Correlates of Religiosity and Fantasy-Proneness

Running head: RELIGIOSITY AND FANTASY-‐PRONENESS 1

Correlates of Religiosity And Fantasy-Proneness

Jesse B. Vanous

University of Mary Washington

RELIGIOSITY AND FANTASY-‐PRONENESS 2

Abstract

Past literature has confirmed a relationship between religiosity and dimensions of magical

thinking within pathological populations (e.g. magical ideation in schizotypal populations). It is

unclear, however, if a similar association exists within a normal population. For the current

study, fantasy-proneness, a construct similar to magical ideation, was used to measure magical

thinking within a normal population. To investigate a hypothesized positive correlation between

religiosity and fantasy-proneness, 179 online participants completed The Duke University

Religion Index (DUREL) and The Creative Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ). Results show a

significant positive correlation between religiosity and fantasy-proneness. The current findings

suggest that the relationship between magical thinking and religiosity may exist outside of

psychopathology. Such findings could lend support to further investigation of the psychological

dimensions of religiosity in a normal population.


Correlates of Religiosity And Fantasy-Proneness

Religiosity is a blanket term referring to the belief in, and/or worship of, one or more

deities (Paraschiva & Nicoleta, 2011). As of 2010, approximately two thirds of the global

population were active members of an organized religion (Shouler, 2010). As of 2012, 80

percent of Americans considered themselves to be actively religious (Lugo, 2012). Despite a

recent decline in global religious affiliation (Lugo, 2012), religion is still a pervasive force

impacting a multifarious array of international affairs and conflicts including war, genocide and

international terrorism (Shouler, 2010). Given the monumental influence that religion continues

to carry, it is imperative that the psychological underpinnings of individual religious conviction

be examined.

Before scientific inquiry, humans largely relied on superstitious explanations for natural

phenomena. Inherent in most archaic superstitious belief systems was the existence of an

omnipotent authority or god(s), the integral basis for theistic, organized religions (Paraschiva &

Nicoleta, 2011). A vast array of organized religions have oscillated in popularity throughout

human history, and many continue to serve as moral/judicial authorities and cultural identifiers

throughout the world (Dawkins, 2006). It was not until the years following the 1859 publication

of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species that the most fundamental tenants of religious

belief were questioned in any empirical way. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection

offered a reliable, parsimonious explanation for life on earth (Sober, 2008). Evidence gathered

by all fields of modern science continues to support natural explanations, incrementally

debunking archaic, supernatural theories of existence. However, despite convincing scientific

explanations for most natural phenomena, most remain pertinacious in religious ideology based

in superstition (Shouler, 2010). As such, many scientists, authors, and public intellectuals assert


that religion is not only often detrimental, but due to the existence of such evidence, ultimately

unnecessary (Dawkins, 2006).

World-renown geneticist and outspoken critic of religion, Richard Dawkins, asserts that

modern-day religious conviction is no different than a staunch belief in childhood fairytales

(Dawkins, 2006). In a 2008 interview with British news outlet, Telegraph, Dawkins publicly

called for research on the matter of magical thinking and religious conviction (Beckford, 2008).

To date, the question of what specific psychological phenomena contribute to religious

conviction remains largely unexplored.

The psychological correlates of religiosity have been examined almost exclusively in the

context of psychopathology (Diduca & Joseph, 1997). Such research is likely resultant of the

relationship between religious preoccupation and some psychological disorders (4th ed., text

rev.; DSM–IV–TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000). One of the correlates clinically

observed in the relationship between religiosity and psychopathology is magical thinking

(Diduca & Joseph, 1997). The primary scale used in the measure of magical thinking is magical

ideation. Magical ideation is a personality trait expressed as a general inclination toward

extremely eccentric or bizarre beliefs. Such beliefs are typically superstitious or paranormal in

nature (Williams & Harvey, 1991). Magical ideation has been linked to severe impairments in

social cognitive functioning as well as an increased risk for psychosis (Karcher & Shean, 2012).

Furthermore, magical ideation is currently used as a subscale in the clinical diagnosis of

schizotypal personality disorder (SPD) (4th ed., text rev.; DSM–IV–TR; American Psychiatric

Association, 2000).

