Suggestion and Extraordinary Experiences: How Expectations Shape Reports
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Extraordinary Experiences & Anomalistic Psychology · Written by Artificial Sapiens
The psychology of suggestion examines how information from other people, settings, questions, and expectations can influence what a person notices, experiences, remembers, and reports. In extraordinary-experience research, this matters because the same ambiguous sound, movement, bodily sensation, or visual impression may be described differently depending on what a person has been told to expect. Controlled studies of simulated séances, apparent psychic demonstrations, and unusual environments have shown that suggestion can alter reports of events whose relevant physical features are known to investigators. Wiseman, Greening, and Smith (2003); Wilson and French (2014).
For a related perspective, see Extraordinary Experiences: Types, Meanings, and Psychological Research.
A reported extraordinary experience is a meaningful psychological event in the life of the person describing it. The report documents that experience and its interpretation; verification of an external cause requires additional independent evidence. Suggestion research explains how expectations can contribute to some reported experiences. It does not supply a universal diagnosis, discredit every witness, or establish the cause of each unexplained event. This distinction is essential to responsible anomalistic psychology.
The central question is therefore precise: under what conditions do expectations and suggestions influence the emergence, interpretation, recollection, and communication of extraordinary experiences, and how can researchers distinguish those effects from other explanations?
What is suggestion in extraordinary-experience psychology?
Suggestion is information that increases the likelihood of a particular interpretation, response, perception, recollection, or behavior. It can appear as a direct assertion, a question carrying a presupposition, a credible person's reaction, an environmental description, or an implied social expectation. For example, hearing that visitors often feel a presence in a corridor may focus attention on ordinary sensations that previously would have passed unnoticed. Whether that attention changes perception itself, subsequent memory, or the wording of a report is a separate empirical question.
Expectation refers to a person's anticipation of what may occur. Expectations arise from personal history, narratives, prior beliefs, immediate instructions, and sensory context. Priming describes how preceding information can influence subsequent processing under specified experimental conditions. Demand characteristics are cues that reveal what a participant thinks an experimenter expects. These concepts overlap in some studies but have different meanings and should be measured separately.
Suggestion is not confined to deliberate persuasion. A well-intentioned question such as “Did you hear the footsteps upstairs?” can introduce a detail that the witness had not independently reported. Conversely, a neutral invitation such as “What did you notice, if anything?” minimizes a specific expectation. Experimental evidence on the misinformation effect demonstrates that wording and information introduced after an event can influence later accounts, although people do not invariably adopt that information. Loftus and Palmer (1974); Putnam, Sungkhasettee, and Roediger (2017).
Four stages at which an expectation can influence a report
Before an event: attention and anticipation
A narrative about a haunted building or a supposedly psychic performance can establish which kinds of signals deserve attention. Someone expecting a subtle temperature change may actively compare successive sensations, while another person attends to visual details or potential physical explanations. Such anticipatory processes can influence search strategies, detection thresholds, and the meaning assigned to ambiguous information. In experimental settings the same report can reflect multiple processes, so anticipation should not automatically be labeled a perceptual distortion.
During an event: ambiguity and interpretation
An indistinct sound, movement seen peripherally, or feeling of being watched may be experienced vividly while remaining causally ambiguous. Expectations can supply a ready interpretation. A participant may sincerely experience a stationary table as moving, or may perceive ambiguity and later endorse someone else's account of movement. The crucial methodological step is to separate independently recorded behavior or stimulus conditions from the participant's immediate judgment.
After an event: reconstructive memory
Memory is reconstructed during retrieval and can incorporate subsequent questions, conversations, and imagery. This has been shown across ordinary eyewitness tasks and autobiographical-memory experiments. In the classic automobile-collision research, a stronger verb in a question was associated with different speed estimates and later reports of broken glass that had not appeared. That experiment concerns memory in general; its relevance to extraordinary events is a plausible transfer of a documented mechanism, not proof that all extraordinary-event recollections are inaccurate. Loftus and Palmer (1974).
When telling others: communication and social influence
A witness decides what to emphasize, which details seem relevant, and how to answer a listener. Reactions from friends, an interviewer, or a group can amplify some details and suppress others. This may happen through genuine memory change, deference to someone perceived as knowledgeable, a desire to cooperate, or an effort to make an ambiguous experience intelligible. Experimental designs should distinguish private initial reports from later accounts collected after discussion. Wilson and French (2014).
