Table A.
Examples of bivariate correlations between paranormal beliefs (PB) and predictor variables.
| Contructs | Effect Size | Authors |
|---|---|---|
| PB & Neuroticism | r = -.14, p < .05 | Henningsgaard and Arnau (2008) |
| PB & Agreeableness |
r = .24, p < .01 β = .20, p = .03 r = .25, p < .01 |
Schnell (2012)1 Henningsgaard and Arnau (2008) |
| PB & Extraversion |
r = .21, p < .01 r = .17, p < .01 |
Schnell (2012)1 Henningsgaard and Arnau (2008) |
| PB & Conscientiousness |
r = .26, p < .01 β = .18, p < .05 r = -.21, p < .05 β = -.19, p < .05 (Superstition subscale) |
Henningsgaard and Arnau (2008) Williams and Roberts (2016)8 |
| PB & Openness |
r = .32, p < .01 β = .26, p = .003 r = -.29, p < .001 β = -.22, p < .05 (Superstition subscale) r = -.22, p < .01 (Precognition subscale) |
Schnell (2012)1 Williams and Roberts (2016)8 |
| PB & Honesty/Humility |
r = -.19, p < .05 (Superstition subscale) r = -.23, p < .01 β = -.25, p < .01 (Precognition subscale) |
Williams and Roberts (2016)8 |
| PB & Education | η2 = .016–.034 (vocational school vs. university) | Aarnio and Lindeman (2005)2 |
| PB & Cognitive Ability | r = .50, p < .01 | Musch and Ehrenberg (2002)3 |
| PB & Numeracy PB& Probabilistic Reasoning Errors |
r = -.12 – -.46, p < .01 r = -.22, p < .01 no significant effect η2 = .22–.27, p < .001 r = .22, p < .05 |
Dagnall et al. (2014) Hergovich and Arendasy (2005) Brotherton and French (2014)4 Rogers et al. (2009) Musch and Ehrenberg (2002)3 |
| PB & Ontological Confusion | r = .46, p < .001 | Lindeman et al. (2015)5 |
| PB& Need for Cognition | r = .35, p < .01 | Gray and Gallo (2016)6 |
| PB & Illusory Pattern Perception/Perception of Randomness |
r = .38, p < .001 r = -.18 – -.43, p < .01 r = -.32, p < .01 |
van Prooijen et al. (2017) Dagnall et al. (2014) Dagnall et al. (2007) |
| PB & Cognitive Style |
r = -.312, p < .01 r = -.14, p < .01 (analytical thinking) r = .34, p < .001 (intuitive thinking) |
Gray and Gallo (2016)6 Aarnio and Lindeman (2005)2 |
| PB & Death Anxiety |
r = -.375, p < .001 No significant effect |
Rasmussen and Johnson (1994) Henrie and Patrick (2014)7, Wink (2006) |
| PB & Life Satisfaction | r = .347, p < .01 | Gray and Gallo (2016)6 |
| PB & Gender | η2 = .028 | Aarnio and Lindeman (2005)2 |
Note. Other analyzed factors: 1 horizontal self-transcendence, self-actualization order, well-being, and relatedness; 2 discipline, length of education, gender, analytical and intuitive thinking; 3 cognitive ability and probability misjudgement; 4 conspiracy theories, conjunction fallacy; 5 metalizing abilities (affective empathy, cognitive empathy, empathy abilities, hyper-empathizing), promiscuous teleology; 6 episodic memory accuracy and distortion, analytical thinking, absorption, dissociative experiences, need for cognition; 7 age, gender, religious belief, organizational religiousness, religious meaning, religious doubt.
Comments: 3 cognitive ability operationalized as “Abiturnote” (A-levels grade) – higher grade represents lower cognitive ability; 8 no correlation for the overall Revised Paranormal Belief Scale.