According to Bader, Mencken, and Baker, as age and income increase, belief in alien visitors, ghosts, psychic abilities, and other paranormal phenomena noticeably decreases (although paranormal beliefs are common at all ages and levels of income). Party affiliation is also related: independents report the most paranormal beliefs, followed by Democrats and Republicans.55 Considered in combination, the researchers said, investments in a conventional lifestyle (such as college education, marriage, and mainstream religiosity) tend to reduce paranormal beliefs. These relationships could be plausibly described in more than one way. Among the possible explanations is the hypothesis favored by Bader, Mencken, and Baker that people are more likely to explore new ideas when they are less invested in conventional lifestyles: “As stakes in conformity increase, paranormal beliefs and experiences steadily and markedly decrease. A person with the highest stakes in conformity accepts on average only two paranormal beliefs. This is less than half the level of belief exhibited by those with the lowest stakes in conformity.”56 Nonetheless, even the most conventional people generally hold paranormal beliefs. As Mencken adds,
All humans are seeking enlightenment and discovery. New information helps us to reduce risk in our lives, and to make better informed decisions. Many paranormal practices (psychics, mediums, communication with the dead, astrology, etc.) are about giving people an insight into their future. Those groups not bound to conventional religious systems are freer to explore these alternative systems in order to gain information that may help them improve their lives.
Both the undereducated poor and the hyper-educated cultural elites may feel that sort of freedom to explore—or, rather, may feel less bound to the status quo. “Since conventional religiosity is for and run by highly conventional people and provides many empirical rewards for this group,” Mencken notes, “those from lower socioeconomic status groups will not gain many spiritual or conventional rewards from participating in conventional religion. Alternative beliefs systems can be empowering.” On the other end of the spectrum, “those who are hyper-educated, or cultural elites, may condemn conventional norms of behavior as too bourgeosie.”57
No matter how you slice it, the paranormal thrives in every category and level of society. A sizable literature of sociological research has attempted to make sense of why so many people accept so many paranormal claims. Some hypotheses include
• Deviance: People who strongly embrace paranormal ideas are thought to be outside the norms of society and so are defined by sociologists as “deviant.” In sociology, deviance theory is focused largely on criminals and others who violate the rules of society, often in an extreme way (such as mass murder). Bader, Mencken, and Baker generally subscribe to the approach proposed by criminologist Travis Hirschi, in which deviant or unconventional behavior is less costly, and therefore a more readily selected option, to those who have invested less in conformity.58 By this reasoning, people with lower levels of education, income, marriage attachments, church participation, or involvement with community activities should tend to subscribe to a larger number of paranormal beliefs. The Baylor data offer some support for this view, but with a number of caveats. Churchgoing correlates with paranormal belief, for example, but the relationship is not straightforward. (Those who attend church once a month claim more belief in paranormal ideas than those who never attend church, and also more than those who attend church more than once per month.)59 Involvement in community activities has no relationship to paranormal belief. Furthermore, some groups of people who are very invested in the paranormal are also very conventional. Members of Bigfoot hunting groups, for example, tend to be so conventional in most ways that Bader, Mencken, and Baker “might even call them hyperconventional.”60 Moreover, if belief in the reality of some paranormal phenomena is the norm in our society, can those who hold those normal ideas truly be considered deviant?
• Wish for control: Our increasingly complex world is impossible for most of us to understand—from our enormous government to the instantaneously changing global economy to our technologically complicated electronic devices. As researchers who have studied religious cults and many other fringe movements have shown, humans have a deep longing for a simpler world that they can better comprehend—even if this hope is no longer realistic. Thus those who embrace an alternative worldview may gain the subjective benefit of feeling they have more meaning in and control over their lives.
• “Small steps” hypothesis: According to this model, people who already accept one kind of supernatural belief system (such as religion) are likely to accept others (such as paranormal ideas), since it is only a small step from embracing one to embracing many. The complication is that the largest subset of believers in the paranormal accept only a single paranormal be lief. The next largest accepts only two, and so on. (In this sense, those Bigfoot researchers who are actively hostile to paranormal beliefs other than the existence of Bigfoot are very typical of paranormal believers.) In the Baylor Religion Survey of 2005, fully 19 percent of respondents held one paranormal belief, 16 percent held two paranormal beliefs, 10 percent held three—and the remainder declined steadily in the same pattern, with only 2 percent of respondents affirming nine paranormal beliefs. Gallup found a similar pattern that same year, with 16 percent of respondents claiming one paranormal belief and only 1 percent affirming ten such beliefs.61 The “small steps” hypothesis is further complicated by the fact that paranormal ideas are not discrete, equally weighted units of belief, and the steps from one belief to another are not always equally difficult. Some paranormal beliefs imply or suggest others, or are at least easily compatible, while others conflict. (Premonitory dreams are conceptually more similar to for-tune-telling than to alien abduction, for example.)
