paranormal beliefs, schizotypy, and thinking styles among teachers and future teachers

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 93–102

Paranormal beliefs, schizotypy, and thinking styles amongteachers and future teachers

Jeremy E.C. Genovese *

Department of Curriculum and Foundations, College of Education and Human Services,

Cleveland State University, RT 1444, 2121 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44115-2214, USA

Received 15 July 2004; received in revised form 1 November 2004; accepted 7 December 2004

Available online 26 January 2005

Abstract

This study examines the psychological correlates of paranormal beliefs among teachers and teachers in

training. Teachers are a population of special interest because they may transmit paranormal beliefs to their

students. Teacher paranormal beliefs were found to be correlated with cognitive perceptual and disorga-

nized schizotypal thinking and intuitive thinking styles. The overall pattern of the correlations suggests that

intuitive thinking style and schizotypal thinking contribute independently to paranormal belief. This studyconfirms the findings of Wolfradt, Oubaid, Straube, Bischoff, and Mischo (1999) of a statistically significant

difference in paranormal belief between thinking style groups, although the effect size was small.

� 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cognitive style; Personality correlates; Schizotypal personality disorder; Parapsychological phenomena;

Teacher attitudes; Individual differences; Paranormal beliefs

1. Introduction

Is belief in paranormal phenomena linked to the psychological traits of the individual believeror is the widespread acceptance of these ideas the result of educational failure?

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.12.008

* Tel.: +1 216 523 7130; fax: +1 216 687 5370.

E-mail address: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

94 J.E.C. Genovese / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 93–102

There is clear evidence connecting paranormal belief to individual psychological differences(see, Irwin, 1993; Shermer, 2003; Vyse, 1997; Zusne & Jones, 1989; for useful reviews). Differencesthat have been associated with paranormal beliefs or experiences include, thinking style (Wolfradtet al., 1999), schizotypal traits (Wolfradt et al., 1999), probability misjudgment (Blackmore &Troscianko, 1985; Brugger & Taylor, 2003; Musch & Ehrenberg, 2002; but see Blackmore,1997), willingness to make identification from noisy stimuli (Blackmore &Moore, 1994), extraver-sion (Thalbourne, 1981), fantasy proneness (Barholomew, Basterfield, & Howard, 1991), andlocus of control (Groth-Marnat & Pegden, 1998).

The evidence for the educational effects on paranormal belief is more ambiguous. Despitethe increasing availability of science education, popular belief in the paranormal remainshigh (Ede, 2000). In a recent examination of Southern Focus Poll data, Rice (2003) foundonly 10.1% of the population could be labeled as skeptics; individuals who tend not tobelieve in either classical paranormal phenomena or traditional religious phenomena. Walker,Hoekstra, and Vogl (2002) in a study of 207 undergraduates found ‘‘no relationshipbetween the level of science knowledge and skepticism regarding paranormal claims’’ (p. 26).Zusne and Jones (1989) surveyed 92 college students and found that 64.1% endorsed atleast 10% of items on a list of magical beliefs. It is possible, however, that studies limited tocollege undergraduates may suffer from range restriction and not reflect the actual effects ofeducation. Otis and Alcock (1982) studied 113 university students, 352 university faculties, and251 volunteers from the general public. They found that professors were more skeptical ofparanormal claims than students and that students were more skeptical than the general public.In addition, they found that among university professors, academic discipline was significantlyrelated to skepticism, with English professors being the least skeptical over several beliefcategories.

Most studies of the educational effects of paranormal beliefs mention the possibility of self-selection as a confounding factor (e.g. Losh, Tavani, Njoroge, Wilke, & McAuley, 2003). It couldbe that more skeptical individuals choose more science courses rather than science courses induc-ing skepticism.

While most studies have focused on the effects of higher education on paranormal belief, itseems appropriate to ask why kindergarten through secondary education has had such a smalleffect on the level of belief. One avenue that has been relatively unexplored is the extent of para-normal beliefs among kindergarten through secondary teachers. Eve and Dunn (1990) have sug-gested ‘‘the possibility that high school teachers might be an important source of pseudosciencebelief in the general population’’ (p. 13). Using a national random sample of biology and life sci-ence teachers they found that many of these teachers did hold pseudoscientific beliefs. Amongtheir findings:

Twenty-seven percent of the teachers in our sample agreed that �The Bible is an authoritative andreliable source of information with respect to such scientific issues as the age of the earth and theorigin of life� (p. 14).Forty-five percent agreed that �Adam and Eve were the first human beings and were created byGod� (p. 14).Twenty-nine percent agreed that people can predict future events via psychic power (p. 15).

