feed her five children. In exchange for psychic readings, the woman would bring the psychic coffee and lunches. This friendship ended abruptly when the psychic left her five children to be with her lover in Australia (I thought the psychic was worried about her missing teeth?).

What does this small sample of self-selected people say about psychic hotlines? The findings, although limited, suggest that individuals do not ring psychic hotlines for entertainment purposes! All of these participants rang psychic hotlines to provide temporary relief, thus giving them some hope in the short term. One of the callers said that when she rings she feels like a closet alcoholic and she enjoyed being ‘naughty’. She disclosed that her friends would be shocked if they knew. Most reported getting a ‘buzz’ from the readings.

Another interesting finding was the amount of money individuals spent on psychic hotlines. The amount varied, but the average per year in this sample was more than $7000. For example, one person said that she had spent $10-15,000 in two years; another has spent $60,000 since 1993, with a binge cycle to her spending; a third has spent $30,000 in eight years. Others confessed to being binge callers ringing several times a day and then stopping for a few days. The figures are summarised in Table 1. Not all participants answered all questions. Data keeps coming in; a recent participant spent US$3000 in one month, with $1500 on a single session. The record so far goes to a British participant, who spent 40,000 in 10 months.

The View from the Other Side

I also interviewed two women, Stacy and Lydia2, who had worked on psychic hotlines for a short time. These are their stories.

Stacy, a mother of two, worked on a few hotlines for short periods to get her through university. She uses tarot cards during the phone readings. Stacy reports that 90 percent of the queries on her weekend shift were concerning relationships, another 10 percent included queries such as finding a lost item (such as a ring), money and job issues, or queries regarding their children. Sunday morning was the busiest time with the majority of questions involving the breakdown of relationships on the Friday or Saturday night. Her clientele were mainly women, with gay men the next largest group. Interestingly, elderly people would ring up late at night following TV advertisements of psychic hotlines. The elderly would not request a reading, rather they were lonely and they wanted to chat.

Lydia defines herself as a practising psychic as well as a medium. Lydia worked on two psychic hotlines approximately six or seven years ago. She did not stay long at the hotlines. Lydia states, “The people were mainly quite desperate in wanting changes and wanting me to make it for them. I hated it when the calls were looking for the lucky numbers for Lotto, so I put them right about the ‘odds’ and they didn’t want to hear that! And I refused to bluff them, against my integrity to do that.”

Lydia further states, “I found it all much too depressing as I am not responsible for others’ lives. However, I did get some rewards when I got a strong link with spirit to bring them a message from someone who had passed over from this life.”

Lydia reports that the majority of callers were female asking about relationships (Will he come back to me? Is my husband having an affair? Will I ever find the right man?) Men would most likely ask about gambling results (eg Lotto numbers, horse racing).

Overall, one of the hotline psychics depicts the callers as lonely or desperate for some reassurance regarding relationships. The other psychic made similar comments, but added that she didn’t want to be responsible for other people’s lives. However, she would rather practise mediumship and provide messages from beyond the grave. Both psychics reported that callers do not ring ‘for entertainment purposes’ as advertised in the psychic hotline ads. Rather they are looking for relief from uncertainty in their lives.

Interestingly, the Psychic Readers Network “briefly established” the Professional Advisors Network in 1993 to replace psychics with psychiatrists and psychotherapists but no one rang. Unlike the psychics, I will let you come to your own conclusions.