A.I.C.

THE ABDUCTION EXPERIENCE: A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THEORY AND EVIDENCE

Part 5

 STUART APPELLE

---

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

1. Hoaxes. Because independent evidence of an abduction is usually unavailable, the establishment of a hoax often depends on evaluation of the credibility of the claimant. Given the large number of abduction experiences that have been reported, it would be unreasonable to expect that in no case was a hoax perpetrated. On the other hand, in very few cases does the behavior of the reporter suggest motivation for such an act. Deliberate hoaxing is not a likely source for the vast majority of abduction accounts.

2. Hypnosis. Experiments demonstrate convincingly that hypnotically retrieved memory is often unreliable. However, the degree to which this research can be generalized to the kind of experience reported for abductions is not completely known, and some experimental evidence may actually be consistent with enhanced memory retrieval for this kind of experience. By no means does this imply that investigators or mental health professionals can be cavalier about the use of hypnosis, or that hypnosis can be exonerated as a causal factor in abduction experiences. But it is premature to claim that research already requires the dismissal of hypnotically retrieved abduction accounts.

3. Fantasy Proneness. Several studies have failed to provide experimental support for the fantasy-prone hypothesis. The data do not rule out the possibility that fantasy proneness may account for a small number of abduction experiences, but they do indicate that fantasy proneness cannot serve as a general explanation.

4. The false-memory syndrome. Clearly, no responsible therapist should ignore the implications of the false-memory syndrome. But what is its scientific status in regard to the abduction experience? Nash (1994) has cautioned therapists to be aware of both false positives (incorrectly accepting) and false negatives (incorrectly rejecting) when dealing with recovered memories of abuse. Although the abuse literature provides some evidence for both, in most cases accusations of abuse can neither be proved nor disproved, and the prevalence of false positives and false negatives remains largely unestablished. Certainly this is the case in regard to the abduction experience. In the absence of independent documentation, and given the limitations of clinical impression as a standard by which to test the validity of abduction accounts, the extent of clinically induced false memory for abductions will remain unknown.

5. Personality. Numerous personality measures have demonstrated that as a group the experiencer population is clinically normal, but atypical in a variety of ways. Some of these characteristics may be consistent with personality traits associated with suspect syndromes such as fantasy proneness or boundary deficit. However, specific tests for these conditions have been disconfirmatory, equivocal, or undone.

6. Sleep anomalies. The relationship between abduction experiences and sleep anomalies (e.g., narcolepsy, sleep paralysis, hypnagogic hallucinations) has, by various theorists, been claimed, assumed, or (conversely) dismissed. However, the relationship has not been adequately tested.

7. Psychopathology. Perhaps more than any other variable, the presence of psychopathology in the experiencer population has been systematically studied. The results indicate that formally recognized psychopathology does not exist to any greater degree in the experiencer population than it does in the general population.

8. Psychodynamic theories. Abduction experiences have been explained as the unconscious' response to childhood abuse, birth memory, abortion anxiety, environmental crises, unique characteristics of altered states, and the unconscious' own evolutionary development. Although abduction experiences do contain elements that are consistent with psychodynamic symbolism, the ability of psychodynamic theory to account for a given mental experience in such a wide variety of ways requires that it be evaluated in terms of empirical tests, not appeals to analogy. The suggested applications of psychodynamic mechanisms to the abduction experience are as yet untested, or ultimately untestable.

9. Environmental theories. Experiments which directly establish a relationship between environmental conditions (e.g., electromagnetic allergens, tectonic stress) and abduction experiences have not been carried out. And although debated by their advocates, most researchers concur that the plausibility of the assumptions underlying these hypotheses is yet to be demonstrated.

10. ET hypothesis. Arguments for dismissing the veridicality of abduction reports on a priori grounds are logically flawed. On the other hand, ET advocates' strongest challenges to alternative theory are not crucial tests of veridicality.