J.E.C. Genovese / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 93–102 95

There is evidence that elementary teachers also have high levels of paranormal belief. Yates andChandler (2000) found high level of beliefs in seances, Nostradamus, and UFOs in a study of Aus-tralian undergraduates, most seeking to become primary teachers, for other items, such as astro-logy and reincarnation, the students tended to be agnostic. In their sample of 232 only fourrejected all paranormal beliefs. A study of Greek early educators found that 60% believed inastrology (Kallery, 2001).

While we have some evidence of high levels of paranormal belief among teachers we have littleinformation about their psychological characteristics that may be associated with paranormal be-lief. There appear to be few studies of the psychological correlates of paranormal beliefs amongeither preservice teachers, that is teachers in training, or working teachers, usually called inserviceteachers. The purpose of this study is to examine the psychological correlates of those beliefs in asample of preservice and inservice teachers enrolled in classes at a Midwestern urban college ofeducation.

This study focuses on two traits, found by Wolfradt et al. (1999), to be significantly associatedwith paranormal beliefs; schizotypal traits and rational/intuitive thinking styles.

According to Day and Peters (1999) ‘‘certain individuals have similar experiences to the positivesymptoms of schizophrenia while remaining functioning members of society’’ (p. 55). It is nowunderstood, that subclinical schizotypal traits exist in the general population and that these traitscan be detected psychometrically (Chapman, Chapman, & Kwapil, 1995; McConaghy, 1959;Meehl, 1962; Raine & Benishay, 1995). Claridge and Beech (1995) point out that a number ofinstruments exist for measuring schizotypal traits and that ‘‘the successful widespread use of thesescales in nonclinical samples leaves us in no doubt that psychotic features are represented amongthe characteristics of the population at large’’ (p. 195). A number of researchers have found rela-tionships between schizotypal traits and paranormal beliefs (e.g. Day & Peters, 1999; McCreery &Claridge, 2002; Peltzer, 2003).

The intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking style model grows out of Epstein�s(Epstein, Pacini, Denes-Raj, & Heier, 1996) cognitive–experiential self theory (CEST). CEST isa dual process model (see Stanovich & West, 2003 for an overview of dual process models) whichproposes the simultaneous existence of two information processing systems, one experiential andintuitive the other rational and deliberative (Donovan & Epstein, 1997). CEST proposes that thereare individual differences in the degree to which people operate in the two modes (Epstein et al.,1996). Wolfradt et al. (1999) found that individuals who scored high on both rational and intuitivethinking styles reported higher paranormal beliefs, experiences, and abilities. Because the instru-ment used to measure individual differences in thinking styles includes items from the Need forCognition scale (Epstein et al., 1996) to measure rational thinking style, the Wolfradt et al.(1999) results seem to contradict the finding by Yates and Chandler (2000) of no significant corre-lation between paranormal beliefs and the Need for Cognition scale. But the Wolfradt et al. (1999)results suggest an interaction effect. Wolfradt et al. (1999) used cluster analysis to create four mutu-ally exclusive thinking style groups Table 1. Subjects who scored high on rational thinking and lowon intuitive thinking (rational thinking style) tended to be skeptics while the strongest believerstended to score high on both rational and intuitive thinking styles (complementary thinking style).

Teachers are known to play an important role in shaping their students� understanding of sci-ence (Kikas, 2004). A first step in understanding the part teachers play in the transmission of

Table 1

Thinking style groups (Wolfradt et al., 1999)

Label REI—Need for Cognition REI—Faith in Intuition

1. Poor Low Low

2. Rational High Low

3. Intuitive Low High

4. Complementary High High


paranormal belief is to assess the nature of those beliefs among teachers. This paper seeks to rep-licate and extend the findings of Wolfradt et al. (1999) by testing for a similar pattern of correla-tions between schizotypal traits, thinking styles, and paranormal beliefs in a sample of preserviceand inservice teachers.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The sample (N = 96) included both preservice and inservice teachers attending educational psy-chology classes at a large Midwestern open admissions university. The surveys were administeredin class. Ages of the participants ranged from 20 to 57 with a mean age of 28. The ethnic compo-sition of the sample was 1% Asian, 9.4% Black, 3.1% Hispanic, 83.3% White, and 3.1% other.Females constituted 71.9% of the sample and males 28.1%.

