TOWARDS A PROFILE OF MEDIUMSHIP: AN EXPLORATORY SURVEY
3.4.5 Hypotheses testing
T-tests were used to explore whether there were any differences between mediums and non-mediums on scores obtained from psychological measures used in the survey study.
Given that previous studies identified in the literature review (Chapter two) were conducted with mediums in USA, Brazil and Cuba, the present study with UK mediums was considered exploratory. Thus, a 2-tailed p < 0.05 was chosen as a significance value for the analyses. Summary statistics from these analyses are reported in Table 3.2.
Dissociative Experiences
The hypothesis was not supported as there were no significant differences between groups for scores on the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) (t (157) = .514, p = .61, two- tailed). As the DES was positively skewed, a Mann-Whitney was also performed which confirmed the lack of significance (z = -.200, p = .84, two-tailed). As seen in Table 3.1 mean scores for the medium sample were slightly higher than the non-medium sample (mean = 13.81 vs. mean = 12.99). Both groups scored higher than means reported in general population studies (M = 7.8, Bernstein & Putman, 1986; M = 3.7, Carlson & Putman, 1993; M = 11.05, van Ijzendoorn & Schuengel, 1996), but lower than means reported for individuals with a diagnosis of DID (A7=40.7 - 57.1; cf. Cardena, 2008).
Mental health
As seen in Table 3.1, mean scores for the medium sample were higher than the non- medium sample on the Psychological Wellbeing3 subscale (mean = 4.65 vs. mean = 4.11) and the Psychological Distress subscale3 (mean = 5.36 vs. mean = 5.07). As illustrated in Table 3.2, mediums scored significantly better than non-mediums on the Psychological Wellbeing3 subscale (t (157) = 3.80, p < .001, two-tailed) and the Psychological Distress3 subscale of the MHI-17 (t (157) = 3.26, p < .001, two-tailed). Thus, the hypothesis than mediums and non-mediums would score significantly different on a measure of mental health was supported. It was noted that mean number of years as a spiritualist for mediums (mean = 34.54; ranging from 9 to 78 years; SD = 15.86) was higher than for non-mediums (mean = 19.01; ranging from 1 to 70 years; SD = 17.75). As a way to explore whether this difference contributed to the significant findings, Pearson correlations were performed between the measures, number years as a spiritualist and number of years practising as a medium. When controlling for age, these correlations indicate little evidence for a direct relationship between wellbeing (r = .180, p = .13) or psychologica
76
distress (r = -.009, p = .94) and number years as a spiritualist; or between wellbeing (r = .076, p = .53) or psychological distress (r = .053, p =.66) and number of years practising as a medium. Interestingly, when controlling for age, number of years as a spiritualist did not significantly correlate with psychological distress3 (r = .472, p = .16) or wellbeing3 (r = .225, p = .09) in the non-medium sample. However, the latter result suggests that the longer non-mediums are involved with spiritualism, the better wellbeing they have.
Boundary-Thinness
The hypothesis was not supported as there were no significant differences between groups for scores on the Boundary Questionnaire (BQ-18) (t (157) = -1.345, p = .18, two-tailed). However, it is interesting to note that mean scores for the non-medium group were higher ("thinner") than the medium group (mean = 36.59 vs. mean = 34.51). Mean scores for both groups were lower than those found by Laria (1998) in his medium group (mean = 37.23) and patient group (39.31), but higher than his control group (32.16).
Table 3.3 Results from t-tests comparing mediums and non-mediums on the psychological measures
Measure Unrelated t-test Signif. (two-tailed) Effect size
DES 0.51 P — .61 r = .04 Wellbeing 3.80 P < .001 r = .29 Psychological Distress 3.26 P < .001 r = .25 BQ-18 -1.34 P — .18 r = .10 CEQ 1.65 P = .10 r = .13 Openness 3.21 P < .01 r = .24 Conscientiousness 0.92 P — .36 r = .07 Extraversion 2.01 P < .05 r = .15 Agreeableness 0.01 P — .99 r = .00048 Neuroticism 3.59 P < .001 r = .27
The hypothesis was not supported as there were no significant differences between groups on the Creative Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ) {t (157) = 1.65, p = .10, two-tailed). Although there is no normative data for this measure, it is suggested that scores within the 7 - 1 0 range are normal, while those within the 12 - 16 range are high (for example, fantasy role players score in this range) (H. Merckelbach, personal communication, 15th May, 2007). Therefore, mean scores for both groups fall within the normal range (medium = 9.75 vs. non-medium 8.54), with mediums scoring slightly higher than non-mediums.
Big Five Personality Traits
Some, but not all hypotheses were supported on the personality measure as mediums scored significantly higher than non-mediums on Openness to Experience (t (157) = 3.21, p < .01, two-tailed), Neuroticism (t (157) = 3.59, p < .001, two-tailed) and Extraversion
(t (157) = 2.01, p < .05, two-tailed), but not for Agreeableness (t (157) = .006, p = .99,
two-tailed) or Conscientiousness (t (157) = .924, p = .36, two-tailed). When controlling for age, Pearson correlations did not show any relationship between the significant variables and number of years as a spiritualist (Openness; r = -.076, p = .52; Neuroticism; r = .009, p =.94; Extraversion; r = -.056, p = .64) or number of years practicing (Openness; r = -.088, p = .46; Neuroticism; r = -.013, p = .91; Extraversion; r = .138, p = .25).