DISCUSSION

Facts acquire significance only when related to theory, and theory remains empty in the absence of supporting fact. For fact and theory to be of any relevance, a relationship between them must be established. This is especially important, and especially difficult, when dealing with a phenomenon such as the abduction experience. As Morrison (1972) has stated:

If we are to believe any hypothesis, however plausible or implausible, concerning new events -- particularly those that do not satisfy the easy quality of being reproducible at will by those who undertake to set up a laboratory for the purpose -- then we must find ... multiple, independent chains of evidence satisfying a link-by-link test. [p. 280]

Mindful of this, what can be said of the various factors hypothesized to be causes of the abduction experience? Many theories that seem both parsimonious and reasonable have been advanced to explain the abduction experience. But these theories have received little empirical support, or are yet to be adequately studied.

It may be argued that any single explanation of. the abduction experience will necessarily be inadequate because the phenomenon is multicausal, and that the abduction experience as a whole can be explained only by considering all the prosaic explanations in their entirety. For example, if (as the data suggest) at least some abduction reports are hoaxes, and at least some the result of pathology, fantasy, sleep anomalies, etc., perhaps in total this can constitute a complete explanation (in statistical terms, can account for all of the variance in the data). However, the data (at least as currently available) suggest that each explanation can account for only a small proportion of all cases, and that even in the aggregate they fall short as a complete explanation.

The notion that the abduction experience is multicausal can lead to an alternative argument; namely, that it requires a constellation of factors to be present in an individual (for example, that a person must be both fantasy prone and suffer from a sleep disorder). The research so far has tried to isolate specific causative factors rather than look for their co-occurrence, but it is not likely that such an effort could provide a solution. This is because of the "conjunction rule" (Matlin, 1994). As applied to the abduction experience, it states that the proportion of experiencers with two or more coexisting conditions can never be greater than (i.e., is limited by) the proportion of experiencers with the least common constituent condition.10 Accordingly, the likelihood of explaining the abduction experience through coexisting causes is even less than for explaining it in terms of cumulative causes.

If the evidence offered so far cannot completely explain the abduction experience in prosaic terms, other explanations are required. The most prominent alternative is the ET hypothesis. But here again, there is as yet no evidence that requires this explanation. And in the absence of such evidence, the argument that abduction experiences are veridical strains credulity on many fronts.

For example, it has been suggested that we cannot remember abductions because alien procedures cause forgetting; that although hypnosis produces unreliable memory in all other cases, it produces reliable recall of alien abductions; that we cannot see the abductors' craft because they can be made invisible; that we cannot secure an alien implant or artifact because they are made to self-destruct upon intrusion; that aliens can be constrained by no barrier because they can pass through solid matter; that space flight is no obstacle because the prohibition against faster-than-light travel can be circumvented.

All this and more asks much of the ET advocate. So much so, that an appeal to open-mindedness may be necessary for the hypothesis even to be considered. I have argued elsewhere that despite these demands on credulity such a case can fairly and legitimately be made (Appelle, 1995).

First, our knowledge base about memory encoding and retrieval does not preclude the possibility that recovered abduction memories may be veridical. Second, phenomena that seem impossible may be only a matter of technological development rather than a violation of accepted physical law. Third, it may be foolhardy to assume that our understanding of physical law is a complete and satisfactory description of nature. Relativity and quantum theory were developed less than one potential human lifetime ago, and Newtonian physics less than three.11 Given this short span of time, is it more likely that we have already achieved an essentially correct description of the universe -- or that we have not?

The more prosaic explanations make fewer demands on credulity, but so far they have provided no more in the way of empirical support. Looking back on the wise instruction of Morrison, it must be concluded that the condition he describes has not yet been met. The chains of evidence linking fact and theory are still largely unestablished. But this is not, as some would have it, a reflection on the limitations of science. Pronouncements that the abduction experience is beyond contemporary science are probably wrong and certainly premature; and those who are disappointed in what science has yet established should demand more of science, not less -- this means additional research focusing on those theories and evidential variables that are most amenable to empirical validation and disconfirmation. Hypotheses that have been advanced but not tested should be tested; and theories that have already been studied can benefit from additional research. A "top ten" list of such efforts might address the following:

1. A relationship between sleep anomalies and the abduction experience seems to make sense on theoretical grounds (and in terms of the extent of sleep anomalies in the general population) but is yet to be directly evaluated.

