Articles ~ Ghost hunting and beyond ~ Psychological factors in Ghost Hunting

Any ghost hunter will tell you, "The main ingredient to a successful investigation is an open mind". Your mindset, before you enter an investigation, is of utmost importance. The purpose of this article is to emphasize physiological elements and other factors that affect ghost hunters in order to provide an awareness of those factors and how to deal with them. First we will start with the three biggest “enemies” of the ghost hunter, Psychosomatic response, Hysteria and Bias.

Psychosomatic response is descriptive of physical symptoms (real or perceived) that are caused by some form of psychological stress, to manifest a mental state in the form of physical symptoms. In ghosthunting these experiences can be experienced in the form of being touched, shortness of breath, tingling sensations in the limbs, sudden sensations of pain, dizziness, visual hallucinations, nausea, and even equilibrium change (“energy” rushing through the body).

These effects have been tested and confirmed by multiple researches in various labs. It is important to understand that there is an element of belief that must be involved in order to induce psychosomatic response. Certain individuals may be more acceptable to this phenomenon than others. Several studies have linked some psychosomatic response with Adrenaline. Adrenaline can amplify the senses which in turn increase the possibility of perceiving a normal event as a paranormal one.

What makes psychosomatic response so difficult is that the experience is very real to the participant. This is listed first because it is the common “explanation” that critics give to ghostly encounters.

In general, if you start freaking out, remove yourself to a safe area for at least 30 minutes. Psychosomatic response is easier to initiate when a person is alone. Rely on your instrumentation and describe what you feel.

Hysteria Mass hysteria is characterized by the rapid spread of conversion disorder, a condition involving the appearance of bodily complaints for which there is no organic basis. In such episodes, psychological distress is converted or channeled into physical symptoms. There are two common types: anxiety hysteria and motor hysteria. The former is of shorter duration, usually lasting a day, and is triggered by the sudden perception of a threatening agent, most commonly a strange odor. Symptoms typically include headache, dizziness, nausea, breathlessness, and general weakness. Motor hysteria is prevalent in intolerable social situations such as strict school and religious settings where discipline is excessive. Symptoms include trance-like states, melodramatic acts of rebellion known as histrionics, and what physicians term "psychomotor agitation" (whereby pent-up anxiety built up over long period results in disruptions to the nerves or neurons that send messages to the muscles, triggering temporary bouts of twitching, spasms, and shaking). Motor hysteria appears gradually over time and usually takes weeks or months to subside.

Ghost hunters are most often affected by demopathic hysteria. Typically this involves the belief that something has followed them home from a ghost hunt although it can also include some symptoms typical of psychosomatic response.

Bias Investigator Bias: Occurs when the interviewer is aware (not blinded) of the outcome variable. An unblinded investigator may be more vigorous in searching for the exposure of interest. Bias can occur from both angles of ghost hunting, believer and nonbeliever. A good ghost hunter must walk a line between the two as to not contaminate his or her data with bias. Every possibility must be thoroughly considered before a determination is made to the nature of the phenomena. Bias is the most common reason why theories are rejected by the scientific community. The first organized body of researchers to band together and apply scientific techniques to the study of ghost phenomena was the Society for Psychical Research. Formed in 1882 by a group of distinguished Cambridge scholars, they immediately set about trying to formulate and prove theories on all subjects relating to the paranormal, including telekinesis and clairvoyance as well as haunting activity. Unfortunately, many of the early SPR members seemed to be too gullible, wanting desperately to believe the claims of many so-called mediums and psychics. This led to the downfall of many researchers, with the credibility of the SPR being severely damaged as a whole, when most of the charlatans who had been declared genuine by the Society later were shown to be fraudulent.

Ironically, it was one of the SPR's own founding members, Harry H. Price, who debunked so many of the supposed psychics. These included psychics who Price himself had originally declared to be genuine. It was bias that doomed his organization. (Some more on this subject will be discussed later)

The evolution of ghost stories Anybody who has a taste for ghost stories will know that there are hundreds of different species of ghost, ghoul and apparition haunting our folklore and our imaginations. Reported ghost encounters range from vague feelings of unease in dark places, to apparitions so solid that they can be mistaken for living people. These differences are of particular interest to ghost hunters, who make it their business to investigate record and classify reports of ghostly encounters. Anybody who tends to spend large periods of time waiting in deserted buildings for something supernatural to happen, and it very rarely does, has plenty of time to think about these differences and come up with a workable system of classification. Ghost hunters hear a lot from people who have encountered strange things and want to find an explanation. Some of these things are quite spectacular (some of them are obviously invented). But the most common type of encounter is also the least remarkable and strangely enough, the people who report these happenings are often more frightened by them than those who have more dramatic experiences.