In a study examining the personality correlates of individuals with schizotypal

personality disorder, Diduca and Joseph (1997) found a connection between religious


preoccupation (very high levels of religiosity) and magical ideation in schizotypal males. The

researchers note that this relationship corresponds with previous data that shows a correlation

between paranormal ideation and males with schizophrenia.

Fantasy-proneness, a construct related to magical ideation (Thalbourne & Houran, 2003),

has also been used in the clinical measure of magical thinking in those with psychopathology

(Avia & Sanchez-Bernardos, 2006; Mohammadzadeh, Najafi & Ashuri 2009). In a study

examining hypnotizability, Kelley (2010) found a strong positive correlation between measures

of fantasy-proneness and magical ideation in a normal population. Like magical ideation,

fantasy proneness is characterized by supernatural or paranormal beliefs (Cuper, 2011). In

addition, there are psychophysiological components of fantasy-proneness similar to those

observed in magical ideation. For example, individuals rated high in measures of fantasy-

proneness (fantasizers) are hallucinatory and psychosomatic (Lynn & Rhus, 1988).

Correspondingly, Candel and Merckelback (2003) found that fantasizers typically experience

physical symptoms when thinking about illness, anxiety, or pain.

Unlike magical ideation, fantasy proneness is a measure of a less severe, lifelong

preoccupation with fantasy or superstition (Lynn & Rhus, 1988). Because magical ideation is a

measure of extreme magical thinking that is specific to psychopathology, it is likely uncommon

in a normal population. Therefore, fantasy-proneness likely serves as a more appropriate

measure of magical thinking in a normal population and was utilized for the purposes of the

current study.

It could be the case that the existence of one or more dimensions of magical thinking may

be necessary to engage in high levels of religiosity. Magical thinking could conceivably play an

integral role in experiencing the presence of God (Kelley, 2010), extrapolating great significance


from unremarkable events, or firmly believing in the literal interpretation of irrational religious

dogma (e.g. biblical stories involving talking animals). The clinical relationship between

magical thinking (both magical ideation and fantasy-proneness) and religiosity has been

observed repeatedly within the context of psychopathology. However, it is currently unknown if

a similar relationship exists within a normal population. The aim of the present research is to

conduct an exploratory correlational study of religiosity and fantasy-proneness using the Duke

University Religion Index (DUREL) (Koenig & Büssing, 2010) and the Creative Experiences

Questionnaire (CEQ) (Merckelbach, Horselenberg & Muris, 2001) within a normal population.

Both scales are valid and reliable measures of religiosity and fantasy-proneness respectively.

Data was collected via a counterbalanced, online survey. The researchers hypothesized a

positive correlation between levels of religiosity and fantasy-proneness in a normal population.

Method

Participants

The research survey was completed by 179 participants, who were recruited from internet

networks Facebook, Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter, as well as some religious forums. The survey was

publicly available to all willing participants 18 years of age or older. 55.31% were male.

Participants had mean age of 24.91 with a standard deviation of 9.23. 81.56% reported as

Caucasian/White, 5.59% Asian, 5.03% Other, 4.47% Hispanic/Latino, 1.68% American

Indian/Native American, 1.12% African American, and 0.56% Pacific Islander. Participants with

inappropriate survey responses (e.g., checking each box for gender, ethnicity, and age; checking

each answer for each individual question; etc...) were excluded from the data.


Research Design

This research was strictly a correlational study. The key variables being analyzed for an

association were levels of religiosity and fantasy-proneness. These variable levels were measured via

scores from both the Duke University Religion Index (DUREL) and the Creative Experiences

Questionnaire (CEQ) (Koenig & Büssing, 2010; Merckelbach, Horselenberg, & Muris, 2001).

Measures

For the purposes of assessing individual scores of religiosity, the DUREL (see Appendix

C) was utilized. To measure fantasy-proneness scores, the CEQ (see Appendix D) was utilized.

