Cultural Interpretations of Extraordinary Experiences: Context and Meaning
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Extraordinary Experiences & Anomalistic Psychology · Written by Artificial Sapiens
Culture shapes how people recognize, describe, interpret, remember, and share extraordinary experiences. A person may report an unseen presence, an unusual coincidence, a puzzling movement, an unexpected sound, or an encounter that feels unlike ordinary waking life. Psychological research can examine that lived experience and the social meanings assigned to it. The event's meaning, the reliability of the reported details, and the evidence for a proposed external cause are three different questions. Cultural interpretation helps explain how an experience becomes intelligible without independently establishing a paranormal explanation. Taves and Barlev (2023) Maraldi et al. (2024)
For a related perspective, see Extraordinary Experiences: Types, Meanings, and Psychological Research.
Cultural interpretations of extraordinary experiences are socially learned and individually revised frameworks used to name, explain, evaluate, and respond to events considered unusual. They involve language, family memories, local traditions, peer relationships, historical circumstances, professional concepts, digital media, and a person's previous experiences. The same sensation may acquire different emotional and narrative significance in different settings, and two apparently similar labels may refer to experiences with different features.
An extraordinary experience is a descriptive research category, not a psychiatric diagnosis. A sincere report is evidence that someone reports an experience; it is not automatically proof of the causal explanation offered for it. At the same time, recognizing social influence on interpretation does not mean that the original sensation was fictitious or that one established mechanism explains every unusual episode. The scientific task is to describe the experience accurately, investigate plausible mechanisms, and calibrate conclusions to the strength of evidence.
What Cultural Interpretation Means in Psychology
In psychology, cultural interpretation refers to the process through which a person connects an experience with shared concepts and expectations. A strange nighttime sensation may be labeled a sensed presence; a striking temporal match may be described as a premonition; a sound in an old building may be understood through a locally familiar story. The researcher's first task is to distinguish what the person sensed from the meaning attributed to it. Taves and Barlev (2023) argue that comparative research benefits from describing features of nonordinary experiences before assigning categories loaded with cultural assumptions.
Three levels organize analysis. Phenomenology concerns what occurred in awareness, such as an image, bodily sensation, sense of agency, emotional tone, or change of attention. Appraisal concerns how significant, credible, threatening, welcome, or personally meaningful the person considered the event. Causal inquiry concerns which processes or external conditions actually generated the event. A study may provide strong data about one level and limited data about another. A narrative category such as 'ghost' often combines all three in everyday language.
A report is not identical to a causal claim
Imagine a person who awakens with the intense impression that somebody is standing nearby. The felt presence may have been vivid and frightening. The account can be studied independently of whether a second person was physically present. Knowledge of local stories may have influenced the label chosen afterward; sleep physiology and bodily self-representation may provide testable hypotheses. No single possibility should be declared the cause of that particular episode without appropriate evidence. A careful account preserves the distinction between subjective certainty and external verification.
Why scientific categories also need scrutiny
Researchers use terms such as anomalous, exceptional, extraordinary, paranormal, and nonordinary in partially overlapping ways. Their boundaries vary across disciplines and instruments. American Psychological Association (2013) provides a broad scholarly overview, and Taves and Barlev (2023) explain why comparing cultures solely through those labels can confuse phenomenologically different episodes. A person may describe a seemingly extraordinary experience without endorsing a paranormal belief, while another may endorse such a belief without reporting a corresponding personal event.
How Culture Shapes Recognition and Meaning
Language, names, and narrative availability
Language gives an experience a communicable form. Terms available in a person's family or community can emphasize agency, bodily sensations, uncertainty, time, or personal significance. A translation may use one English word for several locally distinct expressions, or several words for an experience another language describes with one term. Researchers therefore need original wording, linguistic competence, and questions about what the participant means by a label. A shared phrase alone is inadequate evidence that different participants experienced an identical psychological event.
Terms also change over time. In American English, words used in films, online communities, and clinical education may circulate alongside family narratives and everyday expressions. People can adopt or resist these repertoires. A generational contrast does not prove a cognitive difference unless the measurement separates vocabulary from experience. Good interviewing elicits the person's own description before introducing a technical or popular label.
