Overview

The study of perceptual biases in paranormal belief addresses a fundamental question in parapsychology: why do some people interpret ambiguous or unusual experiences as paranormal while others do not? Simmonds-Moore’s research demonstrates that this divergence is not simply a matter of credulity or skepticism, but reflects measurable differences in how individuals perceive, process, and attribute meaning to sensory information.

Perceptual biases operate at multiple levels. They influence which stimuli capture attention, how ambiguous sensory data are interpreted, and what explanatory frameworks people apply to their experiences. Rather than viewing paranormal belief as irrational, this research situates it within broader patterns of human perception and cognition. Some individuals possess sensory or cognitive characteristics that make them more likely to notice unusual patterns, experience vivid mental imagery, or interpret emotional information in distinctive ways, characteristics that may predispose them toward anomalous experiences and paranormal interpretations.

This approach moves beyond the traditional believer-versus-skeptic dichotomy. Instead, it asks: what are the actual perceptual and cognitive mechanisms at work? How do sensory processing differences correlate with anomalous experience reporting? And what do subjective accounts of anomalous experiences reveal about the nature of perception itself?

Perceptual biases and paranormal belief

Simmonds-Moore’s foundational work on perceptual biases examined how believing and disbelieving in paranormal phenomena correlate with measurable differences in how people process information.¹ Rather than treating paranormal belief as a monolithic construct, this research identified specific perceptual mechanisms that distinguish individuals who readily interpret experiences as paranormal from those who do not.

The research demonstrates that perceptual biases are not simply about willingness to believe. Instead, they reflect genuine differences in how the brain processes ambiguous stimuli. When presented with unclear or multivalent sensory information, individuals with certain perceptual characteristics are more likely to detect patterns, make novel associations, or interpret stimuli in ways that align with paranormal frameworks. These are not errors in perception per se, but rather variations in how different cognitive systems weight and integrate sensory data.

This perspective has important implications. It suggests that paranormal belief is not primarily a failure of critical thinking, but rather reflects differences in perceptual processing that may have both advantages and disadvantages. Individuals prone to paranormal interpretation may be more attuned to subtle patterns, more open to novel explanations, or more sensitive to emotional and contextual cues. At the same time, these same perceptual biases might lead to false positives, interpreting coincidence as causation, or attributing natural phenomena to paranormal causes.

Sensory correlates of anomalous experience

Recent research has identified specific sensory and neurological characteristics that correlate with anomalous experience reporting. Simmonds-Moore’s mixed-methods investigation explored how synesthesia (the involuntary blending of sensory modalities) and autonomous sensory meridian response (ASMR) relate to anomalous experiences including psychometry.²

The findings reveal that individuals who experience synesthesia score significantly higher on measures of ASMR than those who do not. More importantly, both synesthesia and ASMR are associated with heightened tendencies to report anomalous experiences. This correlation suggests that certain neurological or sensory processing differences may predispose individuals toward anomalous experience reporting. These individuals may have more permeable boundaries between sensory modalities, more vivid mental imagery, or heightened sensitivity to subtle sensory stimuli.

Notably, while both synesthesia and ASMR correlate with anomalous experience reporting, synesthesia was not significantly associated with psychometry specifically. This suggests that different types of anomalous experiences may involve distinct perceptual mechanisms. Some anomalous experiences may depend on cross-modal sensory blending, while others (like psychometry) may involve different cognitive or emotional processes.

The correlation between these sensory characteristics and anomalous experience reporting does not resolve the question of whether anomalous experiences are paranormal or explicable through conventional psychology. Rather, it identifies the perceptual substrate upon which anomalous experiences arise. Individuals with these sensory characteristics may be more likely to have experiences that feel anomalous to them, whether or not those experiences ultimately involve paranormal processes.