In 1997 Koenig, Meador, and Parkerson developed a 5-question self-report measure of

religiosity for the purpose of systematically and empirically aiding scientific study: the Duke

University Religion Index (DUREL). The measure was assembled using items from both Dean

Hoge’s 10-item Intrinsic Religiosity Scale as well as research done by Koenig in North Carolina

supported by National Institutes of Health (Hoge, 1972; Koenig, 1997-98). The questionnaire

focuses on three facets of religion: organizational religious activity (ORA), non-organizational

religious activity (NORA), and intrinsic religiosity (IR). Each response to a question has a

corresponding score of religious strength. The scores of each question are then added together

for an overall religiosity score ranging from 5-27. The measure displays satisfactory reliability,

validity, is widely in experimental use, and concurrent validity with similar measures.

The Creative Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ), albeit somewhat of a misnomer, is

intended to be a quick self-report of a person’s proneness to fantasy (Merklebach, Horselenberg,

& Muris, 2001). Merkelbach took a proneness measure from previous research and narrowed 40

items relating to fantastical proneness to 25 (Wilson & Barber, 1983). The pruning of items was

based on whether items were intrusive in nature, vague, and/or redundant constructs. The 25


items are Yes/No response question, and each “Yes” response counts as a point. The affirmative

responses are then added together for a fantasy-proneness score ranging from 0-25. Like the

DUREL, the CEQ displays satisfactory reliability, validity, is widely in experimental use, as well

as concurrent validity with similar measures.

Demographic information was collected via a basic demographic questionnaire (see

Appendix A). All questions from each scale, plus seven researcher-created distractor questions

(see Appendix B), were combined into one survey. Distractor questions were included for the

purposes of protecting the research hypothesis and were omitted from final analysis. Question

order was randomized when taking the survey save for the initial demographic questions.

Web-based research software, Surveygizmo, was utilized for the purposes of survey

construction/distribution and data collection. Voluntary participation was retrieved using

snowball sampling via online forums and social networking sites such as Facebook and Reddit

and stratified sampling via online religious message boards.

Procedure

After clicking on the survey link, participants were informed of the basic overall goal of

the study. They were presented with a page of informed consent, were guaranteed total

anonymity for the experiment, and were asked to answer the survey questions as accurately as

possible. They were additionally given the option to leave any question(s) unanswered. If they

assented, they would click “I agree” and begin the survey. The first page of the survey asked for

demographic questions (age, gender, and ethnicity). Participants would then click “Continue”.

The next part of the survey was comprised of the DUREL, CEQ, as well as 7 distractor questions

presented in a randomized order. When finished answering all questions, participants clicked

“Continue”. Questions that were left unanswered would reappear, and Surveygizmo asked each


participant to confirm that he/she intentionally left the question(s) unanswered. They were then

given permission to submit the completed or incomplete survey. Finally, they were then

presented with a debriefing page describing the study in more detail. They were given one last

option to retract their responses. Participants clicked one final “Submit,” their information was

uploaded, and they could close the window to exit the survey.

Results

This correlational analysis aimed to find a positive association between the personality

characteristics of religiosity and fantasy-proneness. These constructs were measured by the

Duke University Religion Index (DUREL) and the Creative Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ)

scales, respectively. DUREL scores are calculated by summing the points based on the

responses to each question, with a score range of 5 – 27. CEQ scores are calculated by the

number of questions answered affirmatively with “Yes”, with a score range of 0 – 25. It was

expected that religiosity and fantasy-proneness would have a positive correlation.

The data were analyzed using a 1-tailed bivariate correlation. A statistically significant

positive correlation between religiosity and fantasy proneness was found, r(177) = 0.15, p = .03.

Despite the low positive correlation coefficient, results indicate that as scores on the DUREL

increased so did scores on the CEQ. See Figure 1 below for a display of the association between

religiosity and fantasy-proneness.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between religiosity and magical

thinking via fantasy-proneness in a normal population. In support of the research hypothesis,

results indicate a significant positive correlation between religiosity and fantasy-proneness. As

such, there seems to be a relationship between religiosity and magical thinking that is not


exclusive to psychopathology. Furthermore, the high variability of CEQ scores suggests that

fantasy-proneness may be an appropriate measure of magical thinking in a normal population.

Despite significant findings, however, taking into account the various limitations of the current

study is integral to the interpretation of the results.