What experiments on apparent paranormal events actually show
Simulated séance research: a table that did not move
In two experiments published in the British Journal of Psychology, Wiseman, Greening, and Smith examined suggestion during staged séances. In the first experiment, an actor suggested that a table was levitating even though it remained stationary. Approximately one-third of participants subsequently reported that the table had moved. A second experiment investigated whether suggestions were compatible with participants' prior paranormal beliefs. The researchers found greater susceptibility among believers for belief-consistent suggestions, with important qualifications across conditions. These are experimental results about accounts of a known staged event, not a claim about genuine paranormal occurrences. Wiseman, Greening, and Smith (2003).
This study demonstrates that a false assertion made within a compelling social situation can affect a substantial minority of reports. It does not, by itself, establish exactly where the effect arose. Some participants may have experienced apparent movement, others may have remembered movement after hearing the assertion, and still others may have accepted the implied response without experiencing or remembering it. The distinction matters whenever a researcher uses an endorsement question as a proxy for an actual perceptual experience.
An apparent psychic performance: verbal suggestion and a co-witness
Wilson and French studied eyewitness reports following a video of an apparent psychic bending a metal key using conjuring methods. Participants either did or did not hear a suggestion that the key continued bending after it had been placed down. A second manipulation introduced a co-witness who affirmed movement, denied movement, or provided no comparable influence. Verbal suggestion increased reports of continuing movement; positive co-witness influence also increased such reports compared with the other influence conditions. This design provides direct experimental evidence that words and social context can change testimony about an ostensibly paranormal event. Wilson and French (2014).
Because the investigators knew the demonstration's physical sequence, they could compare statements with a defined event. That is a strength absent from most retrospective extraordinary-experience narratives. The results nevertheless concern a specific laboratory-like demonstration and participant sample. They do not yield a population-wide probability that every apparent movement report comes from suggestion, and they cannot determine precisely what an individual participant subjectively saw.
Mirror-gazing: suggestions and unusual perception reports
Terhune and Smith randomly allocated participants in a mirror-gazing experiment to conditions with different suggestions about anomalous experiences. Those receiving suggestions reported more visual anomalous phenomena than participants without such suggestions; the study also examined individual differences and state characteristics. This is evidence that instructions can influence reports during a particular perceptual situation. It does not establish that the reported experiences were feigned, that every similar experience has the same cause, or that mirror-gazing produces a psychiatric disorder. Terhune and Smith (2006).
The physical setting matters as well as the verbal instructions. Sustained viewing, ambiguous sensory information, attention, and individual variation can interact. Experiments that vary only the suggestion can isolate its contribution more directly than studies in which instructions, lighting, group activity, and background narratives all change together.
The Haunt Project: reports without the predicted environmental effect
French and colleagues placed 79 volunteers in a purpose-built room for 50 minutes, manipulating exposure to infrasound and complex electromagnetic fields. Participants were told that unusual sensations might occur. Many reported such sensations, but the number of experiences was unrelated to the manipulated environmental conditions. The authors considered suggestion a parsimonious explanation for the overall pattern, while also analyzing individual differences. This interpretation is plausible; because every experimental group received an expectation-setting introduction, the study did not isolate the size of a pure suggestion effect against a neutral-instruction control. French et al. (2009).
The Haunt Project is especially instructive because it shows why reports alone cannot validate a proposed physical mechanism. An environment can elicit striking reports even when the tested environmental manipulation fails to explain their frequency. At the same time, a null effect for specific electromagnetic and infrasound exposures in one study does not establish that all physical conditions are irrelevant in all locations.
Field studies in reputedly haunted sites
Wiseman and colleagues studied reports at Hampton Court Palace and Edinburgh's South Bridge Vaults. Unusual experiences were more frequently reported in areas with a reputation for being haunted, and report locations correlated with certain environmental measures, including aspects of lighting and magnetic-field variation. The authors noted that the effect was not explained by participants' prior knowledge of each area's reputation. These field findings illustrate ecological complexity: immediate surroundings, social context, sensory variation, and expectation may all matter, while correlations do not identify a single cause. Wiseman et al. (2003).
