Hello, and thank you for joining me on the Mount Washington Valley SPIRIT podcast. I’m your host, Eric Extreme. Here, we’re dedicated to exploring unexplained phenomena through a scientific lens. Today, we’re diving into a topic that’s absolutely critical to understand for anyone involved in paranormal investigations: cognitive bias.

Now, what exactly is cognitive bias? Our minds can sometimes tilt or skew what we see, hear, and remember. These biases are mental shortcuts that help us make sense of the world, but they can subtly push our judgments in a particular direction without us even realizing it. In the context of paranormal investigations, bias can be a significant issue, potentially leading to misinterpreted data and inaccurate conclusions. It can cause us to focus on specific aspects of an environment while overlooking others, or to interpret ambiguous sensor readings in a way that confirms our pre-existing beliefs or desire to witness paranormal activity. In this episode, we’ll explore what cognitive bias is, why it appears so frequently in our line of work, the specific patterns to watch out for, and, most importantly, how to develop an investigation process that actively minimizes bias. Our goal here is to protect our clients by providing the most accurate assessment possible, ensuring the quality of our investigations through sound methodology, and safeguarding our team’s credibility by adhering to the highest scientific standards.

Let’s delve deeper into what cognitive bias actually is. Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from the norm or rationality in judgment and decision-making. It’s important to understand that bias isn’t a character flaw. It’s an entirely normal product of human cognition. Our brains are wired to favor speed and coherence. They prefer a simple, easy-to-understand story to a complex, confusing pile of facts. They naturally gravitate towards patterns rather than randomness, and they tend to prefer what feels familiar and comfortable over what is uncertain and unknown. While these preferences can be beneficial in our daily lives, for example, quickly recognizing a familiar face in a crowd, they can be quite problematic in investigations. They can steer us away from established methodology and towards confident, but ultimately incorrect, conclusions. For example, suppose we are investigating a location with a history of reported paranormal activity. In that case, our brains might be more inclined to interpret ambiguous sensor readings as evidence of paranormal phenomena, even if there are perfectly natural explanations for those readings. Whether you are a ghost hunter seeking to find a paranormal presence or a paranormal investigator seeking to understand the science behind naturally occurring phenomena misperceived as paranormal, cognitive bias affects us all.

In this discussion, we will differentiate between ghost hunting and paranormal investigation. This distinction is not intended to diminish the value of either approach, but rather to highlight the importance of using appropriate methodologies for different objectives. While the terms are often used interchangeably, their historical separation reflects fundamentally different approaches to data collection and interpretation. The reason I’m distinguishing between ghost hunting and paranormal investigation is to highlight how biases can manifest in both approaches, though in different ways. While ghost hunting might be more susceptible to biases stemming from personal experiences and expectations, paranormal investigation isn’t immune. Even with scientific tools and methods, investigators can still fall prey to confirmation bias, selectively interpreting data to support pre-existing hypotheses, or to the anchoring bias, over-relying on initial assumptions even when contradictory evidence emerges. By acknowledging these potential pitfalls in both areas, we can foster a more critical and objective approach to exploring the unexplained, regardless of the specific methodology employed.

Exploring unexplained phenomena is a captivating pursuit for many, and ‘ghost hunting’ is a term often used to describe the most popular way of engaging with these mysteries. This approach often centers on personal experiences and immediate sensory impressions, making for a highly engaging and meaningful activity for the ghost hunter. For example, some ghost hunters may seek to connect with spirits through methods such as Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) or Ouija boards, while others prefer to capture photos or videos and interpret them for potential signs of paranormal activity. To aid in their explorations, ghost hunters often utilize a variety of devices, some of which have gained recognition through their portrayal in popular television shows and movies. These devices can include EMF meters (like K2 meters and REM Pods), digital voice recorders, Ovilus and spirit boxes, and SLS cameras. As this is a podcast focused on scientific principles, I should note that these methods and tools have not been scientifically validated for the purpose of detecting, communicating with,  or measuring paranormal phenomena. Available “proof” is entirely subjective. As such, while ghost hunting can be a rewarding and personally fulfilling way for many people to explore the unknown, we must acknowledge that conclusions drawn from it are not typically considered scientifically validated.