Expectation, attention, and uncertainty
Previous knowledge may guide attention toward ambiguous sounds, flickering light, unusual timing, or a feeling of being watched. An unfamiliar place introduced as mysterious may invite more vigilant observation than the same place described neutrally. This connection is a plausible application of established attention and expectancy research, but proving it in a specific incident requires experimental or otherwise discriminating evidence. One ambiguous cue does not explain every detail of an account, and a cultural story does not certify an external agent.
The link between beliefs and cognitive tendencies is not uniform. In a study of visitors to a psychic fair, van Elk (2017) found associations involving self-attribution tendencies and reported sociocultural background while finding no association between paranormal belief and the particular illusion-of-control measure employed. This selective result cautions against portraying everyone who believes in paranormal phenomena as sharing one reasoning style. The study's convenience sample and correlational components also limit causal generalization.
Learning from family, friends, and social groups
Family anecdotes, peer conversations, and community histories may provide templates for interpreting uncommon events. A person may receive reassurance when an experience resembles a familiar story; another may become alarmed by the same comparison. Social sharing may increase the importance of an event in autobiographical memory and influence later retelling. Researchers should document what the individual knew before the event, the audience for the first account, and subsequent conversations. Later narrative change does not by itself prove that the earlier sensation was invented.
Social reaction influences disclosure. People who anticipate ridicule or automatic clinical labeling may say little about an experience, making reported prevalence sensitive to interview setting and trust. Roxburgh (2016) studied how counseling clients understood professional responses to anomalous experiences, documenting issues relevant to respectful communication. Such qualitative evidence is informative about experiences of seeking support, while it cannot alone establish population-wide frequencies or specific causal mechanisms.
Media and digital environments
Movies, podcasts, news narratives, books, and social media supply familiar plots and images. They can influence which experiences seem noteworthy, which details people ask about, and what language emerges in subsequent discussions. Exposure to a familiar narrative is a potential factor rather than proof of why a person had an experience. Testing the hypothesis requires evidence about the timing of exposure, the first recorded account, and alternative explanations. Online groups may provide support, amplify fear, encourage skepticism, or strengthen a particular interpretation; outcomes depend on the specific interaction.
Authority, trust, education, and social position
People consult different authorities when judging unusual experiences: relatives, teachers, clinicians, scientists, local experts, or trusted friends. An interpretation may become credible because of personal relationships rather than formal evidence. Socioeconomic and institutional contexts influence access to explanations and whether asking for help feels safe. Researchers should examine these contexts rather than reduce culture to a national label. Education and scientific familiarity can interact with family knowledge and personal experience in more than one direction.
What Cross-Cultural Research Finds
The best evidence begins by asking exactly which event, report, belief, appraisal, and outcome were measured. A systematic review by Maraldi et al. (2024) screened 725 references and included 157 empirical studies concerning nonordinary experiences and well-being or mental health. Its authors concluded that associations were complex and that appraisal was important, while highlighting inconsistent definitions, measures that mix experience with interpretation, and inadequate attention to duration, controllability, functioning, and context. The review supports a context-sensitive research agenda rather than a universal rule about all extraordinary experiences.
Voice-hearing: comparative interview evidence
In a study published in The British Journal of Psychiatry, Luhrmann et al. (2015a) interviewed 20 people meeting the study's schizophrenia criteria in each of three settings: the United States, India, and Ghana. U.S. participants more often used diagnostic language and described violent commands, whereas participants in India and Ghana more often described relationships with voices. This is evidence of differences among the selected interview samples, including aspects of how experiences were described and understood. It does not establish a description of every person in these countries, and it is not a prevalence study of the general population.
The same research group proposed a 'social kindling' hypothesis concerning how repeated social attention and expectations might shape aspects of voice-hearing over time. Luhrmann et al. (2015b) is explicitly a theoretical proposal, rather than independent proof of a universal causal process. A useful comparison maintains the boundary between documented cross-setting differences, their potential explanations, and conclusions that require longitudinal or experimental confirmation.