The field investigation and Haunt Project should be considered together. One investigated real settings where many environmental and contextual variables co-occur; the other manipulated selected physical variables under greater experimental control. Differences in results are useful evidence about measurement and design, and they warn against treating a particular site reputation as proof of either supernatural activity or a single environmental explanation.
Core psychological mechanisms and what is established
Expectancy and selective attention
Expectations prioritize some features of a scene. During an extraordinary-event investigation, a person may monitor slight movements, changes in body sensations, or small inconsistencies more closely after being told that they are significant. Selective attention is an established psychological process; attributing a specific alleged ghost sighting to expectation remains a case-specific interpretation requiring its own evidence. Research reports should therefore specify the expected event, what participants were told, and how observation was recorded.
Response criteria and false alarms
When the evidence is weak, a respondent must decide whether to report that something happened. A suggestion can potentially change the criterion for answering “yes,” even without changing sensory information. This is a testable distinction between sensitivity and reporting threshold. A good experiment therefore includes neutral and suggested conditions, graded confidence measures, independently documented stimuli, and questions that separately assess perception, memory, and belief. An increased number of affirmative reports does not by itself reveal which component changed.
Source monitoring
A remembered detail may come from direct perception, another person's account, an image, a dream, or an inference. After repeated discussions, identifying the original source can become difficult. Laboratory studies of suggestion and implanted autobiographical events demonstrate that externally introduced details sometimes acquire the subjective characteristics of memory. The strength and frequency of this outcome depend on procedures and measurement thresholds. Scoboria et al. (2017); Scoboria, Wysman, and Otgaar (2012).
Social conformity and informational influence
A confident co-witness can seem to possess information that the original witness lacks. In a confusing situation, agreement may feel reasonable; in a tightly knit group, disagreement may carry social costs. These mechanisms can influence public reports without requiring intentional deception. Their role in extraordinary experiences is supported most directly by staged-event experiments such as the apparent psychic demonstration. The observed report agreement should be analyzed alongside whether participants gave independent statements before hearing one another. Wilson and French (2014).
Imagination, plausibility, and personal relevance
Suggestive narratives may prompt mental imagery, a sense of familiarity, and stronger belief that an event occurred. In autobiographical-memory experiments, the credibility of an alleged source and personal plausibility affect acceptance of suggested events. A pooled analysis of eight implantation studies found that rates of classified false memories varied according to definitions and procedures; the overall classification was 30.4% under its coding scheme, a figure specific to those studies rather than an estimate for extraordinary experiences. Scoboria et al. (2017); Scoboria, Wysman, and Otgaar (2012).
Bodily expectation and symptom experiences
Suggestion research also extends beyond memory. Clinical nocebo experiments show that negative expectations and related contextual factors can influence symptom experience. A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis examined nocebo effects across health outcomes; later analyses have investigated moderators, including verbal suggestion and suggestibility. These findings support a general principle that contextual expectation can influence experienced bodily states. They do not validate a direct causal account of a particular sensed presence, unusual odor, or nighttime event. Rooney et al. (2024); nocebo meta-analysis indexed in PubMed.
Does suggestion change perception, memory, or only the report?
This is one of the most important unresolved questions in the interpretation of many anomalistic experiments. A participant who writes that a table moved might have experienced visual movement in the moment, reconstructed that movement afterward, interpreted a vague event through the researcher's language, or knowingly accommodated the apparent purpose of the task. Identical answers can arise from different processes.
Researchers can improve the separation by collecting a private report immediately, delaying further questions, recording eye movements or behavior when appropriate, and asking separately what was seen, what is remembered, what is believed to have happened, and what a participant heard others say. A later report can then be compared with an earlier one. None of these measures is infallible; nevertheless, the design can show when a post-event narrative rather than an initial sensory judgment changed.
The broader misinformation literature demonstrates this heterogeneity. Putnam and colleagues found that detecting and remembering discrepancies between an original event and subsequent misleading information could sometimes improve recognition of the original event. Suggestion therefore has conditional effects; participants can resist, correct, or use introduced information as a cue that something changed. Putnam, Sungkhasettee, and Roediger (2017).