Psychometry and emotional perception

Psychometry, the reported ability to receive information about a person or object through contact with that object, offers a particularly rich case study in how perceptual biases shape anomalous experiences. Simmonds-Moore’s systematic qualitative research on psychometry experiences reveals that these subjective encounters involve distinctive patterns of perception and emotional processing.²

Thematic analysis of psychometry accounts identified five major themes. Individuals report experiencing a flash of imagery, sudden, vivid mental pictures that feel distinct from ordinary imagination. They describe lived feelings and intense emotions that seem to arise unbidden. They report noesis, the sense of knowing something without knowing how they know it. And they frequently describe perspective-taking and empathy, experiencing information as if from another person’s point of view.

These subjective features suggest that psychometry, as experienced by those who report it, involves emotional information processing rather than straightforward sensory perception. The experiences feel different from normal cognition, more vivid, more emotionally charged, and seemingly originating from an external source. Yet the content of these experiences centers on emotional and interpersonal information: feelings, perspectives, and relational dynamics associated with the object or person in question.

This pattern suggests a hypothesis: psychometry may involve heightened empathic sensitivity combined with distinctive patterns of imagery and emotional processing. Individuals who experience psychometry may be particularly attuned to emotional cues, capable of generating rich emotional and imaginal responses to minimal sensory input, and prone to attribute these responses to external sources rather than their own cognition. Whether this process involves paranormal information transfer or represents an exceptional form of emotional and intuitive perception remains an open question, but the research clarifies what the subjective experience actually involves.

Integrated approaches to understanding anomalous experiences

Rather than treating paranormal phenomena as either entirely real or entirely explicable through conventional psychology, Simmonds-Moore advocates for integrated, systems-based approaches that acknowledge multiple levels of explanation.³ This perspective draws on adversarial collaboration, a research methodology in which individuals with different theoretical commitments work together to design rigorous studies that can test competing hypotheses.

The adversarial collaboration approach recognizes that human bias is inevitable. As noted in discussions of this methodology, “to be human is to be biased.” Rather than pretending to eliminate bias, this approach makes space for different perspectives and expertise to challenge one another, potentially generating more robust and creative research designs. A believer and a skeptic working together may design better studies than either would alone, precisely because they bring different blind spots and different insights.

Systems-based understanding of anomalous experiences incorporates psychological, social, and environmental perspectives simultaneously. An experience of a ghost, for instance, might involve psychological factors (perceptual biases, emotional state, memory processes), social factors (cultural narratives about ghosts, group dynamics, social reinforcement), and environmental factors (lighting, acoustics, electromagnetic fields). Understanding the full phenomenon requires examining all these levels rather than reducing it to any single explanation.

This integrated approach does not require accepting paranormal explanations, nor does it require rejecting them. Instead, it asks: what can we confidently know about these occurrences? What are the psychological mechanisms involved? What social and cultural factors shape how experiences are interpreted? And only after thoroughly examining these conventional explanations, what remains that might warrant consideration of more anomalous hypotheses?

Implications for parapsychology and consciousness research

The research on perceptual biases in paranormal belief and anomalous experience has several important implications. First, it demonstrates that anomalous experiences are not simply the product of gullibility or poor reasoning. Instead, they arise from measurable differences in sensory processing, perceptual biases, and cognitive characteristics. Understanding these mechanisms is essential for rigorous parapsychological research.

Second, this work suggests that the study of anomalous experiences can illuminate fundamental questions about perception and consciousness. Individuals who report anomalous experiences often possess distinctive sensory or cognitive characteristics. Studying these individuals may reveal something about the range of normal human perception and the mechanisms by which the brain constructs experience from sensory input.

Third, the research indicates that paranormal belief and anomalous experience reporting should not be pathologized or dismissed. While some anomalous experiences may reflect misinterpretation of normal phenomena, others may represent genuine variations in human perception and cognition. The task of science is to understand these variations, not to dismiss them.

Finally, this work demonstrates the value of mixed-methods research that combines quantitative measurement with qualitative exploration of subjective experience. Understanding anomalous experiences requires both rigorous measurement of psychological and sensory correlates and careful attention to the actual content and structure of subjective reports. Neither approach alone is sufficient.