2.2. Instruments

The survey contained three questionnaires. Following Wolfradt et al. (1999), all scales were as-signed the same response format ranging from 1 (=strongly disagree) to 5 (=strongly agree). Thethree questionnaires were:

2.2.1. The Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire—Brief (SPQ-B, Raine & Benishay, 1995)

The SPQ-B is a 22 item self report instrument designed by Raine and Benishay (1995) for‘‘dimensional research on the correlates of schizotypal features in the normal population’’(p. 346). This instrument contains three scales; Cognitive Perceptual, Interpersonal, and Disorga-nized. Some examples of scale items are: (1) Cognitive Perceptual—‘‘Have you ever had the sensethat some person or force is around you, even though you cannot see anyone?’’ (2) ‘‘Interper-sonal—People sometimes find me aloof and distant.’’ (3) Disorganized—‘‘People sometimescomment on my unusual mannerisms and habits.’’

2.2.2. The Rational–Experiential Inventory, ten item version, (REI, Epstein et al., 1996)

The 10 item version of the REI contains two scales, Need for Cognition and Faith in Intuitionwhich measure rational and intuitive thinking styles respectively. Examples of scale items are (1)Need for Cognition—‘‘I prefer complex to simple problems.’’ (2) Faith in Intuition—‘‘I trust myinitial feelings about people.’’


2.2.3. Belief in the Paranormal Scale (BPS, Musch & Ehrenberg, 2002)

The BPS is a brief eight item measure of paranormal belief. The items were selected by Muschand Ehrenberg (2002) mostly from other paranormal belief scales to provide a highly homoge-neous measure. Five items cover belief in paranormal phenomena (1) belief in extra-sensoryperception, (2) belief in telepathy, (3) belief the existence of events that cannot be explained sci-entifically, (4) reincarnation, and (5) life after death. Three items ask about personal experiencewith paranormal phenomena, (1) experience with telepathy, (2) possession of abilities that cannotbe explained by science, and (3) having dreams that foretell the future.

2.3. Analysis

Data analysis was performed using SPSS (1999). Following Wolfradt et al. (1999) K-clusteranalysis of the REI Need for Cognition Scale and the REI of the Faith in Intuition Scale wasperformed to create four mutually exclusive thinking style groups (Table 1).

3. Results

3.1. Paranormal belief

The mean score on the BPS was 20.83 (SD = 6.57, range 8–36). There was no statisticallysignificant difference between males and females in paranormal belief (t = �1.3,p = .20) and nostatistically significant correlation between age and paranormal beliefs (r = .07,p = .53).

3.2. Reliabilities and correlations

Correlations and reliabilities are reported in Table 2. The scores on all scales had acceptablelevels of internal consistency. Two scales on the SPQ-B correlated significantly with paranormalbelief: the Cognitive Perceptual Scale (r = .65,p < .01) and the Disorganized Scale (r = .27,

Table 2

Intercorrelations and coefficient alphas

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Paranormal Belief Scale .81

2. Number of science courses �.13 –

3. SPQ-B Cognitive perceptual scale .65** �.19 .78

4. SPQ-B Interpersonal Scale .04 �.17 .41** .82

5. SPQ-B Disorganized Scale .27** �.07 .49** .47** .72

6. REI—Need for Cognition Scale .01 .01 .07 �.14 .06 .75

7. REI—Faith in Intuition Scale .32** �.12 .18 �.14 �.21* .08 .80

Note: Coefficient alphas, with the exception of number of science courses, are presented in boldface along the diagonal.

SPQ-B = Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire—Brief. REI = Rational–Experiential Inventory.* p < .05.** p < .01.

Table 3

Between-groups difference for Paranormal Belief

Group 1

(poor)

(n = 11)

Group 2

(rational)

(n = 25)

Group 3

(intuitive)

(n = 32)

Group 4

(complimentary)

(n = 28)

F(3, 92)M SD M SD M SD M SD

Paranormal 19.73 6.98 17.52 5.65 21.00 5.92 24.04 6.62 575.94**

** p = .003, x2 = .11


p < .01). Only one scale on the REI, the Faith in Intuition Scale, correlated significantly withparanormal belief (r = .32,p < .01).

