ArticlePloS one2024
Re-evaluation of the relationship between paranormal belief and perceived stress using statistical modelling.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distinguishing paranormal belief and paranormal involvement: canonical correlation analysis of positive psychological functioning.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Mind over matter? The cognitive styles of scientific scepticism and paranormal belief.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent research indicates that paranormal belief, in the absence of allied cognitive-perceptual and psychopathology-related factors, is not associated with negative wellbeing outcomes. However, investigators have historically reported relationships between specific facets of belief (e.g., superstition) and stress vulnerability. These typically derive from the Revised Paranormal Belief Scale (RPBS), which has questionable psychometric integrity. The main issue being that several RPBS items perform poorly. Noting this, the present paper re-examined the relationship between paranormal belief and stress using the Rasch purified version of the RPBS. This comprises two dimensions, called Traditional Paranormal Belief (TPB) and New Age Philosophy (NAP). These are operationalised in terms of function. Specifically, whether belief provides a sense of control at the social (TPB) or individual level (NAP). Accordingly, this study examined whether TPB and NAP were differentially predictive of levels of perceived stress. In this context, stress served as an indicator of well-being. A sample of 3084 participants (Mage = 50.31, SD = 15.20, range 18-91) completed the RPBS alongside the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10). Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling revealed that TPB was significantly predictive of higher Distress, and lower Coping. NAP was neither predictive of Distress nor Coping. These findings support the notion that TPB is attendant with external control, particularly the notion that unknown supernatural forces/powers influence existence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.