Nighttime experiences: a culturally bounded illustration
In a cross-cultural study, Jalal et al. (2014) compared explanations given by people who had experienced sleep paralysis in a general Egyptian sample, a Danish sample, and an Egyptian university sample. The general Egyptian sample more often endorsed supernatural attributions than the Danish sample, and the samples from Egypt also differed from one another. The study demonstrates variation in interpretation, including within one country. It does not test any alleged external supernatural cause, and selection, education, and setting affect how far the results can be generalized.
Sleep paralysis itself is a subject for sleep science, including the physiological events involved in a sleep–wake transition. Its relevance to cultural interpretation is methodological: a recognizable bodily event can receive different causal explanations in different contexts. No national, religious, or linguistic population has one obligatory interpretation. Describing a participant's belief respectfully is compatible with scientific investigation of sleep processes.
Felt presence in clinical and nonclinical settings
A felt presence is the impression that another person or agent is nearby despite a lack of clear sensory evidence. Barnby et al. (2023) reviewed its occurrence across neurological and clinical contexts, sleep-related settings, anxiety, endurance activities, and nonclinical communities. Feelings may range from comforting to distressing, and the mechanisms under discussion are not established as a single universal cause. Reports across contexts establish that felt presence is worthy of psychological investigation, while the individual's cultural account helps clarify its personal meaning.
What can cross-cultural belief scales establish?
Comparing average scores across languages is useful only if the instrument measures comparable constructs. Bluemke et al. (2016) tested the Supernatural Belief Scale in Croatian and New Zealand samples, including self- and peer-reports. Their invariance analyses found substantial comparability for that particular measure with limited exceptions. The methodological lesson is that questionnaire translation and measurement equivalence need empirical validation. It would be unsound to generalize those findings to every paranormal-belief questionnaire or assume a scale assesses subjective experiences simply because it assesses beliefs.
A belief instrument may incorporate theological propositions, attitudes toward supernatural agents, or general assumptions about the world. Those constructs differ from an event diary documenting a strange coincidence or an interview recording a sensed presence. Cultural research has to specify which construct it is evaluating and ensure that items do not silently combine religious identity, unusual experiences, paranormal attribution, and psychiatric symptoms into one outcome.
How Similar Experiences Acquire Different Cultural Meanings
Sensed presence and perceived agency
One person describes a nearby presence as protective; another uses a threatening label; another avoids proposing an identity for the sensed other. Those interpretations may differ because of recent stress, expectations, relationships, the setting, or the person's explanatory vocabulary. The phenomenological account should first establish whether there was a visual image, sound, touch, bodily feeling, or simply a strong sense of proximity. Later questions can examine the proposed agent and emotional meaning. This approach improves comparability and protects against leading questions.
Ghost-sighting reports and supposedly haunted settings
Reports of unusual activity in a location may involve ambiguous shadows, sounds, temperature changes, apprehension, or a vivid impression of a figure. A place's reputation provides a possible interpretive framework. Good field research documents what a witness actually noticed, what story the witness knew beforehand, and which environmental observations can be checked independently. The presence of a collective narrative supports a cultural analysis; it does not validate the existence of a ghost. Equally, identifying a plausible environmental cue does not make a person's fear or surprise unreal.
Meaningful coincidences and perceived premonitions
A coincidence may be especially memorable when it concerns a loved one, a major decision, or a date already associated with strong emotion. The personal meaning is real as an appraisal. Establishing extraordinary prediction requires a contemporaneously recorded forecast, sufficiently specific criteria, a defined set of opportunities for matching, and comparison with chance and ordinary information. Cultural ideas about luck, timing, and significance can shape later narratives while remaining separate from the statistical or causal question. Generic probability theory belongs to cognitive science; this discussion concerns extraordinary-event interpretations.
Alien-encounter and abduction narratives
A person may report a vivid remembered encounter, unusual bodily sensations, a feeling of paralysis, or an emotionally important narrative interpreted as alien contact. Such accounts should be documented without suggesting expected details, dismissing the report of a subjective experience, or endorsing an unverified external explanation. Researchers can study whether familiar media imagery, prior beliefs, interview practices, and memory reconstruction influenced how the story took shape. Resemblance to a popular narrative alone is insufficient to establish what caused a particular experience.