The most substantial limitation to the current study was a sensitization effect observed

primarily in religious respondents. For the purposes of recruiting from religious subgroups,

stratified sampling was utilized by posting the survey link on various online religion message

boards. Moderators from some of the forums deleted the survey link and banned the related

account from the website. On other sites, the survey was met with animosity from members and

moderators alike. Although the researchers made a concerted effort to conceal the hypothesis

with distractor questions, randomization and a vague introduction, it was likely apparent to the

respondents that dimensions of fantasy were being measured alongside religiosity. This

sensitization effect influenced certain responses, particularly when religious participants became

aware of the research question or measure and responded accordingly. For example, some

respondents high in religiosity answered “no” to all CEQ questions including the distractors (e.g.

“Generally, people consider me a kind person”). If such a systematic phenomenon resulted in

lower CEQ scores among religious respondents, the sensitivity effect could account for the weak

correlation observed in the resultant data. Issues of sensitization, hostility and resistance were

not discussed in previous research. It is important to note that previous research was conducted

in a clinical setting on individuals with diagnosed psychopathology (Avia & Sanchez-Bernardos,

2006; Dddica & Joseph, 1997). As a result, respondents had likely already undergone extensive

psychological evaluation prior to the survey. For these respondents, disclosing psychological

information was not a novel experience and answering questions about religiosity was possibly


perceived as an extension of ongoing psychological assessment. In a normal population,

however, questions of religiosity and fantasy that are not of any direct beneficence to the

respondent may be perceived as more suspicious and met with more resistance.

Altering the order of the questions could better control for the sensitization effect in

future studies. For example, instead of randomizing all questions and having them all displayed

on one page, the survey could be divided into multiple pages with measures of religiosity last.

Eliminating the initial influence of the religiosity questions could result in more honest responses

to questions of fantasy-proneness. Also, the introduction could be altered to better conceal the

research question and measure. For example, the study could be introduced as an examination of

religiosity and some positive trait such as creativity as measured by the CEQ. Evoking positive

personality measures such as creativity, courage, and thoughtfulness could result in less

hesitance to participate and more truthful responses.

The current study was comprised of an unrepresentative sample, lowering external

validity. Snowball sampling via Facebook was utilized for the purposes of obtaining

participants. Although this method resulted in a large sample, the sample was demographically

unrepresentative of the population. The sample was comprised of mostly college-aged (72%),

Caucasian (80%) participants. The reason for such demographic bias could be due to a

prominent reliance on cohorts as a result of posting the survey on the researchers’ personal

Facebook pages. The survey link was not widely reposted by others on Facebook despite

requests from the researchers. As a result, the survey link remained rather limited to the initial

posts and was only exposed to the researchers’ peers. In addition to a demographically

unrepresentative sample, a majority (approx. 75%) of participants had little or no religiosity as

measured by the DUREL. This could also be resultant of limited survey distribution or self-


selection bias. A self-selection bias would be observed as a general avoidance of participation in

religious individuals and/or a higher propensity to participate in agnostic or atheistic individuals.

Such low variability in religiosity along with a large sample size (N=179) could account for

significant results and should be considered in the interpretation of the current data.

Although future research is needed, the current results support the research hypothesis

that the relationship between magical thinking and religiosity is not limited to psychopathology

or measures specific to diagnostic criterion (e.g. magical ideation and religious preoccupation).

Such findings not only lend empirical credibility to the anecdotal assertions that believing in

fantasy is similar to the belief in religious dogma (Beckford, 2008), but also establish fantasy-

proneness as an appropriate measure of magical thinking in a normal population. Although the

temporal relationship can not be currently determined, it could be the case that, generally,

individuals high in measures of magical thinking have a greater propensity toward believing in

the illogical or superstitious, making it more likely that they would believe in religious fantasy as

adults. For example, perhaps measures of both voluntary and involuntary hallucinatory

inclination observed in fantasy-prone individuals are positively correlated with

experiencing/sensing the presence of the divine. A measure that should be of particular interest

in future research is hypnotizability, a component of magical thinking that is specific to fantasy-

proneness. High levels of hypnotizability in religious individuals could explain individual

vulnerability to suggestion by way of, for example, religious authority. This relationship would

correspond with past research, which found that individuals high in hypnotizability were more

likely to experience benefits from religious healing rituals (Kelley, 2010). As such, multivariate

correlations examining the particular facets of fantasy-proneness, specific religions, specific


levels of religiosity (e.g. only examining moderate to high levels of religiosity), etc. should be

considered for future research.