There is only one significant correlation between the SPQ-B scales and the REI scale. The Faithin Intuition Scale does correlate negatively with SPQ-B Disorganized Scale (r = �.21,p < .05).The overall pattern of the correlation matrix suggests that intuitive thinking style and schizotypalthinking contribute independently to paranormal beliefs.

The correlation between number of science courses and paranormal belief was negative andnonsignificant (r = �.13,p = .19). This could, however, be an artifact of the question, fully70.8% of the sample indicated they had taken between 0 and 4 college level science courses andthus substantial compression of the variation could have depressed the correlation.

3.3. Thinking style groups

Table 3 shows the assignment of the subjects into thinking style groups and the mean differencein paranormal belief between these groups. One-way analysis of variance between thinking stylegroups on paranormal belief shows a significant difference (F(3,92) = 5.00,p = .003,x2 = .11).Post hoc comparisons show significant differences between the complimentary and rationalgroups, a result that is consistent with the findings of Wolfradt et al. (1999).

4. Discussion

In this study, paranormal beliefs were found to correlate with the Cognitive Perceptual and Dis-organized scales of the SPQ-B and the Faith in Intuition scale of the REI. Like Yates and Chan-dler (2000), this study found a low nonsignificant correlation (r = .01,p = .90) between the REINeed for Cognition scale and paranormal belief. However when the sample is grouped into think-ing style clusters there is evidence of the interaction effect found by Wolfradt et al. (1999) withrational thinkers having the lowest levels of belief and complementary thinkers having the highestlevels. It should be noted, however, that the effect size of this typology is quite small (x2 = .11). Inaddition, there is often a loss of information when a metric variable is made categorical and thisapproach might be ill advised.

A more interesting finding is that the pattern of correlations suggest that schizotypal traits andCEST primary processes contribute independently to paranormal belief. As Lindeman (1998)points out ‘‘a diverse set of conditions can lead to the same belief’’ (p. 263).


Many scientists (although see Rao, 2001, for an alternative point of view) have raised concernsabout the high level of belief in paranormal phenomena in the general population (e.g. NationalScience Board, 2000; Sagan, 1996B). The National Science Board (2000) identified six specificharms related to paranormal belief:

• a decline in scientific literary and critical thinking;• the inability of citizens to make well-informed decisions;• monetary losses (psychic hotlines, for example, offer little value for the money spent);• a diversion of resources that might have been spent on more productive and worthwhile acti-

vities (for example, solving society�s serious problems);• the encouragement of something-for-nothing mentality and that there are easy answers to seri-

ous problems, for example, that positive thinking can replace hard work; and• false hopes andunrealistic expectations (Beyerstein, 1998;National ScienceBoard, 2000, pp. 8–31).

For many, increased or improved education is seen as the appropriate antidote to paranormalbeliefs (e.g. Sagan, 1996A). Yet studies of the relationship between education and paranormalbelief have yielded contradictory results (see Irwin, 1993 for a review).

One recent study (Losh et al., 2003), using the National Science Foundation Surveys of Public

Understanding of Science and Technology 1979–2001, found that while degree level (high schoolor less, vocational/associate degree, baccalaureate, or advanced degree) did affect the level of para-normal belief, degree level is not a sufficiently nuanced measure of educational effects. The authorsnote, ‘‘that some effects attributed to �educational level� almost certainly occur because the collegeeducated have taken more science courses� (pp. 34–35). One is left wondering, however, why thescience education most students receive in their kindergarten through secondary schooling seemsto have such a small effect on paranormal beliefs?

Teachers are central to the cultural transmission of scientific thinking. Yet, it has been sug-gested that rather than teaching critical thinking and inoculating students against paranormal be-liefs, teachers themselves may be a source of those beliefs (Eve & Dunn, 1990). For example, TheCleveland Plain Dealer quotes an elementary school teacher�s comments on the Apollo moonlandings:

‘‘They faked that and put it on television to fool dummies like you,’’ she said, despite theencyclopedic evidence to the contrary. ‘‘God never intended us to be messing with the moon.And, you know, the weather has not been right since they started sending rockets up thereanyway’’ (Fullwood, 2004, p. B1).