Involuntary movement and cultural explanation
Movements experienced as unintentional can be framed as games, messages, surprising motor events, or culturally significant signals. Ideomotor research provides established ways to investigate how action can be influenced by expectation without corresponding conscious intention. Cultural interpretation explains why observers describe a movement in particular terms; demonstrating an ideomotor mechanism in one situation requires evidence about the movement and conditions. Extraordinary claims of an external agent must be assessed separately.
The Role of Memory, Suggestion, and Retelling
Experiences often survive in conversations, diaries, and recollections that change through time. Remembering is reconstructive, and later information may alter the details or significance of a report. Ordinary variation in recall should not be confused with deliberate deception. For unusual-event research, it is important to distinguish the earliest account from later descriptions and to preserve the exact wording of leading or neutral interview questions.
Suggestion can be supplied by a trusted narrator, a group discussion, a sensational interview, or repeated requests to recover supposedly forgotten details. Ethical research avoids confirming a proposed external event through hypnosis or memory-recovery techniques. These procedures can introduce expectations that compromise the evidential value of subsequent accounts. A timeline of what was known and said before and after an event helps test possible social influences, but no retrospective reconstruction can establish a specific mechanism without adequate corroboration.
Memory confidence, emotional intensity, and narrative coherence are meaningful psychological variables. They are not substitutes for contemporaneous physical records or independently checked observations. A culturally shared interpretation may become more elaborate as an account is retold, although the direction of influence must be documented rather than assumed. The scientific and ethical priority is preserving the distinction between what the person recalls, how the account changed, and what independent evidence establishes.
Culture and the Emotional Consequences of Extraordinary Experiences
People may experience relief, fear, curiosity, hope, shame, wonder, or persistent uncertainty. Outcomes depend on the experience itself, personal history, current stress, sleep and physical health, perceived control, available support, and social appraisal. Maraldi et al. (2024) identified a complex relationship between nonordinary experiences and mental-health indicators. Their review argues against reducing such experiences to a single marker of wellness or disorder, and it identifies major limitations in the ways experiences and appraisals have been measured.
The community response may affect whether an individual seeks support. A calm question can make it easier to describe what happened; ridicule may discourage disclosure; automatic endorsement of a frightening external explanation may increase alarm. These are clinically relevant possibilities rather than guaranteed outcomes. Roxburgh (2016) documents experiences of seeking counseling for anomalous events, offering qualitative insight into professional communication and the importance of making room for the client's meaning.
Experience, belief, symptom, and diagnosis
Paranormal belief, a meaningful coincidence, sensed presence, vivid imagery, and an unusual memory are not clinical diagnoses. A particular phenomenon may appear in both clinical and nonclinical contexts. As Barnby et al. (2023) emphasize for felt presence, contexts and proposed mechanisms vary. Clinical assessment considers the wider pattern: duration, controllability, associated symptoms, distress, effects on functioning, sleep state, medical history, and safety. Diagnosis requires appropriate professional evaluation rather than the mere presence of unusual subject matter.
Culturally informed clinical conversations
The DSM-5 Cultural Formulation Interview offers structured questions about an individual's own account, the meaning of the problem, social setting, sources of support, and expectations for care. Lewis-Fernández et al. (2014) explain the framework. An international field trial with 318 patients and 75 clinicians found the interview generally feasible and acceptable, while identifying limitations in clinical ratings. Lewis-Fernández et al. (2017) described the mixed-method findings.
A subsequent review by Aggarwal et al. (2020) synthesizes the evidence and implementation issues, including limits in the available data on clinical outcomes. This literature supports an approach that asks what an experience means to the person without treating culture as a diagnosis or replacing medical assessment with a presumed cultural explanation. If fear, marked sleep disruption, functional impairment, confusion, or other concerning symptoms are present, clinical evaluation can explore them while respecting the person's language and social context.
Individuals, Migration, and Differences Within Groups
Culture is not a fixed property of an entire nationality. People inhabit families, peer groups, linguistic communities, educational settings, workplaces, cities, and digital spaces, often simultaneously. A person may interpret an unusual event differently when talking with friends, family, and a clinician. That difference may reflect audience, communication needs, or a change in appraisal. Researchers should not infer insincerity from variation in wording.