2. The consistency across abduction narratives is obvious, but its statistical deviation from chance (as determined by narrative production for the general population) has not been assessed. In fact, despite the existence of some frequency distribution tables for abduction experience characteristics and content (e.g., Bullard, 1994), statistical analyses of these data have not been done. Also, a much closer examination of cultural variations in the abduction experience needs to be done.

3. The occurrence of certain stigmata (e.g., scoop marks) have been described as suspicious, but no systematic pathological studies of their characteristics have been reported.

4. It has been found that abduction experiencers are not generally more hypnotizable than others, but specific hypnotizability for the abduction experience has not been studied in the general population. (That is, in response to hypnotic suggestion, what proportion of the general population will produce abduction experiences they regard as subjectively compelling and valid? How does this compare to the proportion of individuals who seek hypnosis to recover suspected memories of an abduction?) The studies by Lawson (1977) and Lynn and Pezzo (1994) are a start, but more careful studies with better controls and larger subject populations are needed.

5. The relationship between abduction experiences and childhood-abuse experiences deserves much closer attention. The new data on childhood abuse and alterations in brain structure should be considered in regard to dual victims of abuse and experienced abduction.

6. The extent of the abduction phenomenon should be better assessed, using new sampling instruments designed to address the objections (Donderi, 1994; Hall, Rodeghier, & Johnson, 1992) to the Roper survey of abduction experience prevalence (Hopkins et al., 1992).

7. Since an actual abduction requires (by definition) the removal of the abductee from his/her surroundings, a change in the abductee's immediate environment would also be required. Yet except for crude (and unsuccessful) attempts to videotape an abduction in progress, there have been virtually no efforts to monitor the environments of those reporting abductions. Electromagnetic and other sophisticated remote-sensing devices could be employed (especially with experiencers who report high-frequency abductions) on a long-ten-n basis to determine what, if any, kinds of disturbances occur in the experiencer's environment before, during, or after reported abduction experiences. Similar methodology could also monitor the location of the experiencer. The outcome of such studies might not prove or disconfirm alien intervention, but it could provide evidence that would bear on the validity of the hypothesis.

8. Evidence from the clinic can also help advance science. Case studies of intervention strategies and outcomes (e.g., Mack, 1994; Gotlib, 1996) can provide insights into etiology or suggest avenues of research that may be productive. Mental health professionals should be encouraged to publish case studies, making the details of treatment histories available to the research community.

9. Investigators have cited psychic ability as cause or effect of the abduction experience. The psychic performance of experiencers should be subjected to direct experimental test.

10. Multiple-witness/experiencer cases provide the greatest challenge to conventional explanations. These cases should be a priority for both supporters and detractors of such explanations.

Research is more difficult than armchair speculation, and also more expensive, time consuming, and dependent on the cooperation of others (i.e., a subject population). But these are problems of resource and motivation, not defects in the scientific method. The abduction experience continues to be a phenomenon in need of an explanation (Appelle, 1989). For the sake of science-and for the sake of the experiencers-a continuing effort to establish an explanation is both necessary and appropriate.

NOTES

1 Requests for reprints or correspondence should be addressed to the author at the Department of Psychology, S.U.N.Y. College at Brockport, Brockport, NY 14420.

2 The following is reprinted from the Ethics Code for Abduction Experience Investigation and Treatment (Gotlib et al., 1994).