Paranormal investigation, as we define it here, emphasizes a systematic and scientific approach to the subject.

The process begins with a comprehensive pre-investigation centered on an in-depth interview. This interview is designed to uncover potential cognitive and environmental misinterpretations and misunderstandings of building infrastructure, as well as obvious sources of various mechanical influences that can lead to the misperception of paranormal activity when there is a natural cause. By leveraging a strong understanding of human perception, environmental influences, and typical infrastructure properties during the interview, the reported phenomena can often be resolved without the need for onsite environmental assessments or infrastructure reviews.

When an on-site investigation is necessary, the goal is to move far beyond anecdotal evidence and personal interpretations. This is achieved by prioritizing observation, experimentation, and data collection. A range of calibrated and scientifically validated tools is used. For example, calibrated electromagnetic field (EMF) meters with proper shielding and frequency filtering enable the precise measurement of electromagnetic fields, allowing for the distinction between different sources. Infrasound and ultrasound detectors identify low- and high-frequency sound waves that may influence human perception or affect building structures. Digital thermometers and dedicated infrared cameras provide accurate temperature readings and detect thermal variations associated with building infrastructure or environmental factors. Air quality monitors measure levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and particulate matter. Barometric pressure sensors detect subtle changes in atmospheric pressure. Humidity sensors measure relative humidity levels. High-resolution audio recorders with external microphones capture high-quality audio to document environmental sounds and potential sources of misinterpretation. Video recording equipment documents environmental conditions, with careful attention to lighting and camera placement to minimize the introduction of artifacts.

The commitment is to explore all possible natural explanations to attempt to identify a scientific cause of the reported phenomena. This approach requires a high degree of skepticism, critical thinking, and a willingness to challenge one’s own assumptions through testing and analysis.

Both ghost hunting and paranormal investigation offer unique avenues for exploring the unexplained. Ghost hunting, with its emphasis on personal experience and popular gadgets, can provide a sense of connection and personal validation. However, when the goal shifts to establishing reliable, evidence-based conclusions about the nature of unexplained phenomena, a commitment to scientific principles, methodology, and awareness of cognitive bias becomes essential. This is where the systematic approach of paranormal investigation distinguishes itself, offering a framework for minimizing subjective interpretations and maximizing the potential for objective understanding. The choice between these approaches depends on individual goals, but a clear understanding of their differing methodologies is crucial for anyone seeking to engage with paranormal research, minimizing the risk of misinterpretation and inaccurate conclusions. While ghost hunting can offer a source of entertainment and personal exploration, paranormal investigation provides a more appropriate methodology when working with clients, ensuring a responsible, evidence-based approach to their experiences.

So, why does bias seem to show up so frequently and so strongly in paranormal settings? Well, even in science-based investigations, several factors can amplify bias. We’re often working in complex environments with multiple potential sources of interference. We interact with clients who may hold strong beliefs or expectations, and the history of a particular location often shapes our approach. Group dynamics can also play a significant role, where a confident voice can inadvertently shape what others report. Add in the potential for fatigue from long hours of investigation, and you’ve got a situation where bias can easily thrive. Each of these factors adds uncertainty to the situation, and the more uncertain the input, the more our brains lean on mental shortcuts. That’s when bias really takes effect, potentially leading us astray. Many people want to see the spooky, and that bias can shape the lens through which they interpret their investigations. It’s not about “ghosts” influencing us; it’s about how our own minds can inadvertently shape our perceptions and interpretations.