Prior paranormal belief and suggestibility: what the evidence supports
Prior belief can shape which explanations feel plausible, which cues are noticed, and whether a suggestion is accepted. In the simulated séance experiments, the effect of suggestions varied with belief compatibility. In the key-bending experiment, paranormal-belief measures were also associated with some reporting outcomes. Yet experimental findings are not perfectly uniform, and it would be inaccurate to characterize believers as universally suggestible or nonbelievers as immune to social influence. Wiseman, Greening, and Smith (2003); Wilson and French (2014).
A systematic review by Dean and colleagues examined 71 studies including 20,993 participants across four decades, focusing on relationships between paranormal beliefs and cognitive functioning. Associations varied considerably across studies, with recurring findings in intuitive thinking and some reasoning domains. The authors also identified sampling problems, limited preregistration, and multiple-testing concerns. This review does not directly show that people with paranormal beliefs will produce false extraordinary-experience reports; belief measures and report accuracy are distinct outcomes. Dean et al. (2022).
Individual suggestibility itself depends on task, context, motivation, and measurement. A person may reject a suggested movement while readily accepting an authoritative explanation of a sound, or the reverse. Group averages cannot be used to adjudicate a particular witness's credibility.
Why confident, vivid reports deserve careful interpretation
Confidence, vividness, and sincerity are meaningful characteristics of a person's experience. They are not independent verification of the experience's proposed external cause. A vivid account may be accurate, incomplete, mixed with later inference, or mistaken about a detail; the best assessment compares the report with contemporaneous records and other independently collected information. The existence of misinformation effects is a reason to document carefully, not a license to dismiss people. Loftus and Palmer (1974); Scoboria et al. (2017).
The same principle applies to corroboration. Several witnesses may provide stronger evidence when their observations were made and recorded independently, but matching accounts collected after discussion are harder to interpret. Socially shared accounts can converge because of actual shared perception, exchange of details, or both. This is why independent first reports and a documented communication timeline have special value in research.
Suggested environments: haunted houses, investigations, and media
Descriptions such as “the most haunted room,” guided tours emphasizing a particular corner, or videos implying a presence may establish expectations before someone encounters ambiguous sensations. These contexts can influence attention and interpretation, but their effects have to be examined rather than assumed. A reputedly haunted room may also have acoustic reflections, low lighting, air movement, temperature gradients, and other ordinary variables that matter independently of suggestion.
An ethical investigation records who supplied the narrative, which information the observer knew beforehand, what sensory conditions were present, and how the report was gathered. It is useful to distinguish the first spontaneous description from subsequent interpretations offered by companions, guides, or investigators. Field correlations and controlled laboratory manipulations answer different questions, so neither should be treated as universally decisive. Wiseman et al. (2003); French et al. (2009).
Social media introduces repetition and rapid exposure to similar interpretations. An unusual video or personal account may prompt viewers to scan their surroundings with newly salient expectations. This is a reasonable hypothesis grounded in general attention and suggestion research; direct evidence quantifying effects for every specific platform, format, or community remains limited. Audience engagement metrics should never be substituted for independent scientific validation.
Extraordinary-event interviewing and the ethics of memory
People describing an unfamiliar event often encounter questions long after the experience occurred. Investigators, friends, therapists, and journalists influence the resulting narrative through the wording and order of questions. The most defensible approach begins with an open invitation, records the initial account accurately, and distinguishes observed details from suggestions or interpretations introduced later. Asking repeated leading questions can make the origin of a detail harder to establish. Loftus and Palmer (1974); Scoboria et al. (2017).
Questions should acknowledge uncertainty: “What do you remember noticing?” and “What happened next?” permit uncertainty and correction. It is appropriate to document “I am unsure,” “I heard about this afterward,” or “I now interpret it differently.” These distinctions preserve information that is lost when interviews pressure a person toward a fully coherent story.
Hypnosis or guided imagination should not be treated as forensic verification that an extraordinary event occurred or as a method for recovering a reliably hidden memory. Laboratory memory-implantation findings demonstrate why externally introduced information can become entwined with autobiographical belief and recollection. Scoboria et al. (2017).