The definition of "abduction experience," and even the choice of this term, concerns the investigator as a matter of science (it should correctly describe the phenomenon under study), concerns the MHP (mental health professional) as a matter of diagnosis (it should correctly describe the event apparently responsible for the presenting symptoms), and concerns the individual reporting the experience as a matter of identity and self-image (it should correctly describe the characteristics of the experience as understood by the experiencer). However, the literature reflects a lack of consensus among MHPs, investigators, or experiencers regarding which contextual, emotional, or situational elements must be present to qualify as the target experience.... [A]t this stage of empirical and theoretical development it is inappropriate to define or label the experiences under study in a way that assumes any particular conceptualization.... The use of "abduction experiencer" ... is intended to avoid injustice to any particular theory of causality." (p. 64)

3 Various investigators have tried to characterize the abduction experience. Ac-

cording to Gotlib et al. (1994):

Although there is not yet consensus regarding what contextual or experiential elements are necessary or sufficient to define the abduction experience, the literature suggests certain elements as most characteristic. These include (but are not limited to):

ð recall of an abduction or encounter with apparently nonhuman entities;

ð missing time related to recall of unidentified lights, objects, or apparently nonhuman entities;

ð unusually realistic and emotionally intense dreams or dream-like experiences of UFOs or apparently nonhuman entities. [p. 60]

Bullard (1987) described abduction accounts as including the following elements: capture (being caught and taken aboard a UFO); examination (being subjected by the UFO abductors to physical, mental, and/or spiritual examinations); conference (communication with the abductors); tour (a guided examination of various parts of the UFO); otherworldly journey (transport to some other place on earth or an unearthly environment); theophany (receipt of religious or spiritual messages); return (egress from UFO and return to earth); aftermath (postabduction experience effects).

Jacobs (1992) has categorized abduction experiences into primary, secondary, and ancillary events involving physical activities (the taking of tissue samples and the insertion of implants), mental activities (telepathic manipulations, psychological testing procedures, information exchange), and reproductive procedures (egg/sperm collection, embryo implantation, removal of fetus, actual or simulated sexual activity).

Rodeghier et al. (1991) defined an abductee as someone who was:

taken against his or her will from normal, terrestrial surroundings by non-human beings ... to another enclosed place that is not terrestrial in appearance and is assumed or known by the witness to be a spacecraft ... subjected to various procedures that appear to be examinations of some type, [and] engage in communication (verbal or telepathic) with the beings ... [p. 64]

Moreover, Rodeghier et al. required that the experiences "be remembered consciously or through various means of focused concentration, such as hypnosis," and that "the witness must believe these things to be true and find the experience disturbing."

Alternatively, Hopkins, Jacobs, and Westrum (1992) describe the following five factors as "indicator experiences" for unrecalled (preconscious) occurrence of an abduction: waking up paralyzed with a sense of a strange figure or figures present; missing time; the feeling of actually flying; seeing balls of light in one's room; the presence of puzzling scars on the body.

4 Baker (1992) reports "a small replication with a few student volunteers [which resulted in] elaborate accounts of bug-eyed, hairless aliens with ESP and levitation powers" (p. 323). However, the study is not published and his reference to it provides no details regarding methodology or analysis.

5 Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale, MMPI, Magical Ideation Scale, Perceptual Aberration Scale, Differential Personality Questionnaire.

6 Although sexual masochism is treated as a paraphiliac disorder according to the DSM IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994), the hypothesis advanced by Newman and Baumeister discusses this not as a disorder per se, but as one manifestation of the escape-from-self personality syndrome. Accordingly, I discuss their hypothesis here rather than in the psychopathology section.

7 Interestingly though, Hopkins et al. (1992) interpret the prevalence of sleep paralysis like experiences as a key indicator of actual alien abductions.

8 The term "psychodynamic" applies to concepts originating in Freudian psychoanalytic theory and later modified by others. These concepts refer to the forces and processes of the unconscious mind and their effect on conscious experience and behavior (Carson & Butcher, 1992).

9 The ET characterization of reported entities is based on experiencers' descriptions of entity appearance, behavior, and technologies, and is most commonly understood in reference to beings originating elsewhere in the known universe. However, alternative interpretations of entity origin have included spiritual realms, different dimensions, or different times (i.e., the future).

10 For example, if one-tenth of all abduction experiencers are fantasy prone and one-fifth suffer from a sleep disorder, no more than one-tenth of the experiencer population can have both conditions.

11 Newton's Principia was published in 1687. Quantum theory became established early this century (the famous Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics came out of a meeting in 1927). The maximum (recorded) human lifespan is usually given as 120 years.