Now, let’s examine some key cognitive biases relevant to paranormal investigations. First up is confirmation bias. It is the tendency, once we’ve formed a theory or a belief, to actively search for details that support it while simultaneously overlooking details that contradict it. Imagine an investigation in which you monitor infrasound in a historic theater during a performance. The team is using a low-frequency microphone and spectrum analyzer, not to “hunt” for paranormal activity, but to document the infrasound environment and assess its potential effects on human perception. Throughout the investigation, they record various rumbles and vibrations. During review, the team is aware that infrasound, regardless of its source, can cause physiological effects in some individuals, including feelings of unease, anxiety, disorientation, and even physical pain in the ears, eyes, or head. The client has reported experiencing such feelings during the theater performance. However, instead of systematically identifying and documenting all potential sources of infrasound in the theater (HVAC systems, traffic, building resonance, etc.) and correlating them with the client’s reported experiences, the team prematurely focuses on the possibility that the infrasound is directly linked to the performance itself, without fully exploring the natural sources and their potential impact. The bias here lies in the rush to connect the infrasound to the reported experiences without a thorough, objective assessment of all potential sources and their effects. To combat confirmation bias, after formulating an initial hypothesis, dedicate equal time and effort to actively searching for evidence that disproves it. Document these attempts and the results.

Next, we have expectation bias. It is the phenomenon where what we expect to perceive can actually become what we do perceive, even when it isn’t what is really occurring. Suppose the pre-briefing for an investigation mentions that a particular area is known for high EMF readings. In that case, investigators will be more likely to focus on EMF fluctuations in that area, even if other areas exhibit similar or even higher readings. Even with identifiable electrical or mechanical sources of EMF, interpretation can be skewed toward attributing the energy to paranormal entities, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. Our expectations can subtly shape our perceptions, leading us to selectively attend to specific data while ignoring other potentially relevant information. To avoid expectation bias, analyze data objectively, setting aside the urge to confirm pre-conceived notions from briefings or client statements.

Then there’s pareidolia and patternicity. Humans are natural pattern makers. We see faces in clouds, we hear words in static, and we find connections in coincidences. Our sensors often capture noise, and our brains are wired to turn that noise into recognizable patterns. For example, a faint sound on a voice recorder might be interpreted as a ghostly whisper, even if it’s just background noise altered by room acoustics or the quality of the mic and storage medium in the voice recorder. When reviewing audio or visual recordings, exercise extreme caution when interpreting ambiguous patterns as meaningful. Seek alternative explanations, and if possible, have someone else review the data independently to see if they perceive the same patterns.

Availability and salience also play a role. The most vivid or recent story or image is often the easiest to recall, and therefore feels more likely to be relevant. For example, suppose a recent investigation successfully identifies a natural infrasound source as the cause of reported perception of paranormal activity. In that case, investigators might be tempted to attribute similar phenomena in subsequent cases to infrasound prematurely. However, it’s crucial to avoid this shortcut and instead conduct a thorough analysis of all potential sources, regardless of whether infrasound seems like an obvious explanation.

Anchoring bias can also affect investigations. Imagine a trainee learning from a more experienced ghost hunter who believes ghosts cause cold spots. That initial idea can be difficult to shake, even when presented with contradictory evidence. For example, even if a seasoned paranormal investigator demonstrates that an electrostatic analyzer reveals a cold spot is due to elevated ion levels from static electricity buildup caused by people walking across carpeted floors, the trainee, influenced by the anchoring bias of their mentor’s belief, might still insist the ghost is somehow involved, perhaps claiming the ions are amplifying the paranormal activity, even though scientific evidence doesn’t support such a claim.

Framing effects can also influence our interpretations. The way we word a report can subtly shape how readers interpret it. For example, if we describe a gas detector reading as a “chemical anomaly,” readers will naturally lean towards an unusual or unexplained cause. However, if we refer to the same reading as “outgassing from new construction materials,” readers are more likely to attribute it to a normal environmental factor.

Selection and survivorship bias can also skew our perceptions. An HVAC technician assisting in an investigation might be quicker to suspect a faulty system, even if other explanations are more likely. They might vividly remember the one case where they correctly identified a faulty HVAC system as the source of unusual sounds, and this success makes them more likely to jump to that conclusion again, even when the evidence points elsewhere.

Memory reconstruction and source confusion are also important to consider. Memory isn’t a perfect recording; details can change over time. For example, imagine a team reviewing a client’s statement. The client mentioned feeling uneasy, but didn’t specify a time. During the team discussion, someone suggested it was around 3 AM. Later, everyone might remember the client specifically stating they felt uneasy at 3 AM, even though a team member added that detail.