Whatever the range of factors at play, the psychology and sociology of paranormal belief are as kaleidoscopic and colorful as any other window into the human experience. A sharper focus on a specific subcategory or community of paranormal believers only complicates this perspective further—and further dispels simplistic stereotypes. Consider those who believe that they were abducted by aliens (surely Hollywood’s favorite go-to cliché for wild-eyed, aluminum foil hat–wearing kooks). In 2003, Bader reported the results of his survey of alien abductees, which were consistent with previous research on new religious movements: abductees are not only much better educated than the general population, but also more likely to hold white-collar jobs.62 Commenting on both this research and the Baylor Religion Survey data, Bader and his co-authors wrote in Paranormal America,
Unless we choose to define someone as a fringe member of society simply because they claim to have been abducted by aliens or are chasing Bigfoot … abductees are not marginal people. Many of the people we met would be better described as elites.
One way to understand why elites might be attracted to the paranormal is to think of paranormal beliefs and experiences as something that is “cutting edge.” Whenever a new technology enters the market there are people who immediately embrace it, people who are excited by new things and ready to take risks. Marketers call such people “early adopters.” Then there are the rest of us, who want to wait until a new idea or technology is fully proven before we jump aboard. Early adopters tend to be those … who have been continually exposed to new ideas throughout their lives via higher education and contacts with other educated people. They also have the resources to try new things.63
This sociological assessment of one sample from the hard-to-study alien abductee population is complemented by Clancy’s psychological research with another group of abductees. “There’s little evidence that this was a particularly psychopathological group,” she found.64 Abductees do tend to score highly in assessments of “fantasy proneness” (a normal personality type characterized by vivid imagination and high hypnotizability), and, intriguingly, Clancy’s research revealed that they are more prone to creating false memories under laboratory conditions than is the general population—but these are variations
on normal functioning.65 “What can we say conclusively about this diverse group of abductees?” Clancy asked. “In the end, not much. Research on the topic is clearly in its infancy. What we can confidently say is that these people are not crazy.”
Returning to cryptozoology, it is clear that this community is no easier to pigeonhole than is that of abductees. The Baylor Religion Survey offers a sense of the very wide interest that American adults have for cryptids. Asked in 2005, “Have you ever read a book, consulted a Web site, or researched the following topics: Mysterious animals, such as Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster?” 20 percent of Americans indicated that they had. Men exhibited a little more interest, with about 24 percent replying that they had researched cryptids in some fashion, but more than 17 percent of women had also done so. Interest was similarly high in every age group (highest in the 18 to 30 range, at 32 percent), political affiliation (highest among independents), and religious category (highest among those who claimed to adhere to “no religion”). Interest hovered in the 18 to 24 percent range in every income category, and between 19 and 23.5 percent in every level of education from high school onward.66
A lot of people dig monsters, whether they believe in them or not—but it happens that many do believe. When asked whether “Creatures such as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster will one day be discovered by science,” about 17 percent of the people in the sample agreed (14.2 percent) or strongly agreed (2.7 percent) with that statement. (Those tens of millions of believers in the United States have proved to be tempting targets for at least some preliminary research. For example, psychologists Matthew Sharps, Justin Matthews, and Janet Asten have attempted to link cryptozoological beliefs with the tendency to exhibit features of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]. They found some correlation with measures of the component hyperactivity or impulsivity in isolation, but “no significant relationship” between overall ADHD tendencies and cryptozoological beliefs.)67
At this level of involvement with cryptozoology—belief in the probability of cryptids, as opposed to motivation to research the topic—an interesting demographic reversal occurred in the Baylor Religion Survey data: more women than men agreed that cryptids will one day be discovered. It is a fairly slim margin (17.6 percent of women either agreed or strongly agreed, compared with 15.9 percent of men), but the difference is visible in the “strongly agree” range, so those respondents might plausibly be thought of as serious believers in cryptozoology. Further, women also dominated the undecideds, making them considerably less likely than men to assert that cryptids do not exist. Just under 53 percent of women disagreed or strongly disagreed that cryptids will one day be discovered, compared with almost 61 percent of men.68
The Baylor Religion Survey found that women continued to lead the way when asked a more direct question in 2007: “In your opinion, does each of the following exist? Bigfoot,” with 17.5 percent of women agreeing that Bigfoot either “absolutely” (3.2 percent) or “probably” (14.3 percent) does exist. Fewer men expressed belief at either level of confidence, with 2.9 percent believing that Bigfoot absolutely does exist, and 11.7 percent thinking that it probably is real (with 14.6 percent of men accepting Bigfoot overall).69
A more recent poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion, conducted in 2012, found even higher levels of belief in Bigfoot in both Canada (21 percent) and the United States (29 percent) than had been found in 2007, with men in both countries only slightly more likely than women to give an affirmative answer to the question “Do you think Bigfoot (also known as Sasquatch) is real?” In Canada, 3 percent of women and 2 percent of men said that Bigfoot “definitely is real,” while 15 percent of women and 21 percent of men said that it “probably is real.” In the United States, 8 percent of women and 6 percent of men said that Bigfoot “definitely is real,” while 19 percent of women and 25 percent of men said that it “probably is real.” In both countries, women led not only among those who felt certain that Sasquatches exist, but also among respondents who answered “not sure.” Among the 17 percent of Britons who gave a positive answer to a similar Angus Reid question, “Do you think the Loch Ness monster is real?” women were more likely than men to say that Nessie “definitely is real” (3 percent of women compared with 2 percent of men) or “probably is real” (15 percent of women compared with 13 percent of men) or to respond that they were “not sure.”70
If women are roughly as likely to believe in cryptids as are men (or possibly even more likely; the differences tend to be near the margins of error in relevant polls), why does cryptozoology have such a strong reputation as a “boy’s topic”? The answer appears to hinge on the distinction between belief in cryptids and participation in cryptozoology. It is a distinction that also applies to other areas of belief, such as religion. Identifying with a religion or holding beliefs associated with that religion is not the same as participating in the rituals or practices of that religion, such as churchgoing. In addition to belief and practice, sociologists distinguish other dimensions of involvement with religion that can be usefully applied to paranormal belief communities, such as knowledge of the topic, personal experiences (consider eyewitness sightings of Bigfoot), and consequences suffered as a result of involvement (such as ridicule). In regard to cryptozoology, it seems that women are more likely to believe, while men are (for whatever reason) more likely to practice. This lopsidedness toward male involvement begins at the most basic level of participation in cryptozoology (reading a book or consulting a Web site) and increases at each more active level of engagement.