Migration and multilingual experience can give people several explanatory systems, each appropriate to a different conversation. Scientific literacy, familiarity with local tradition, and skepticism can coexist within an individual biography. A study that assigns one homogeneous set of beliefs to all members of an ethnic or religious community loses exactly the individual variation it needs to understand. Comparisons should attend to exposure, context, and interpersonal meaning rather than assume that country of birth determines interpretation.
The variation among the two Egyptian samples in Jalal et al. (2014) is a concrete caution against simple national stereotypes. Likewise, the psychometric attention to cross-language equivalence in Bluemke et al. (2016) demonstrates that the validity of group comparisons is a methodological question, not a property granted by a translated survey. Research may examine age, education, socioeconomic position, migration, and media use, but causal conclusions require studies that measure those variables appropriately.
History and the Disciplines That Study Extraordinary Experiences
Historical scholarship on unusual reports spans psychology, anthropology, psychiatry, and the study of experience. Researchers have used different taxonomies for phenomena that sometimes share sensory, emotional, and interpersonal features. Taves and Barlev (2023) describe how disciplinary categories can obstruct comparison and propose starting with features that can be examined across settings. A feature-based approach does not remove culture; it lets researchers ask at which stage cultural classification becomes influential.
Anomalistic psychology applies psychological methods to reports perceived as extraordinary and to beliefs about unusual phenomena. Cultural psychology examines the relationship between experience and social worlds. Cognitive science investigates attention, memory, prediction, and perception. Neuroscience studies bodily representation and other relevant processes. Clinical psychology addresses distress, symptoms, functioning, and appropriate assessment. Parapsychology also investigates some related claims, including claims about psi, but independent replication and methodological scrutiny are required before contested extraordinary causes can be treated as established facts.
Each discipline has its own evidential question. Showing that a social narrative influences appraisal is a result about cultural interpretation; showing that expectations change reporting under a controlled manipulation is a result about psychological processes; documenting a physiological correlate is a result about bodily mechanisms. None alone demonstrates that an unseen external agent acted. Conversely, establishing one ordinary pathway for a type of report should not become a blanket causal diagnosis of every individual case.
Methods for Cross-Cultural Research
Describe features before imposing labels
Strong comparative interviews ask about sensory modality, duration, timing, bodily state, perceived agency, emotional tone, voluntary control, context, and aftereffects. Researchers then ask which explanation the participant uses, when it developed, and what other explanations have been considered. Taves and Barlev (2023) specifically recommend attention to comparable features rather than treating culture-laden category names as equivalent.
Separate report, appraisal, belief, and impairment
A question such as 'I felt someone nearby' measures a report differently from 'an unseen agent caused it' or 'the event frightened me.' Combining such items creates ambiguity about the construct. A good instrument isolates features, interpretations, degrees of confidence, and effects on daily function. Researchers should also distinguish questionnaire endorsement from clinical screening and professional diagnosis. Maraldi et al. (2024) identify conceptual overlap as a major challenge in nonordinary-experience research.
Check translation and measurement equivalence
Literal translation does not establish comparability. Cross-cultural studies need linguistic validation, cognitive interviewing where possible, and tests of whether items function similarly across groups. Bluemke et al. (2016) show how measurement invariance can be examined rather than presumed. If scale properties differ, differences in average scores may reflect different question meanings instead of actual differences in the target construct.
Use representative sampling and account for disclosure
Convenience samples from paranormal-interest groups, universities, treatment settings, and social media often differ in more than culture. Researchers should document recruitment, language, response rates, sample composition, and reasons people may be reluctant to report unusual events. Results from a small selected sample should be described as findings from that sample. Group mean differences do not establish explanations for individual participants, and cross-sectional correlations cannot determine which factor preceded another.
Test hypotheses prospectively
Longitudinal designs can ask whether earlier expectations predict later interpretations. Experience sampling can record reports close to the event. Controlled experiments may test the effects of a narrative cue or interviewer wording on appraisal. Prospective prediction studies can predefine what counts as a match. Where physiological or environmental factors are proposed, reliable measurements and comparison conditions are necessary. These designs strengthen inferences while preserving the distinct questions of subjective experience and external causality.