I’m talking about the common or garden “Bump in the Night”, vague sensory happenings that can’t quite be explained easily. Sounds, temperature changes, smells, a sensation of being touched, even bad dreams. Most people, when pressed, recall at least one such experience in their lives. As individual events they aren’t that striking but they do tend to stick in the memory.

Almost everybody has a spooky little story to exchange at the cafe or pub. They are fun stories to tell, often followed by a little laughter and the acknowledgement that of course it was perfectly rational, we all know what it’s like when our imaginations get going, best to remain skeptical really. The story sometimes changes when several of these perfectly explainable incidents occur at once, and especially when they happen in one place over a period of time, to different people.

There can also be occasions when a series of otherwise explainable events happen in a way that seems to tell a coherent story. Is it coincidence, or evidence of a real haunting?

A skeptical observer will observe that in these situations there is a strong likelihood that we were half-expecting something spooky to happen, so were far more likely to interpret any event, no matter how innocent, as paranormal. This is very possible! Most ghost hunters are aware of peoples’ tendency to interpret events in terms of their own cultural, spiritual and superstitious upbringing. If we are in a place that has a spooky reputation, or just a creepy atmosphere, we are much more likely to encounter a “ghost”. No wonder the Bump in the Night is the most commonly reported ghostly encounter.

Sadly, the Bump in the Night is also one of the most difficult types of encounter to investigate. Even when there is considerable anecdotal evidence of strange happenings over a long period of time in a single place, reports tend to be subjective and difficult to measure physically. How do you obtain proof that somebody was really “touched” by an invisible hand, or explain why sitting in a particular chair gives people the chills?

At times like this, statistical research is the ghost hunter’s only friend. When a Bump in the Night happens once, to somebody who was already in a spooky frame of mind, it isn’t a good enough reason to start an investigation, but when numerous people report similar incidences in a place over a long period of time, that’s a fair excuse for hauling out the notepad and pen and running a few surveys.

Ghost stories also evolve do to media attention. Business (like hotel’s and restaurants) will use their “haunted” reputation to get business. When media covers these places, facts are often distorted or even created for the entertainment value of the story.

Key idea: The more well known a “haunt” is, the more skeptical one must be to the stories told there.

You cannot use the paranormal to prove the paranormal. Another very commonly used method of investigation involves the employment of mediums or psychics. Many groups use "talents" in the course of their investigations to flesh out the sometimes-sketchy information available on the possible consciousness that inhabit the area under research. However, there is a vocal minority within the ghost hunting community that objects to the use of data gleaned from the use of these often self-proclaimed mediums. Simply put, not one single experiment in modern research has ever been able to conclusively prove the psychical talents of these so-called mediums. Worse still, many mediums appear to be in the field solely for the easily obtainable funding they can accrue from fleecing an unwary and gullible public. As a scam, it has its attractions: the general public wants to believe in ghosts, and will have almost no means of proving that they've been fooled by a con artist. Certain ghost hunters have taken it upon themselves to offer their services, free of charge, to anyone who is considering hiring a psychic or medium.

Their offers usually involve thoroughly investigating the supposedly haunted location to see if there is even anything there for the medium to "cleanse". Very often, there is not. The phenomena experienced by the subject most often have mundane causes, which the frightened person's mind then expands upon, in a process, which is self-sustaining and gets worse over time.

It is also important to know that not only your data can be scrutinized, but the means which you collected your data can be as well. The use of paranormal methods immediately kicks back a hypothesis from scientific review.