To explore the subculture of cryptozoology, sociologists Bader, Mencken, and Baker got to know the Bigfoot community of East Texas and even accompanied some dedicated Bigfoot hunters on a late-night search for the creature.71 The sociologists soon found that they “were among very normal people talking about a very strange subject.”72 Bigfooters have formed their own subculture of people who believe strongly in the reality of Bigfoot and who spend a significant amount of time and resources researching and hunting Bigfoot and following the internal goings-on within the Bigfoot community itself. They hold their own meetings, speak their own jargon, share their own body of accepted knowledge, and have their own distinctive way of looking at the world. In all these characteristics, Bigfoot believers reflect the typical pattern of any subculture, from other dedicated cryptozoologists to ghost hunters to fans of any other subject—be it NASCAR or vampires, opera or scientific skepticism.
In 2009, Bader, Mencken, and Baker attended the annual Texas Bigfoot Research Conference in Tyler, Texas, where they were permitted to administer an anonymous questionnaire to the attendees.73 They found the conference of nearly 400 Bigfoot enthusiasts to be much like any other convention of any other interest group. Celebrities of the cryptozoology world like Loren Coleman, Bob Gimlin, and Smoky Crabtree (known for the movie about his Bigfoot experience, The Legend of Boggy Creek) spent much of their time in the hallways and the auditorium posing for photographs and signing books. Exhibitors selling books, DVDs, T-shirts, and every other sort of Bigfoot merchandise filled the hallways. Most of the attendees knew the Bigfoot legends and evidence backward and forward, and they spoke in shorthand about the “Skookum cast,” the “PG [Patterson–Gimlin] film,” the “Ohio howl,” and the “shoot/don’t shoot” controversy (whether a Bigfoot hunter should actually shoot or not if he finds Bigfoot).74 As sociologists have long pointed out, learning the argot, or distinctive lingo, of a subculture is part of the process of becoming a member of the subculture, and using the jargon is a way to distinguish insiders from outsiders and is a mark of acceptance when initiates master it.
Strikingly absent were the sort of colorful characters who might attend a typical comic-book or science-fiction gathering like Comic-Con or Dragon-Con. Although the researchers were by this time familiar with the Bigfoot subculture, they “were still surprised by the staid nature of the conference and the conventionality of most of those in attendance.” The conferees were mostly conservativ
ely dressed, middle-aged, middle-class white people who attended a day-long slate of presentations. The large majority—67 percent—were male.75 Nor did attendees at the Texas Bigfoot Research Conference merely look conventional; by key measures, they were. They were better educated than average Americans, better paid, and more likely to be married.76
All this was disappointing to reporter Mike Leggett, who wrote about his experience at the conference that same year:
Bigfoot is boring.
Correction. Bigfoot conferences are boring….
I went to the 2009 Texas Bigfoot Conference expecting people in gorilla suits milling about among semi-crazed gangs of gonzo, tattooed, barrel-chested beandips. I found instead only a polite, older crowd of mildly sleepy true believers who only came alive at the mention of the TV show “MonsterQuest” or the movie “The Legend of Boggy Creek.” I thought surely someone would be selling BLT—Bigfoot, lettuce and tomato—sandwiches and Abominable Snowman cones during the lunch break, but there were only Cokes and Subway sandwiches.77
Bader, Mencken, and Baker found the attendees even more conventional—and 88 percent male—when they restricted their focus to the subset who could be considered “Bigfoot hunters” by virtue of belonging to an organization devoted to Bigfoot field research. These Bigfoot hunters were notable not only for their high income and education level, but also for their conventionally high church attendance and their marital status (77 percent were married, compared with 57 percent of Americans in general in 2009).78
Psychologists and sociologists do not yet fully understand all the complex motivations that make people embrace unconventional beliefs like cryptozoology, although research is beginning to tease apart some of the questions.
IS CRYPTOZOOLOGY SCIENCE? CAN IT BE MADE SCIENTIFIC?
Abominable Science Page 37