There has been considerable concern about the poor science training of many of our teachers.According to Ingersol (1999) ‘‘over half of teachers teaching physical science classes (chemistry,physics, earth science, or space science) are without an academic major in any of the physical sci-ences’’ (p. 28). Similarly ‘‘about a third of all secondary school teachers who teach math do nothave either a major or minor in math, math education, or related disciplines like engineering orphysics’’ (p. 27). But beyond the question of academic preparation there is the question of teach-ers� dispositions. Previous research has identified certain psychological traits that are associatedwith paranormal beliefs. This study has found a similar pattern of beliefs and their psychologicalcorrelates among working teachers and teachers in training.


The results of this study seem to support an argument made from the perspective of CEST‘‘that it is just as important to train the experiential system as the rational system’’ (p. 545, Teglasi& Epstein, 1998). This is consistent with a finding of Dougherty�s (2004), who compared the effectson paranormal beliefs of a rhetoric class which emphasized critical thinking and a class specifi-cally aimed at encouraging skepticism about paranormal claims. The class, Alien Abductions, CropCircles, and Psychics: Caveat Credulous, included direct demonstrations that might appeal to theexperiential system, including having the instruction feign psychic abilities and later exposingthese performances as tricks. Students who attended this class became more skeptical about para-normal claims, while the traditional rhetoric class had not increased student skepticism. This sug-gests that educators should not only teach critical reasoning skills, which engage the cognitivesystem, but should directly confront paranormal claims with demonstrations that can be pro-cessed experientially.

Certain limitations of this study must be acknowledged. The sample was small and it would beimportant to repeat this work with a larger sample of working teachers. In addition, in the futureit would make sense to use an instrument, such as the Paranormal Scale (Tobacyk & Milford,1983) that makes more nuanced distinctions between different types of paranormal beliefs.Finally, it is possible that studies of self-report paranormal belief underestimate the actual levelof belief because of a social desirability effect (Zusne & Jones, 1989). This effect may be strongerwhen questionnaires are administered in an academic context and subjects feel their convictionsare likely to be met with disapproval.

References

Barholomew, R. E., Basterfield, K., & Howard, G. S. (1991). UFO abductees and contactees: Psychopathology or

fantasy proneness? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22, 215–222.

Beyerstein, B. L. (1998). The sorry state of scientific literacy in the industrialized democracies. Invited submission. The

Learning Quarterly, 2, 5–11.

Blackmore, S. J. (1997). Probability misjudgment and belief in the paranormal: A newspaper survey. British Journal of

Psychology, 88, 683–689.

Blackmore, S., & Moore, R. (1994). Seeing things: Visual recognition and belief in the paranormal. European Journal of

Parapsychology, 10, 91–103.

Blackmore, S., & Troscianko, T. (1985). Belief in the paranormal: Probability judgments, illusory control, and the

�chance baseline shift�. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 459–468.

Brugger, P., & Taylor, K. I. (2003). ESP: Extrasensory perception or effect of subjective probability. Journal of

Consciousness Studies, 10, 221–246.

Chapman, J. P., Chapman, L. J., & Kwapil, T. R. (1995). Scales for the measurement of schizotypy. In A. Raine, T.

Lencz, & S. A. Mednick (Eds.), Schizotypal personality (pp. 79–106). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Claridge, G., & Beech, T. (1995). Fully and quasi-dimensional constructions of schizotypy. In A. Raine, T. Lencz, & S.

A. Mednick (Eds.), Schizotypal personality (pp. 192–216). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Day, S., & Peters, E. (1999). The incidence of schizotypy in new religious movements. Personality and Individual

Differences, 27, 55–67.

Donovan, S., & Epstein, S. (1997). The difficulty of the Linda conjunction problem can be attributed to its simultaneous

concrete and unnatural representation, and not to conversational implicature. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 33, 1–20.

Dougherty, M. J. (2004). Educating believers: Research demonstrates that courses in skepticism can effectively decrease

belief in the paranormal. The Skeptic, 10(4), 31–35.


Ede, A. (2000). Has science education become an enemy of scientific rationality? Skeptical Inquirer, 24, 48–51.

Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytic–

rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390–405.

Eve, R. A., & Dunn, D. (1990). Psychic powers, astrology and creationism in the classroom? American Biology Teacher,

52, 10–21.

Fullwood, S., 2004. Ohio dressing up religion as science. The Plain Dealer, p. B1, March 13.