Observer expectancy and demand characteristics can also influence investigations. A lead investigator who frequently nods in agreement when someone suggests a possible link to building infrastructure might subtly encourage others to focus on infrastructure-related explanations, even if other avenues of investigation are more promising. The desire to align with the leader’s perceived preferences can be a surprisingly powerful influence.

Finally, there’s the clustering illusion and the law of small numbers. Imagine an investigator monitoring ultrasound levels and noticing three consecutive spikes within a short period of time. They might conclude that something significant is happening, even if those spikes are within the normal range of background ultrasound, and an extended monitoring period would reveal them to be statistically insignificant. It’s easy to see a string of events and assume something meaningful is happening, even when the underlying process is entirely random. 

Now, let’s discuss how to perform a paranormal investigation.

The first step in a science-based paranormal investigation is a comprehensive interview with the client. It is more than just hearing their story; it’s about gathering detailed, specific information to build a complete picture of the reported experiences and the individuals involved. We need to understand not only what they are experiencing but also why they might be experiencing it.

Therefore, the interview must delve into several key areas, taking into account the numerous cognitive effects of human behaviors that can easily explain the possible misperception of paranormal activity. When conducting the client interview, use open-ended questions and avoid leading the client towards any particular interpretation of their experiences. We need to understand the nature of the reported experiences: What exactly are they experiencing? When did it start? How often does it occur? What are the specific details of each event, including sensory details, timing, and location? What is the impact of these experiences on their daily life? We also need to understand the individuals involved: Who is experiencing these events? What are their backgrounds and personal histories? What are their typical daily routines? The interview must also explore cognitive and behavioral factors. What are their belief systems about the paranormal, spirituality, and the nature of reality, and how might these beliefs be influencing their interpretation of events? How susceptible are they to suggestion and priming? What is their current emotional state, and how might emotions like anxiety, fear, or stress be affecting their perceptions and interpretations? We also need to consider the social context in which these experiences occur. Are they alone or with others? Is there any social pressure to conform to certain beliefs or interpretations? What are their coping mechanisms for dealing with stress and anxiety? What are their sleep patterns and sleep quality? And what is their medical history, including any conditions or medications that could be affecting their cognitive function or sensory perception? 

Understanding the environment is also key: What is the layout of the location? What are the building materials? What are the typical environmental conditions, such as temperature, humidity, and noise levels? Are there any known sources of electromagnetic fields, Shumann resonances, infrasound, off-gassing, vibrations, air flow patterns, or other potential environmental factors that could have caused a perception of paranormal activity that had a natural cause? Finally, we need to consider any potential contributing factors: Have there been any recent changes to the environment, such as renovations or the installation of new appliances? This could have caused acute claustrophobia and uneasiness or a change in patterns of light and air in the room or adjacent rooms. Are there any known sources of stress or anxiety that could be affecting the individuals involved? Create a checklist of potential sources of environmental interference and use it to systematically rule out natural explanations before considering paranormal causes.

By gathering detailed information in all of these areas, we can begin to build a comprehensive understanding of the reported experiences and identify potential natural explanations, including cognitive and behavioral factors, before even considering the possibility of paranormal activity. In addition to the client interview, a strong understanding of familiar sources of misperception is crucial. This includes knowledge of behavioral effects and biases, such as how suggestion and expectation can shape perception; building infrastructure issues, such as how plumbing or HVAC systems can create unusual sounds or vibrations; weather influences, such as how changes in atmospheric pressure can affect building conditions; infrasound sources, such as traffic or industrial equipment; electromagnetic fields, and air quality issues, such as the presence of mold or volatile organic compounds.

With this information in hand, we can then conduct a remote data analysis. It may involve reviewing historical records of the location, analyzing environmental data such as weather patterns and geological surveys, and consulting with experts in fields such as engineering, building science, or psychology. Remote analysis can often reveal natural explanations for the reported phenomena, such as structural problems, environmental factors, or psychological influences. Something as simple as infrasound from a nearby generator, railroad yard, or construction site could be the cause of what is being perceived as paranormal activity, so this step in the investigation is of utmost importance. During data analysis, assign different team members to analyze the data independently, then have them compare their findings. This helps to reduce the influence of groupthink.