Researchers must also distinguish a deliberate demonstration that uses deception with informed debriefing from interactions involving distressed individuals who did not consent to manipulation. Ethical research on extraordinary experiences requires privacy, respectful questioning, limits on induced fear, and access to support where a participant becomes distressed.
Research methods: how to demonstrate an expectancy effect
A clear operational definition
An experiment must define whether its outcome is a subjective sensation, a visual decision, a remembered event, endorsement of a paranormal explanation, or a verbal report. These outcomes cannot be treated as interchangeable. A measure asking “Did anything strange happen?” cannot distinguish visual intensity, anxiety, belief, and response style without additional items.
Manipulation and control groups
To attribute a report difference to suggestion, researchers should randomize the presence or type of suggestion while holding the physical event as constant as possible. The control condition needs neutral wording and comparable researcher contact. An active comparison can help separate paranormal framing from the general effect of receiving any instruction. Independent recording of the actual stimulus gives researchers a reference against which to compare reports.
Blinding and demand characteristics
When investigators know which condition a person received, facial expressions or follow-up questions may introduce additional cues. Masking data collectors and outcome coders where feasible reduces this risk. Debriefing questions can assess participants' guesses about the study's purpose, although post-experiment guesses do not perfectly quantify demand effects.
Time, independence, and corroboration
Records taken during an event, immediately afterward, and after group discussion should be kept distinct. Such longitudinal structure helps identify when details emerge or change. Independent witness records are more informative than multiple descriptions assembled after communal interpretation, especially when a physical event cannot be replayed.
Statistical integrity and replication
Predefine primary hypotheses and outcomes; justify sample size; adjust or transparently account for multiple comparisons; document exclusions, missing data, and exploratory analyses; and publish methods and materials where ethically possible. The review by Dean and colleagues found that preregistration and correction for multiple testing had often been neglected in related belief research. A statistically significant outcome in one experiment does not show that a psychological pathway explains every reported extraordinary event. Independent replication across settings, populations, and measures is essential. Dean et al. (2022).
What evidence categories mean in this field
Documented experience means a person's unusual experience or report has been recorded. It is a legitimate object of research whether or not the proposed external explanation has been verified.
Established mechanism refers to an experimentally supported process such as suggestive influence on some eyewitness reports or memory reconstruction under particular conditions. Its presence in the scientific literature does not establish that it caused one specified report.
Preliminary evidence describes findings that need stronger samples, more precise measurements, or independent replication. Plausible interpretation describes an explanation compatible with existing knowledge that remains unproven for an individual event. Contested claim refers to an explanation whose evidence remains disputed, such as an assertion of psychokinesis drawn from a performance. Clinical diagnosis requires its own assessment criteria and cannot be inferred from belief, a single narrative, or the experimental effects discussed here.
The evidence base is strongest for experimentally manipulated suggestion and memory-report effects under controlled conditions. It is less precise when researchers attempt to infer the exact mechanism of a unique event remembered long afterward. Recognizing that difference is a condition of scientific accuracy, not a weakness in the legitimacy of someone's experience.
Individual differences, mental health, and cultural sensitivity
An extraordinary experience can occur without a clinical disorder. A belief in ghosts, an unusual coincidence, a sense of presence, or a memory that later changes is not itself a diagnosis. Experimental studies measure response tendencies in specified settings; these cannot be converted into an individual psychiatric classification.
Some people find such experiences intriguing or consoling, while others experience fear, insomnia, ongoing distress, or disruption to daily life. If the experience is accompanied by new confusion, severe sleep disturbance, marked impairment, dangerous behavior, or other concerning symptoms, clinical or medical assessment can help evaluate possible contributing factors. An assessment should attend to the person's specific symptoms, health, sleep, substances or medications where relevant, and cultural context, rather than treating the extraordinary interpretation alone as evidence of illness.
Religious and spiritual experiences are understood within their own identities, practices, and traditions. This article examines suggestion and the construction of extraordinary-event reports in a nonconfessional empirical context. It does not evaluate sacred claims, theological doctrine, or the legitimacy of a person's faith. A culturally attentive conversation asks how the person interprets the experience and what support they want without assigning an unwanted paranormal, religious, or medical label.
Can extraordinary experiences be studied without dismissing the experiencer?