Preregistration, replication, and interpretive humility
A robust study states its hypotheses in advance, defines primary outcomes, controls multiple testing, explains missing data, and makes reasonable opportunities for independent replication. Qualitative studies must be transparent about interview prompts, researcher perspective, and exceptions to the dominant pattern. A published association may be preliminary, culturally specific, or sensitive to method. Competing explanations should be evaluated fairly, and extraordinary causal claims require convincing independent evidence rather than one statistically significant result.
Practical Guidance for Listening and Responding
A respectful response begins by inviting a detailed description: 'What happened?' 'What did you notice first?' 'When did it occur?' 'How did you feel?' Ask what explanation the person currently favors and how they came to it. These questions encourage clarity without demanding that an experience immediately fit a psychiatric, skeptical, or paranormal template. Neither ridicule nor instant confirmation is needed for a constructive conversation.
If the person uses culturally unfamiliar words, ask what those terms mean to them. Avoid treating a dictionary translation as a complete explanation. Ask whether the event is welcome, distressing, isolated, recurrent, or affecting ordinary life. Emotional support can be offered without endorsing a contested external cause. Discussing evidence can be gentle and precise: identify what was observed, what remains uncertain, and what kinds of information could help discriminate between possibilities.
When fear or uncertainty interferes with sleep, relationships, work, or safety, a qualified professional can assess relevant sleep, medical, neurological, or mental-health factors. Aggarwal et al. (2020) show how cultural interviewing supports communication in clinical contexts. Seeking care does not require a person to renounce personal meaning, and respectful listening never requires clinicians to neglect significant symptoms or safety concerns.
Ethics, Cultural Sensitivity, and Religious Boundaries
Researchers should obtain informed consent, protect identifiable stories, and avoid presenting communities as exotic examples. Context should be described with the participants' own terminology and with attention to possible translation problems. A tradition, nationality, or faith cannot be reduced to a list of alleged cognitive biases. Studies may analyze explanatory narratives without evaluating the truth of sacred claims.
Religious beliefs, prayer, devotion, spiritual identity, and faith-specific meaning-making are subjects of the psychology of religion and spirituality. This article addresses cultural contexts of nonconfessional unusual reports, with religious examples used only where they help explain a research design or participants' own wording. The scientific distinction between an experience and a proposed external cause applies without passing judgment on religious traditions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do cultures produce different kinds of extraordinary experiences?
Culture can shape descriptions, appraisals, and reporting; some selected studies find differences in features of experience as well. Luhrmann et al. (2015a) and Jalal et al. (2014) illustrate specific sample differences, not universal traits of national populations. Whether the underlying experiences differ requires comparable measures and designs.
Can culture create a felt presence or other strange sensation?
Expectations may influence attention and appraisal, and cultural narratives may supply a name. Whether they caused a particular sensation requires direct evidence. Felt presence occurs in varied clinical and nonclinical contexts and has several candidate mechanisms. Barnby et al. (2023)
Is an unusual experience proof of something supernatural?
The report demonstrates that a person reports a particular experience. An exceptional external causal claim requires independent evidence appropriate to that claim. Psychological importance and externally verified causation are different questions.
Does a cultural explanation imply the experience was imaginary?
No. Cultural explanation concerns recognition and meaning. A person can undergo a vivid, emotionally significant event and draw on socially available concepts to understand it. Researchers still need evidence to identify its source.
Are paranormal and religious beliefs the same?
These are separate constructs that sometimes overlap in particular instruments or individual biographies. Religious identity is not a proxy for paranormal belief or psychiatric symptoms. Researchers must state exactly what they measure.
Why might people from one country give different explanations?
Family history, education, peer networks, language, media, personal experience, and individual preferences vary within any country. The Egyptian comparisons in Jalal et al. (2014) show why a national average cannot describe everyone.
Does telling a story repeatedly change what someone remembers?