References

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

(4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Avia, M., & Sanchez-Bernardos, M. (2006). The relationship between fantasy proneness and

schizotypy in adolescents . Journal of nervous and mental disease, 194(6), 411-414. doi:

http://psycnet.apa.org.ezproxy.umw.edu/doi/10.1097/01.nmd.0000222406.16820.13

Beckford, M. (2008, October 24). Harry potter fails to cast spell over professor richard dawkins.

Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255972/Harry-Potter-fails-to-cast-spell-

over-Professor-Richard-Dawkins.html

Candel, I., & Merckelbach, H. (2003). Fantasy proneness and thought suppression as predictors of

the medical student syndrome. Personality and individual differences, 35(3), 519-524.

Cuper, P. F. (2011). Investigating the effects of fantasy and instructions to fantasize on sustained

attention and mood during a laboratory task. (Doctoral dissertation), Available from ProQuest.

(3468894)Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/889255571

Dawkins, R. (2006). The god delusion . (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 1-30). New York, NY: Bantam Press.

Diduca, D., & Joseph, S. (1997). Schizotypal traits and dimensions of religiosity. British journal of

clinical psychology, 36(4), 635-638. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1997.tb01270.x

Hoge, D. R. (1972). A validated intrinsic religious motivation scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of

Religion¸11(4), 369-376. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1384677?uid=30328&uid=3739936&uid=2&uid=3&uid=

67&uid=30327&uid=62&uid=3739256&sid=21101414076343


Karcher, N., & Shean, G. (2012). Magical ideation, schizotypy and the impact of emotions. Psychiatry

research, 197(2), 36-40. doi:

http://psycnet.apa.org.ezproxy.umw.edu/doi/10.1016/j.psychres.2011.12.033

Kelley, M. (2010). The evolution of beliefs in god, spirit, and the paranormal ii: Transliminality as the

mediating factor. Journal of parapsychology, 74(2), 360-381.

Koenig, H. G., & Büssing, A. (2010). The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A five-item

measure for use in Epidemological studies. Religions, 1(1), 78-85. doi: 10.3390/rel1010078.

Koenig, H. G. (1997-1998). Developing the duke religion index. Unpublished raw data, Center for the

Study of Religion, Spirituality and Health, Duke University Medical Center. Duke University,

Durham, NC.

Koenig, H., Parkerson Jr., G. R., & Meador, K. G. (1997-98). Religion index for psychiatric research.

The American Journal of Psychiatry, 154(6), 885-886.

Lugo, L. (2012, October 09). Nones on the rise. Retrieved from

http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Unaffiliated/NonesOnThe

Rise-full.pdf

Lynn, S. J., & Rhue, J. W. (1988). Fantasy proneness: Hypnosis, developmental antecedents, and

psychopathology. American psychologist, 43(1), 35-44. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.43.1.35

Mohammadzadeh, A., Najafi, N., & Ashuri, A. (2009). Religious orientation in people with high

schizotypal traits. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and clinical psychology, 15(3), 283-289.

Merckelbach, H., Horselenberg, R., & Muris, P. (2001). The creative experiences questionnaire (ceq): A

brief self-report measure of fantasy proneness. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(6),

987-995. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00201-4


Paraschiva, P., & Nicoleta, M. (2011). Ways of approaching religiosity in psychological research. The

Journal of International Social Research, 4(8), 352-362.

Sober, E. (2008). Evidence and evolution: The logic behind the science. (1 ed., Vol. 1, pp. 109-125).

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Shouler, K. (2010). The everything world's religions book: Explore the beliefs, traditions and cultures of

ancient and modern religions. (1st ed., p. 1). New York, NY: Adams Media. Retrieved from

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Everything_World_s_Religions_Book.html?id=qZrT

bY77g3oC

Thalbourne, M. A., & Houran, J. (2003). Transliminality as an index of the sheep-goat variable.

European journal of parapsychology, 18, 3-14.