Yes. The most productive research relationship starts with an accurate description of what a person says happened and a respectful account of what the experience meant. Investigators can then evaluate temporal records, independent observations, potential ordinary sources, and alternative interpretations. Participants can be informed that careful study of suggestion protects the accuracy of extraordinary-event testimony rather than presuming it to be false.
It is equally important to avoid turning every unexplained event into a single causal narrative. Physical explanations, attentional changes, expectations, memory, social influence, and unknown factors are distinct hypotheses that require appropriate data. Evidence for a laboratory suggestion effect establishes a general possibility and sometimes a measurable causal contribution; it does not retrospectively settle all individual accounts.
Practical guidance for people who have had an unusual experience
If you want to understand an unusual event, write down what happened as soon as practical using ordinary descriptive language. Separate what you directly perceived from what you concluded afterward. Record approximate time, environment, sleep or fatigue context if relevant, and what information you had received before the event. A contemporaneous record preserves uncertainty and reduces later dependence on memory alone.
When another person was present, invite them to record their observations independently before comparing details. Avoid repeated leading questions, pressure to agree, and claims that an increasingly elaborate story must be recovered. If the experience was distressing, prioritize rest, safety, supportive conversation, and appropriate professional care rather than repeated attempts to provoke or reproduce frightening sensations.
An unknown cause can remain unknown. Treating that uncertainty responsibly allows psychological meaning, scientific curiosity, and evidence evaluation to coexist.
Frequently asked questions
Can suggestion make someone think they saw a ghost?
Suggestion can influence perception-related reports and later interpretations under certain conditions. Controlled simulated events show that people sometimes report movement or other phenomena following a verbal suggestion. That does not demonstrate that a particular ghost sighting was caused by suggestion. Establishing a specific cause requires information about the event, prior cues, sensory conditions, and independent evidence. Wiseman, Greening, and Smith (2003).
Is a suggested experience necessarily imaginary or dishonest?
No. Participants may sincerely perceive or remember an event differently, adopt a plausible explanation, or answer according to perceived expectations. A report can be sincere and mistaken about a physical detail. Experimental findings require researchers to distinguish those possibilities rather than inferring dishonesty from inconsistency. Wilson and French (2014).
What are demand characteristics in paranormal experiments?
They are clues that make participants infer what the researcher expects. If someone is told that a room produces unusual sensations, they may monitor for those sensations and may infer that reporting one is the task's purpose. Demand effects can influence reports, but the relative roles of changed experience and changed answering behavior must be tested.
Why might several people remember the same extraordinary event?
They might have observed the same event, exchanged descriptions afterward, or experienced a combination of shared observation and social influence. Independent records made before discussion are especially helpful for assessing corroboration. The demonstrated influence of co-witness statements means agreement alone is not decisive evidence of the reported external explanation. Wilson and French (2014).
Can a vivid memory be changed by later suggestions?
Yes, some memories and beliefs can change following later information, especially under particular suggestion procedures. The likelihood depends on the design, source credibility, event characteristics, and definition of a false memory. Vividness does not independently prove the event occurred exactly as remembered, but it also does not establish that the memory is false. Scoboria et al. (2017).
Do people who believe in the paranormal respond more strongly to suggestions?
Some experiments find interactions between prior belief and suggestion, particularly when the suggestion fits existing expectations. Evidence is mixed across tasks and cannot be used to assess any individual person's honesty or intelligence. Broad cognitive-association research remains heterogeneous. Wiseman, Greening, and Smith (2003); Dean et al. (2022).
Are haunted places explained by expectations alone?
No single mechanism has been established for every reported environment. Studies have examined location reputation, lighting, physical variables, instructions, and individual factors. An experimental room study found that the tested infrasound and electromagnetic-field manipulations did not predict the number of reported sensations, while field reports have correlated with aspects of the surrounding environment. These findings support cautious multivariable investigation. French et al. (2009); Wiseman et al. (2003).
Does suggestion prove that paranormal phenomena are impossible?
No. Suggestion studies test how particular reports can change under known conditions. They establish experimentally observed influences on reporting; they are not universal metaphysical experiments. A claimed external paranormal mechanism requires its own independent, reproducible evidence and appropriate controls.
Is having an unusual experience a sign of psychosis?
