1996 00 00 Psychological Inquiry - Vol 7 No 2 - Bowers

Magazine Overview

This document contains commentaries on the article "On the Edge of Science: Coping with UFOlogy Scientifically" by Newman and Baumeister, published in "Psychological Inquiry", Volume 7, Number 2, in 1996. The commentaries are authored by Kenneth S. Bowers and John D. Eastwood, and by Steven E. Clark and Elizabeth F. Loftus.

Commentary by Bowers and Eastwood

Bowers and Eastwood address the boundary between scientific and nonscientific claims, particularly concerning UFO abductee experiences. They agree with Newman and Baumeister that such claims are not scientific, citing the low antecedent likelihood of UFO abductions and the need for compelling evidence.

Newman and Baumeister propose a two-part theory for the origins of abduction experiences:

1. Fantasy Proneness, Hypnosis, and Suggestion: This part suggests that people seeking therapeutic help for distressing life events can be influenced by a therapist's beliefs, especially if the therapist is a UFO aficionado. Receptive individuals, particularly those with low reality testing or high hypnotizability, may experience these suggestions as vivid mnemonic experiences, akin to visitations.
2. Masochistic/Motivational Account: This part posits that people need to escape self and self-control through masochistic fantasies, which drives their belief in UFO abductions. This is based on perceived similarities between the psychological profiles of masochists and UFO abductees.

Bowers and Eastwood find the masochistic/motivational account more plausible than a literalist view but question its scientific status and critical importance. They note that Newman and Baumeister's argument implies that the psychological motivations are unconscious, as conscious masochistic needs would make the experience too transparent to be deceptive.

They connect this to the psychoanalytic tradition, acknowledging the role of unconscious ideas. However, they also reference criticisms by Frederick Crews, who argues against the scientific validity of repressed memories and Freudian concepts, suggesting that such theories are empirically empty or epistemologically impossible to verify.

Bowers and Eastwood then examine the empirical tenability of Newman and Baumeister's theory. They draw on Nisbett and Wilson's work, highlighting that people often explain their behavior based on theories or heuristics rather than introspective data. While a compelling experience might seem to validate itself, it doesn't necessarily mean it's true. They argue that a person experiencing a bizarre event might remain skeptical and question whether it was a dream, hypnosis, or an altered mental state – the beginning of scientific inquiry.

They distinguish between constitutive explanations (where the experience is its own explanation, e.g., being abducted explains abduction) and scientific explanations, which seek less salient, external causes. In psychology, the alternatives are environmental and intrapsychic explanations.

Intrapsychic explanations are difficult to verify due to their hidden nature. Bowers and Eastwood express concern that observer biases can overdetermine the inferred causes. While not denying the existence of unconscious influences, they emphasize the difficulty in knowing when such explanations are correct.

They propose that Newman and Baumeister's masochistic/motivational hypothesis, while having greater antecedent plausibility than constitutive explanations, requires much harsher empirical challenges. They suggest that the theory's primary claim to being scientific currently rests on replacing an implausible literal account.

Critique of Intrapsychic vs. Environmental Explanations:

Bowers and Eastwood contrast intrapsychic explanations with environmental ones. Environmental variables are easier to manipulate and study experimentally, a hallmark of experimental psychology. However, this doesn't reveal the truly important independent and dependent variables, which are often based on best guesses about human psychology.

Both intrapsychic and environmental accounts are considered more scientific than constitutive explanations because they "de-conflate" the explanation from the event. However, scientific inquiry is an ongoing process of reducing the observer's idiosyncratic contribution. The experimental method is ideal for this, but it has limitations:

• The observer's role is always present in deciding what experiment to conduct.
• Intrapsychic determinants, crucial for understanding behavior, are difficult to manipulate or directly observe.

They suggest that methods like Block's Q-sort methodology can help reduce observer bias in personality research. Newman and Baumeister's attempt to ground their theory in controlled observations offers promise for a scientific account of bizarre experiences, but they have a long way to go.

Further Criticisms:

• Limited Scope: The masochistic/motivational theory struggles to explain UFO experiences that are not inherently humiliating or degrading.
• Underestimation of Suggestion: The theory underestimates the power of suggestion, including subtle means of influence beyond hypnosis, which have been studied by social psychologists.

They illustrate the power of suggestion with an anecdote about Albert Einstein's recruitment to Zionism, where a propagandist carefully orchestrated the process to make Einstein believe the ideas came from him spontaneously.

They propose that a combination of compelling, hypnotically suggested experiences and prior belief-altering manipulations maximizes vulnerability to persuasion. This "double whammy" is seen in recovered memory therapy for childhood sexual abuse, where distressed patients are susceptible to suggestions that increase the likelihood that unremembered abuse explains their problems. Familiarity and the idea of repressed memories enhance plausibility.

Hypothetical Regression Equation:

Bowers and Eastwood propose a research program to test their critique. They suggest a hypothetical regression equation to predict UFO abduction recall, considering:

• Therapist's prior beliefs (e.g., UFOlogist).
• Use of hypnosis during therapy.
• Patient's hypnotic ability.

They predict that masochistic motivation will predict little or no independent variance in UFO abduction recall, challenging Newman and Baumeister's core hypothesis.

They acknowledge the logistic and ethical difficulties of such research but argue that it is not epistemologically impossible. They note that inferring intrapsychic influences requires "pre-accounting" for numerous environmental influences, making it more complex than varying a single independent variable in an experiment.

Conclusion of Bowers and Eastwood:

They conclude that rigorous inferences about intrapsychic determinants are difficult. Psychoanalytic hypotheses have historically lacked broad scientific appeal and are now facing challenges. They predict that Newman and Baumeister's motivational account of UFO memories will likely suffer a similar fate due to its reliance on theories with limited rigorous scientific support.

Commentary by Clark and Loftus

Clark and Loftus echo the sentiments of Carl Sagan and themselves (in a previous review of Mack's "Abduction: Human Encounters With Aliens") regarding UFO abduction accounts. They see these narratives as "pay dirt" for understanding ourselves rather than alien visitation.

They agree with Newman and Baumeister's assessment that abduction narratives are likely a form of false memory, reconstructed with the suggestion of hypnosis and influenced by popular culture, including images of space alien visitation.

The critical question they pose, mirroring the skeptic's challenge, is how millions of people can hold onto detailed narratives that are fundamentally false. They assert that human memory *can* invent such stories, especially with assistance.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The commentaries collectively engage with the scientific study of UFO abductions, questioning the authenticity of such claims and exploring psychological explanations. The dominant theme is the role of suggestion, hypnosis, and memory construction in generating these experiences. The authors critique theories that rely heavily on unverifiable intrapsychic factors, advocating for more empirically testable explanations grounded in psychological processes like suggestion and the malleability of memory. The editorial stance appears to favor a skeptical, scientific approach to phenomena like UFO abductions, emphasizing the need for rigorous research and critical evaluation of evidence.