Williams, L., & Harvey, J. (1991). A study of paranormal belief, magical ideation as an index of

schizotypy and cognitive style. Personality and individual differences, 12(12), 1339–1348. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90210-3

Wilson, S. C., & Barber, T. X. (1982). The fantasy-prone personality: Implications for understanding

imagery, hypnosis, and parapsychological phenomena. PSI Research, 1(3), 94-116.


Figure 1: This figure displays the association between religiosity and fantasy-proneness.


Appendix A:

Demographic Questions Sx 1. What is your gender?

Male; Female; Other 2. What is your age range? Under 20; 20 - 24; 25 - 29; 30 - 39; 40 - 49; 50+ 3. Would you describe yourself as: American Indian/Native American; Asian; African-American/Black; Hispanic/Latino; Caucasian/White; Pacific Islander; Other


Appendix B:

Distractor Questions Yes/No Items 1. More often than not I am willing to help someone in need. 2. I tend to stand up for what I believe regardless of what others think. 3. I am generally unconcerned with how others feel. 4. More often than not I try to be kind to others. 5. Generally I try to avoid excessively violent movie scenes. 6. As far as I know other people generally think I am a kind person. 7. Friends and family tend to contact when they are in need of emotional support.


Appendix C:

The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL) items 1. How often do you attend church or other religions meetings? 1 - Never; 2 - Once a year or less; 3 - A few times a year; 4 - A few times a month; 5 - Once a week; 6 - More than once a week 2. How often do you spend time in private religious activities, such as prayer, meditation or Bible study? (NORA) 1 - Rarely or never; 2 - A few times a month; 3 - Once a week; 4 - Two or more times a week; 5 - Daily; 6 - More than once a day The following section contains 3 statements about religious belief or experience. Please mark the extent to which each statement is true or not true for you. 3. In my life, I experience the presence of the Divine (i.e., God). (IR) 1 - Definitely not true; 2 - Tends not to be true; 3 - Unsure; 4 - Tends to be true; 5 - Definitely true of me 4. My religious beliefs are what really lie behind my whole approach to life. (IR) 1 - Definitely not true; 2 - Tends not to be true; 3 - Unsure; 4 - Tends to be true; 5 - Definitely true of me 5. I try hard to carry my religion over into all other dealings in life. (IR) 1 - Definitely not true; 2 - Tends not to be true; 3 - Unsure; 4 - Tends to be true; 5 - Definitely true of me


Appendix D:

The Creative Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ) Yes/No items 1. As a child, I thought that the dolls, teddy bears, and stuffed animals that I played with were living creatures. 2. As a child, I strongly believed in the existence of dwarfs, elves, and other fairy tale creatures. 3. As a child, I had my own make believe friend or animal. 4. As a child, I could very easily identify with the main character of a story and/or movie. 5. As a child, I sometimes had the feeling that I was someone else (e.g., a princess, an orphan, etc.). 6. As a child, I was encouraged by adults (parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters) to fully indulge myself in my fantasies and daydreams. 7. As a child, I often felt lonely. 8. As a child, I devoted my time to playing a musical instrument, dancing, acting, and/or drawing. 9. I spend more than half the day (daytime) fantasizing or daydreaming. 10. Many of my friends and/or relatives do not know that I have such detailed fantasies. 11. Many of my fantasies have a realistic intensity. 12. Many of my fantasies are often just as lively as a good movie. 13. I often confuse my fantasies with real memories. 14. I am never bored because I start fantasizing when things get boring. 15. Sometimes I act as if I am somebody else and I completely identify myself with that role. 16. When I recall my childhood, I have very vivid and lively memories. 17. I can recall many occurrences before the age of three. 18. When I perceive violence on television, I get so into it that I get really upset. 19. When I think of something cold, I actually get cold. 20. When I imagine I have eaten rotten food, I really get nauseous. 21. I often have the feeling that I can predict things that are bound to happen in the future. 22. I often have the experience of thinking of someone and soon afterwards that particular persons calls or shows up. 23. I sometimes feel that I have had an out of body experience. 24. When I sing or write something, I sometimes have the feeling that someone or something outside myself directs me. 25. During my life, I had had intense religious experiences which influenced me in a very strong manner.

Documents

Correlates of Religiosity and Fantasy-Proneness