Groth-Marnat, G., & Pegden, J. (1998). Personality correlates of paranormal belief: Locus of control and sensation

seeking. Social Behavior and Personality, 26, 291–296.

Ingersol, R. M. (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American secondary schools. Educational Researcher,

28, 26–37.

Irwin, H. J. (1993). Belief in the paranormal: A review of the empirical literature. The Journal of the American Society

for Psychical Research, 87, 1–39.

Kallery, M. (2001). Early-years educators� attitudes to science and pseudo-science: The case of astronomy and

astrology. European Journal of Teacher Education, 24, 329–342.

Kikas, E. (2004). Teachers� conceptions and misconceptions concerning three natural phenomena. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 41, 432–448.

Lindeman, M. (1998). Motivation, cognition and pseudoscience. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 39, 257–265.

Losh, S. C., Tavani, C. M., Njoroge, R., Wilke, R., & McAuley, M. (2003). What does education really do? Educational

dimensions and pseudoscience support in the American general public, 1979–2001. Skeptical Inquirer, 30–35.

McConaghy, N. (1959). The use of an object sorting test in elucidating the hereditary factor in schizophrenia. Journal of

Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 22, 243–246.

McCreery, C., & Claridge, G. (2002). Healthy schizotypy: the case of out of the body experiences. Personality and

Individual Differences, 32, 141–154.

Meehl, P. E. (1962). Schizotaxia, schizotypy, schizophrenia. American Psychologist, 17, 827–838.

Musch, J., & Ehrenberg, K. (2002). Probability misjudgement, cognitive ability, and belief in the paranormal. British

Journal of Psychology, 93, 169–177.

National Science Board (2000). Science and engineering indicators-2002 (NSF Publication No. NSB-00-1). Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Otis, L. P., & Alcock, J. E. (1982). Factors affecting extraordinary belief. The Journal of Social Psychology, 118, 77–85.

Peltzer, K. (2003). Magical thinking and paranormal beliefs among secondary and university students in South Africa.

Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1419–1426.

Raine, A., & Benishay, D. (1995). The SPQ-B: A brief screening instrument for schizotypal personality disorder.

Journal of Personality Disorders, 9, 346–355.

Rao, K. R. (Ed.). (2001). Basic research in parapsychology. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc.

Rice, T. W. (2003). Believe it or not: Religious and other paranormal beliefs in the United States. Journal for the

Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 95–106.

Sagan, C. (1996A). The burden of skepticism. In J. Nickell, B. Karr, & T. Genoni (Eds.), The outer edge: Classical

investigations of the Paranormal (pp. 6–14). Amherst NY: Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the

Paranormal.

Sagan, C. (1996B). The demon-haunted world; Science as a candle in the dark. New York: Ballantine Books.

Shermer, M. (2003). Why smart people believe weird things. The Skeptic, 10(2), 62–73.

SPSS Inc., 1999. SPSS Base 11.0 for Windows User�s Guide. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2003). Evolutionary versus instrumental goals: How evolutionary psychology

misconceives human rationality. In D. E. Over (Ed.), Evolution and the psychology of thinking (pp. 171–230). New

York: Psychology Press.

Teglasi, H., & Epstein, S. (1998). Temperament and personality theory: The perspective of cognitive–experiential self

theory. School Psychology, 4, 534–550.

Thalbourne, M. (1981). Extraversion and the sheep–goat variable: A conceptual replication. The Journal of the

American Society for Psychical Research, 75, 105–119.

Tobacyk, 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.


Vyse, S. A. (1997). Believing in magic: The psychology of superstition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Walker, W. R., Hoekstra, S. J., & Vogl, R. J. (2002). Science education is no guarantee of skepticism. The Skeptic, 9,

24–27.

Wolfradt, U., Oubaid, V., Straube, E. R., Bischoff, N., & Mischo, J. (1999). Thinking styles, schizotypal traits and

anomalous experiences. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 821–830.

Yates, C. R., & Chandler, M. (2000). Where have all the skeptics gone? Patterns of new age beliefs and anti-scientific

attitudes in preservice primary teachers. Research in Science Education, 30, 377–387.

Zusne, L., & Jones, W. H. (1989). Anomalistic psychology: A study of magical thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

paranormal beliefs, schizotypy, and thinking styles among teachers and future teachers

Documents