An isolated unusual experience or belief cannot establish a clinical diagnosis. Clinical evaluation considers the pattern and course of symptoms, distress, functioning, health context, and culturally informed interpretation. Seek qualified help when experiences cause significant distress, impairment, or safety concerns.
How should a researcher or journalist interview a witness?
Begin with an uninterrupted account, use open and neutral questions, preserve the speaker's uncertainty, record what the witness knew before the experience, and distinguish later discussions from initial observation. Avoid affirming unverified external causes or urging the person to retrieve hidden memories through suggestion. Loftus and Palmer (1974); Scoboria et al. (2017).
Conclusions
Expectations can shape some extraordinary-experience reports through interacting influences on attention, interpretation, memory, and social communication. Direct experiments with known staged events show that verbal suggestions and co-witness statements sometimes produce objectively inaccurate reports; field and laboratory environment studies provide further evidence that context matters. How much each mechanism contributes to a particular person's experience remains a separate empirical question.
Scientific rigor requires preserving the distinction among an experience, its report, the interpretation attached to it, and evidence for its proposed external cause. Respect for the individual and disciplined evaluation of evidence reinforce one another.
Related Articles
Haunted Places: Psychology, Environmental Factors, and Evidence — evidence about reputedly haunted locations, environmental measurements, expectation, and methodological limits.
Extraordinary Experiences: Types, Meanings, and Psychological Research — the parent overview of unusual human experiences and their psychological interpretation.
Ghost Sightings: Perception, Expectations, and Human Experience — related evidence on how context and perception contribute to reported sightings.
Ouija Boards and the Ideomotor Effect: How Involuntary Movement Works — an experimentally studied account of apparently involuntary movement.
False Memory OCD: What Is It? Memory Doubt, Mental Review, Guilt, and Reassurance Seeking — a separate clinical intent concerning intrusive doubt and compulsive responses rather than experimental extraordinary-event suggestion.
Trance Disorder and Possession Trance Disorder: ICD-11 and Cultural Context — a separate clinical and cultural-assessment topic, distinct from nonclinical anomalistic research.
References
Dean, C. E., Akhtar, S., Gale, T. M., Irvine, K., Grohmann, D., & Laws, K. R. (2022). Paranormal beliefs and cognitive function: A systematic review and assessment of study quality across four decades of research. PLOS ONE, 17(5), e0267360. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267360.
French, C. C., Haque, U., Bunton-Stasyshyn, R., & Davis, R. (2009). The “Haunt” project: An attempt to build a “haunted” room by manipulating complex electromagnetic fields and infrasound. Cortex, 45(5), 619–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2007.10.011.
Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585–589. Publisher article.
Putnam, A. L., Sungkhasettee, V. W., & Roediger, H. L. III. (2017). When misinformation improves memory. Psychological Science, 28(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616672268.
Rooney, T., Sharpe, L., Todd, J., Tang, B., & Colagiuri, B. (2024). The nocebo effect across health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 43(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0001326.
Scoboria, A., Wade, K. A., Lindsay, D. S., Azad, T., Strange, D., Ost, J., & Hyman, I. E. (2017). A mega-analysis of memory reports from eight peer-reviewed false memory implantation studies. Memory, 25(2), 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1260747.
Scoboria, A., Wysman, L., & Otgaar, H. (2012). Credible suggestions affect false autobiographical beliefs. Memory, 20(5), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2012.677449.
Terhune, D. B., & Smith, M. D. (2006). The induction of anomalous experiences in a mirror-gazing facility: Suggestion, cognitive perceptual personality traits and phenomenological state effects. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194(6), 415–421. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nmd.0000221318.30692.a5.
Wilson, K., & French, C. C. (2014). Magic and memory: Using conjuring to explore the effects of suggestion, social influence, and paranormal belief on eyewitness testimony for an ostensibly paranormal event. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1289. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01289.
Wiseman, R., Greening, E., & Smith, M. (2003). Belief in the paranormal and suggestion in the seance room. British Journal of Psychology, 94(3), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603767876235.
Wiseman, R., Watt, C., Stevens, P., Greening, E., & O'Keeffe, C. (2003). An investigation into alleged ‘hauntings’. British Journal of Psychology, 94(2), 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603321661886.