Based on the information gathered during the pre-investigation phase, we can then make an informed decision about whether an on-site investigation is truly necessary. In many cases, the pre-investigation phase will reveal a natural explanation for the reported phenomena, rendering an on-site visit unnecessary. It saves time and resources, minimizes disruption to the client, and avoids the potential for bias introduced by onsite data collection. Prioritize thorough pre-investigation research before conducting onsite investigations, especially in private residences. Although onsite investigations are generally the most enjoyable aspect of the process for the investigator, in reality, they are often unnecessary and should be avoided whenever possible.

If, and only if, the pre-investigation phase does not yield a satisfactory explanation, and there is a reasonable basis to suspect that further investigation is warranted, we can then proceed to plan an on-site investigation. However, even at this stage, the focus should remain on identifying potential natural causes for the reported phenomena, rather than simply “hunting” for paranormal activity. During the on-site investigation, it’s crucial to use calibrated sensors and analyzers to record baseline readings before beginning the investigation. To ensure a thorough, consistent approach and minimize the risk of overlooking potential sources of bias, consider using checklists and templates for data collection and analysis. These tools can help to standardize procedures, prompt investigators to consider all relevant factors, rotate team members, and assign independent roles (e.g., one person monitors equipment, another logs environmental conditions).

Write a simple investigation plan. First, ask your main question. Then, ask a second question that tries to disprove your first one. Decide what evidence would prove you wrong. For example, a room may have unusual acoustics that make people hear whispers. Your disconfirming question could be: “What are all the possible sources of sound in this room? Could any of them sound like whispers?” This plan is most effective when team members have clearly defined and independent roles.

What are some indicators that bias might be at play during an investigation? Look for reports that track the pre-briefing more closely than the raw sensor data. Notice a steep drop in alternative explanations as the investigation progresses. Be wary of growing certainty without any new data. Pay attention to group statements that converge rapidly after a single, confident comment. Be cautious of interpretations that seem to gain clarity and detail each time they’re revisited. And be especially critical of notes that don’t include detailed environmental conditions, equipment baselines, or clear reasons for ruling out usual sources.

To further minimize bias, it’s also important to control the environment as much as possible by securing equipment, closing windows, and documenting any changes. Use checklists at setup and teardown to ensure all equipment is configured correctly and accounted for. Calibrate sensors and analyzers against established references each time you use them to ensure accuracy and reliability. Incorporate blinding techniques whenever possible, such as including control data when reviewing sensor readings. Establish a solid baseline understanding of the environment before applying these techniques. After using environmental analyzers, rule out potential factors and create detailed baselines for audio and visual data.

Record observations and sensor readings in real-time, noting the time, location, and environmental conditions for each entry. Take short breaks to reduce fatigue and maintain focus. When reviewing data, each investigator should independently note relevant information before group discussion to avoid groupthink. Always compare your findings to control data to ensure what you’re observing is truly unusual. After collecting data, each investigator should record their individual observations, noting only the raw data and any relevant contextual information, before discussing them with others. Objectively analyze the collected data, looking for patterns, anomalies, and correlations, without attempting to impose any preconceived explanations. Ensure that initial data reviews are conducted independently and include control data for comparison. Develop a data analysis template that requires investigators to document their assumptions, the evidence they considered, and their reasoning for their conclusions.

Write down what happened, not what you think it meant. Use precise timestamps, positions, and conditions. Note whether an observation was first noticed onsite or only during review. Record who noticed it and whether others agreed without hearing the first opinion. Attach baselines and control samples to the same file. Maintain a change log that records all updates to labels or interpretations, including the date and reason for each change. Reconcile all findings and document a written decision that explicitly lists the reasons for and against each potential conclusion, including any limitations of the data or methodology. Archive all raw data in a searchable format, with detailed descriptions of the equipment used, calibration procedures, and data collection methods. Provide the client with a transparent summary that explains the investigation process, the data collected, and the reasoning behind your conclusions, using clear and concise language that avoids technical jargon. Finally, if your findings suggest potential building, electrical, or medical issues, refer the client to qualified professionals for further evaluation.

