ArticleCommunications psychology2026
Prevalence estimates of nonordinary experiences depend on validity and measurement choices.
Article in Communications psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nonordinary experiences (NOEs) that are subjectively marked as unusual or special have important implications for our understanding of consciousness but are challenging to quantify. Estimates of their prevalence vary widely across disciplines and research traditions, and the reasons for this variation remain unclear. We address this discrepancy in a series of six studies. In study 1, we validated 31 items using descriptive, non-judgmental phrasing of experiences (N = 1,284). In studies 2 to 4, we identified factors contributing to different prevalence rates (total N = 11,628). Study 2 showed that a mental health framing results in lower prevalence rates. Studies 3 to 4 demonstrated that dichotomous response options result in lower prevalence rates. Study 5 (N = 12,912) tested the comparative importance of these factors and showed that validity information (clarity and understandability of items), mental health framing of the study and response formats of items affect absolute point estimates, but relative lifetime prevalence rates can be estimated consistently. Study 6 (N = 11,628) reported the overall relative lifetime prevalence rates indicating that a sense of déjà vu, and unusually intense experiences of compassion and love ( > 70%) were relatively most prevalent; whereas perceptions of animated objects, devotion to objects or individuals, out-of-body experiences and seeing lights were rarer ( > 13%). Nonordinary experiences are common in general population samples, but study design choices obscure accurate prevalence estimates. Our approach enables the systematic identification of these experiences for studying consciousness in real-world contexts.
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.