Linked to bias, researchers have been known to combine various elements of a ghost hunt into a group in order to prove that a ghost exists or does not exist. Typically, each of these events is explainable within itself but when combined together, they seem to form a basis for belief. “Dick felt a cold spot, then there was that noise we heard upstairs when no one was up there. Then Jane felt a presence in the room and we got EVP during that episode. We also got unusual EM readings in the living room along with several unusual pictures. The place must be haunted”. Combined together, all of these things seem to indicate a haunting. However, the cold spot, noise and EVP can be explained away through natural causes. The photographs may be explainable as well. Skeptics may address these issues, but fail to address the cause or origin of the EM field. Once again, it shows the importance of maintaining a balance of thought during the investigation process. From the perspective that all Reality is the product of consciousness, it should be clear that a person's beliefs are very important because those beliefs define the limits of their experience in this realm.

Most humans currently live their lives in this realm around the belief systems of others, be that of their parents', peers', mentors' or society's and because of this they to define their reality accordingly.

The author Robertson Davies was even more brutally honest in his book 'The Deptford Trilogy ' (p477), when he said:

"Be sure to choose what you believe and know why you believe it, because if you don't choose your beliefs, you may be certain that some belief, and probably not a very creditable one, will choose you."

There are many ideas, people believe in. There is no limit to fantasy or imagination, but reality and truth are on a fine line. However, belief systems are limiting and can have no scientific basis in truth. Scientific method is a way to explain phenomena using unbiased criteria to discover the truth.

Ghosts are the souls of deceased people. (Belief system)
Ghosts may be electromagnetically related in nature. (Scientific, many studies have been done on EM and hauntings)

Ghosts do not have a gross physical body like human beings, only the subtle astral body. (Belief system)
Evil ghosts are demons (Belief system)

A great deal of knowledge about ghosts is originated in folklore and society. Hollywood has also contributed to the addition of ideology. In ghost hunting there are allot of assumptions based on belief systems. The difference is the hypotheses that dictate what one is looking for and why.

Scientific Method 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved; only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher; one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded.

The most important factor in Scientific Method is that a hypothesis must be falsifiable.

“Ghosts do not exist” is a falsifiable because one can prove that they exist. “Ghosts exist” is not falsifiable because it is impossible to prove that ghosts do not exist. Often there are answers to phenomena that can be found with in simple laws of physics. Since we are trying to discover what ghosts are, if they exist, one must put aside belief systems and rely on Scientific method to obtain results. Seek answers, not explanations! Explanations re often based of belief or world view. Many ghost hunters will say that science is limited and lacks imagination. Realistically, imagination is the spring board for science.

Occam’s Razor: Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.

For example, after a storm you notice that a tree has fallen. Based on the evidence of the storm and the fallen tree, a reasonable hypothesis would be that the storm blew down the tree — a hypothesis that requires you to suspend your disbelief very little, as there exist strong logical connections binding what you already know to this solution (seeing and hearing storms tends to indeed indicate the existence of storms; storms are more than capable of felling trees).

A rival hypothesis claiming that the tree was knocked over by marauding 200-metre tall space aliens requires several additional assumptions, with various logical weaknesses resulting from inconsistencies with what is already known (concerning the very existence of aliens, their ability and desire to travel interstellar distances, their ability and desire to (non-)intentionally knock down trees and the alien biology that allows them to be 200 meters tall in terrestrial gravity), and is therefore less preferable.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved; only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

You may question the range of situations (outside of science) in which the scientific method may be applied. From what has been stated above, we determine that the scientific method works best in situations where one can isolate the phenomenon of interest, by eliminating or accounting for extraneous factors, and where one can repeatedly test the system under study after making limited, controlled changes in it.
There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation.

This often occurs in social interactions between people. For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury in court, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trial over and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, the jury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a new set of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.

The bottom line is that the elements of scientific method outline how we perceive and investigate reports of paranormal phenomena. If a person has a paranormal experience, we are not claiming that they are lying or inventing a story. It is simply that we can only rely on certain techniques for gathering legitimate information. That person’s experience may be very real to them, but without substantial data to back up the claim, we are often left with a simpler answer. The phenomenon has a basis in psychology. The importance of this lies in backing up and associated perceptions with instrument readings. If something is there and interacting with someone, you should be able to get a measurement of the energy that is causing the phenomena. Rely on your instrumentation! It will not lie to to. The human brain however, can be most deceptive.