Let’s look at some specific examples of how these biases can manifest in the field of science-based paranormal investigation.

These examples highlight the importance of taking a proactive approach to minimizing bias in paranormal investigations. One of the most effective ways to do this, and a cornerstone of a science-based approach to understanding unusual phenomena, is to conduct a thorough pre-investigation phase. This critical phase enables us to gather essential information, assess the situation, and often determine whether an on-site visit is necessary before deploying sensors and collecting data.

In one case, a team investigated reports of unusual sensations in a historic building. During the review, analysis of infrasound waveforms compared with baseline sound logs revealed that the motors of one of the building’s large metallic overhead fans produced a tonal rise within the infrasound range, below the human hearing threshold at 20 Hz. This tonal rise clustered near frequencies known to affect human physiology, and the team hypothesized that this infrasound could be the source of the reported sensations. The initial impression of a paranormal cause had seemed convincing to the client, creating a bias; however, the blind comparison and baseline data allowed the team to demonstrate that the overhead fan was a plausible, natural source for the client’s experiences. The client received a clear explanation of the building’s sound sources and a plan to replace the fan, which successfully mitigated the reported sensations.

In another case, a small inn reported that guests were experiencing unusual sensations in a specific room, including tingling, headaches, and anxiety. They attributed it to the inn being haunted because someone had passed away in that room. The investigation team, aware that elevated EMF levels can sometimes cause such sensations, set up multiple EMF meters at various locations in the room and mapped the electrical wiring throughout the building. They discovered that a nearby electrical panel was missing its shielded cover, resulting in elevated EMF levels in the guest room. The team presented data showing a correlation between the electrical panel’s location and EMF readings in the room. The owner made the necessary adjustments to the electrical system to reduce the EMF levels, and reports of unusual sensations in that room ceased.

To foster a mindset that actively resists bias, prioritize bias awareness in training. Conduct individual exercises where investigators analyze data with known sources and assess their confidence in their conclusions. Emphasize the importance of comparing results against established baselines and control data to ensure accuracy. Assign someone to the specific task of identifying potential sources of error and alternative explanations. Value thorough, objective analysis above all else.

Let’s address some common myths about cognitive bias. You might think that if you’re a skeptic, you’re immune to bias. But that’s not true. Bias affects everyone, regardless of their beliefs. A skeptic can be just as prone to confirmation bias, for example, by clinging to a favored explanation and overlooking contradictory data. Another myth is that if you’re confident, you must be accurate. Confidence is not the same as accuracy. In fact, confidence can increase with repetition, even if you’re repeating an error. That’s why it’s so important to rely on methodology, not just gut feelings. Finally, many believe that technology can eliminate bias. We often think that technology is objective, but the truth is that people choose the settings, position the sensors, and interpret the data. Bias can creep in at every step of the process, unless you build in safeguards.

In conclusion, understanding cognitive bias is essential for anyone involved in paranormal investigations. By recognizing how our minds can inadvertently distort our perceptions and implementing strategies to minimize these biases, we can ensure that our investigations are as objective and accurate as possible. It includes prioritizing thorough pre-investigation assessments, focusing on objective data analysis, and maintaining a commitment to transparency and skepticism. By adhering to these principles, we can provide our clients with reliable information, advance our understanding of unusual phenomena, and uphold the integrity of the field.

Thank you for having a willingness to learn, grow, and expand your knowledge on how to conduct a science-based paranormal investigation by listening to the Mount Washington Valley SPIRIT Podcast.

Science has been and always will be the key to unlocking the mysteries of the paranormal. Don’t be fooled by the shadows. Seek the light of reason. Remember, trust no one until rationality has exhausted all logical possibilities. I want to believe, but science must be your guide because the truth is out there, just beyond the veil. Until next time, stay skeptical.