Retelling can be influenced by later information and audience response, while the extent and direction of change depend on the case. Vividness and certainty are not independent verification of the original event. Careful studies preserve the earliest available record.
How do researchers compare extraordinary experiences across languages?
They separate concrete features from explanations, investigate terms locally, test the translation and measurement properties of questionnaires, and include sufficient information about samples and context. Bluemke et al. (2016) give an example of measurement-invariance testing.
When should someone seek professional help?
Professional assessment is appropriate when an experience is recurrent and distressing, seriously disrupts sleep or daily life, is accompanied by other concerning symptoms, or presents a safety issue. An isolated unusual report alone is not a diagnosis.
Can clinicians respect the personal meaning without confirming an external cause?
Yes. The Cultural Formulation Interview asks about the person's understanding, life context, and support needs. Lewis-Fernández et al. (2017) and Aggarwal et al. (2020) support the practical value of understanding those perspectives while maintaining clinical assessment standards.
Related Articles
References
Aggarwal, N. K., Jarvis, G. E., Gómez-Carrillo, A., Kirmayer, L. J., & Lewis-Fernández, R. (2020). The Cultural Formulation Interview since DSM-5: Prospects for training, research, and clinical practice. Transcultural Psychiatry, 57(4), 496–514. Aggarwal et al. (2020)
Barnby, J. M., Park, S., Baxter, T., Rosen, C., Brugger, P., & Alderson-Day, B. (2023). The felt-presence experience: From cognition to the clinic. The Lancet Psychiatry, 10(5), 352–362. Barnby et al. (2023)
Bluemke, M., Jong, J., Grevenstein, D., Mikloušić, I., & Halberstadt, J. (2016). Measuring cross-cultural supernatural beliefs with self- and peer-reports. PLOS ONE, 11(10), e0164291. Bluemke et al. (2016)
Cardeña, E., Lynn, S. J., & Krippner, S. (Eds.). (2013). Varieties of anomalous experience: Examining the scientific evidence (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association. American Psychological Association (2013)
Jalal, B., Simons-Rudolph, J., Jalal, B., & Hinton, D. E. (2014). Explanations of sleep paralysis among Egyptian college students and the general population in Egypt and Denmark. Transcultural Psychiatry, 51(2), 158–175. Jalal et al. (2014)
Lewis-Fernández, R., Aggarwal, N. K., Bäärnhielm, S., et al. (2014). Culture and psychiatric evaluation: Operationalizing cultural formulation for DSM-5. Psychiatry, 77(2), 130–154. Lewis-Fernández et al. (2014)
Lewis-Fernández, R., Aggarwal, N. K., Lam, P. C., et al. (2017). Feasibility, acceptability and clinical utility of the Cultural Formulation Interview: Mixed-methods results from the DSM-5 international field trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 210(4), 290–297. Lewis-Fernández et al. (2017)
Luhrmann, T. M., Padmavati, R., Tharoor, H., & Osei, A. (2015a). Differences in voice-hearing experiences of people with psychosis in the USA, India and Ghana: Interview-based study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 206(1), 41–44. Luhrmann et al. (2015a)
Luhrmann, T. M., Padmavati, R., Tharoor, H., & Osei, A. (2015b). Hearing voices in different cultures: A social kindling hypothesis. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(4), 646–663. Luhrmann et al. (2015b)
Maraldi, E. O., Taves, A., Moll, J., Hartle, L., Moreira-de-Oliveira, M. E., Bortolini, T., & Fischer, R. (2024). Nonordinary experiences, well-being and mental health: A systematic review of the evidence and recommendations for future research. Journal of Religion and Health, 63, 410–444. Maraldi et al. (2024)
Roxburgh, E. C., & Evenden, R. E. (2016). ‘Most people think you're a fruit loop’: Clients' experiences of seeking support for anomalous experiences. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 16(3), 211–221. Roxburgh (2016)
Taves, A., & Barlev, M. (2023). A feature-based approach to the comparative study of 'nonordinary' experiences. American Psychologist, 78(1), 50–61. Taves and Barlev (2023)
van Elk, M. (2017). The self-attribution bias and paranormal beliefs. Consciousness and Cognition, 49, 313–321. van Elk (2017)