3.5 Discussion
An exploration of differences between a sample of spiritualist mediums and non-medium spiritualists revealed no differences on the DES, suggesting that there is no generalised susceptibility to dissociative experience in mediums, despite the dissociative character of specific experiences that are reported by mediums (for example, hearing voices and having visions). However, mean scores for both groups were slightly higher than those in general population studies (Bernstein & Putman, 1986; Carlson & Putman, 1993), suggesting that spiritualists, as a group, may be more likely to have dissociative experiences, but that levels do not reach those regarded as pathological. This is consistent
78
with the findings of Laria (2000) and Reinsel (2003) who also found a lack of psychopathology in mediums but higher than average levels of dissociation.
Interestingly, a significant difference (with a small to medium effect size) was found between mediums and non-mediums on the measure of mental health, with mediums scoring significantly higher on psychological wellbeing and lower on psychological distress. Furthermore, when controlling for age, correlations confirmed that number of years as a spiritualist did not identify a relationship with better mental health. In speculation, it could mean that mediums have entered the profession with a predisposition for positive wellbeing and low psychological distress, and increased age and involvement with spiritualism had no impact on this. Alternatively, adoption of the mediumship role and associated status could have affected wellbeing in a positive way and remained a "buffer" throughout their career. Seligman (2005b) has similarly argued that distress is experienced by individuals prior to their involvement with Candomble mediumship but is given a new positive meaning by their initiation into mediumship, together with the accompanying change in status, power and respect that is associated with the role. Seligman suggests that the process of redefining one's identity and social support associated with the mediumship role may serve a therapeutic function. Implicit in this notion is the view that normalization of distressing or unusual experiences contributes to positive wellbeing or better ability to cope. This model implies that a) the act of mediumship reframes experiences and b) that improvement of psychological wellbeing increases with time spent as a medium.
While findings from this study might be consistent with the first prediction of the model they could not be claimed to support it since there is no information about the mediums' wellbeing or understanding of their experiences prior to their involvement with a formal system of mediumship; what would be required is a longitudinal study that tracks
individuals as they progress from neophyte to qualified practitioner. The current research findings are not consistent with the second prediction of this model. However, our sample of mediums is relatively expert, having completed training programmes and won awards
so that any primary effect of immersion in this subculture would already have occurred. It could be informative to replicate this study with less experienced members of mediumship organizations.
The finding that mediums scored higher on neuroticism when compared with non- mediums presents as somewhat contradictory given the possible connection of mediumship with positive mental health. However, as mediums also scored higher on extraversion, it could be that the mediumship (demonstration) role acts as a defence mechanism or outlet for unpleasant emotions, and/or that mediums are characterized by a dual facet personality: in one respect they are sociable and assertive, identified by their willingness to publicly demonstrate mediumship but, on the other hand, they also experience negative emotional states and are vulnerable to stress. A limitation of this study, in relation to the extraversion finding, is that participants were mediums who demonstrate their mediumship at spiritualist churches and give private readings, which may not be representative of the population of mediums as a whole. It may be that only the more extraverted are drawn to platform demonstration and thus go through the
process of having their experiences validated. There is some evidence for the speculation that the medium sample is more extraverted, as mediums scored higher (M = 3.49) than norms (M = 3.2) for the BFI (Benet-Martinez & John, 1998). However, these norms should be used with caution as they are based on a sample of 711 undergraduate students from the US and may not be representative of a UK sample. It would be interesting, therefore, to explore whether mediums that only conduct private readings score similar to platform
mediums.
Although no significant differences were found between mediums and non-mediums on the fantasy-proneness measure, mediums did score significantly higher on openness to experience, suggesting an active imagination and attentiveness to inner feelings. Intriguingly, openness to experience has been correlated with creativity (McCrae, 1987). No differences were found on the Boundary Questionnaire; however, it was interesting to note that mean scores for the non-medium group were slightly higher ("thinner") than the
0
medium group. Given that Laria (2000) found individuals with mental health problems to score at thinner levels than mediums, it may be useful to examine the comparison group in more detail. Individuals with thinner boundaries are characterised as lacking defence mechanisms that can be used to keep uncomfortable material out of conscious awareness and as having a greater capacity to enter an altered state of consciousness (Hartmann, 1991). Given that mediums claim to communicate with the deceased then non-medium spiritualists may be drawn to attend mediumship demonstrations as a means of dealing with overwhelming distressing emotions experienced after bereavement — or perhaps because they have had mediumistic experiences themselves. Similarly, it would be useful to investigate the psychological wellbeing of non-medium spiritualists in relation to the general population.
What has emerged from this study is that there are clear differences between spiritualist mediums and non-mediums that seem deserving of further exploration. The findings confirm previous research which has consistently demonstrated that mediums do not present as being more prone to generalised dissociation symptoms. In light of these data it does not seem tenable to characterise mediums as psychologically unhealthy or dysfunctional. In addition, the finding that mediums did not score high on a measure of fantasy-proneness suggests that their reported experiences cannot easily be explained in terms of an over-active imagination. This certainly does not lead by default to a supernatural explanation for these experiences, but does suggest that our accounts of the mediumship experience need to be more sophisticated than hitherto.
3.6 Conclusion
In conclusion, the survey method enabled us to generate and confirm some of the hypotheses about the mediumship phenomenon. Results showed that mediums scored significantly higher than non-mediums on psychological wellbeing, had lower psychological distress, higher levels of extraversion, neuroticism, and openness to experience. No significant differences were found on dissociation, boundary-thinness, fantasy-proneness, conscientiousness or agreeableness. However, there remain unanswered questions
and the context within which mediums define themselves as a medium. This highlights the need for future research to consider more personal or idiosyncratic perspectives and to gain insight from mediums themselves; thus providing a more detailed and richer understanding of the mediumship phenomenon.
The following chapter represents a step towards gaining more understanding of the mediumship phenomenon by reporting findings from the mediumship activity questionnaire part of the survey.
82