Surveys consistently report that paranormal belief persists within modern Western societies (Drinkwater et al., 2021a). Illustratively, a 2005 Gallup survey found that 73% of Americans endorsed belief in at least one paranormal phenomenon (Moore, 2005). A sizeable proportion of the population also claimed to have experienced supernatural phenomena (see Dagnall et al., 2016). As researchers have operationalised paranormality in diverse ways, this paper adopted the delineation of Irwin (2009). This states that ‘a paranormal belief is defined on a working basis as a proposition that has not been empirically attested to the satisfaction of the scientific establishment but is generated within the non-scientific community and extensively endorsed by people who might normally be expected by their society to be capable of rational thought and reality testing’ (Irwin, 2009, p. 16, 17).

Despite the enduring popularity of supernatural credence, researchers typically regard beliefs as maladaptive and/or indicative of soft psychopathology symptoms (Dagnall et al., 2022a). This pejorative view prevails even though the evidence is inconsistent (i.e., dated and focused on restricted facets of belief such as superstition) and derives from correlations between overall belief and variables allied to poor psychological adjustment (e.g., depressive attributional style and increased negative emotional states; Dudley and Whisnand, 2000).

Assuming paranormal powers/forces do not exist, the everyday nature of belief in general populations suggests that it is best conceptualised as an individual difference (i.e., a continuous quantifiable variation) rather than a distinct point of classification. Accordingly, personal endorsement arises from limited consideration of empirical evidence. This is especially true, as corroborating substantiation is limited (e.g., Bem, 2011) and criticised by the scientific community (Wagenmakers et al., 2011).

Acknowledging this, cognitive theorists view paranormal beliefs as a manifestation of preferential thinking style and/or truncated reasoning (Williams et al., 2022). For instance, dual-processing explanations ascribe validation to an inclination for subjective/affect-based (vs. objective/logic) data. The advantage of the cognitive approach is that it regards paranormal belief as domain-specific. Believers can process/reason at a high evaluative level but employ flawed reasoning in the context of the paranormal. Hence, errors arise because judgements derive from personal (rather than objective) appraisal of evidence (Dagnall et al., 2010a, 2015).

Irwin (2003) referred to this flawed decision-making process as reality testing failure. Within this conceptualisation, belief and mentation are reciprocally reinforcing and provide a skewed interpretive lens (Irwin et al., 2013; Lange et al., 2019). This is also commensurate with the notion that supernatural credence is a form of subclinical psychosis (e.g., Van Os, 2003; Unterrassner et al., 2017), whereby characteristics found in psychosis (magical thinking, ideas of reference, unusual experiences, etc.) present in a milder form within general populations (Unterrassner et al., 2017). Correspondingly, paranormal beliefs/experiences represent non-clinical delusions and hallucinations (Irwin et al., 2012a,b).

Recent research designates that supernatural credence is not necessarily related to poor psychological adjustment/well-being. Whilst there is correlation-based evidence to support the assertation that paranormal belief is associated with reduced well-being, this ignores the heterogeneous nature of believers and the fact that personal credence is qualified by the presence of other psychological factors (e.g., schizotypy; Denovan et al., 2018). Interactions between belief and these factors differentially influence relationships with well-being outcomes. Testing this, Drinkwater et al. (2024) assessed whether subgroup membership, determined by paranormal belief and psychopathology (schizotypy and manic-depressive experience), predicted well-being (i.e., stress, somatic complaints, life satisfaction, and meaning in life) over time. The analysis found that the highest psychopathology scoring profile (vs. lower) predicted higher negative and lower positive well-being. Transliminality and fearful attitude (positively) and sceptical attitude (negatively) mediated this outcome. Thus, in the absence of psychopathology, paranormal belief had no influence on well-being.

In a related study, Dagnall et al. (2022c) reported that higher scores on transliminality and psychopathology-related variables (i.e., the unusual experiences and cognitive disorganisation subscales of schizotypy and manic-depressive experiences) were associated with stronger paranormal belief and somatic complaints relationship. Furthermore, as levels of transliminality and unusual experiences increased, the strength of the relationship between paranormal belief and perceived stress also increased. These outcomes demonstrated that cognitive–perceptual personality factors qualified the effect of supernatural credence.

In the case of transliminality, higher scores reflect reduced ability to suppress irrelevant information (Thalbourne, 2009). Regarding unusual experiences, positive symptoms (e.g., magical thinking, perceptual aberrations, and hallucinations) are expressed as broadening cognitions (e.g., hallucinations and paranoia). Combined, transliminality and unusual experiences increase perceptual sensitivity to stimuli and decrease the ability to discriminate between internally and externally generated data (Dagnall et al., 2008). This explains why the presence of these constructs, alongside paranormal belief, amplifies awareness of somatic complaints and stress.

A study by Dagnall et al. (2022a), using network analysis, further demonstrated the influential effects of transliminality, unusual experiences (positive schizotypy), and depressive experiences on the paranormal belief well-being relationship. Transliminality acted as a connecting variable between belief, positive schizotypy, and psychopathology. Additionally, depressive experiences bridged the transliminality and well-being relationship.

The finding that levels of cognitive–perceptual factors qualify paranormal beliefs concurs with studies using latent profile analysis (LPA). Dagnall et al. (2022b) identified subgroups using paranormal belief and psychopathology (schizotypy, depression, manic experience, and depressive experience) and examined differences in well-being scores (i.e., perceived stress, somatic complaints, and life satisfaction). Subgroups with higher psychopathology reported lower well-being. However, higher paranormal belief was not necessarily associated with lower psychological adjustment and reduced well-being. These results indicated that belief in the context of well-being was not maladaptive.

Noting the benign influence of paranormal belief on negative well-being, the present study explored whether credence had adaptive benefits. This was important since few studies have examined the positive effects of belief. Moreover, studies reporting benefits have typically focussed on experience (Kennedy and Kanthamani, 1995), employed small samples (e.g., Parra and Corbetta, 2014), and/or used qualitative approaches (Betsch et al., 2021). Whilst these reports enhanced well-being (e.g., increased happiness, confidence, optimism, and meaning in life), researchers have not established the degree to which outcomes extrapolate to broader, general populations.

Noting these factors, the present study, alongside direct relationships, used LPA to examine belief-related differences in perceived well-being. Based on previous research, LPA amalgamated paranormal belief with schizotypy. Corresponding with studies using general populations, the authors conceptualised schizotypy as a personality trait, assessed on a continuum, ranging from psychological health to schizophrenia (psychosis; Barrantes-Vidal et al., 2015). The advantage of this delineation is that it recognises that schizotypy is both a source of healthy variation and an indicator of susceptibility to psychosis. Hence, schizotypy comprises facets that approximate features of schizophrenia or schizotypal personality disorder (Kwapil and Barrantes-Vidal, 2015).

To facilitate conceptual understanding of profiles, the study adopted the three-factor model proposed by Raine et al. (1994). Within this, there is a clear correspondence between factors and clinical symptoms. Cognitive–perceptual factors align with positive symptoms (i.e., delusions and hallucinations), specifically odd beliefs and magical thinking, unusual perceptual experiences, ideas of reference, and paranoid ideation. Interpersonal encompasses features affiliated with negative symptoms (i.e., social anxiety, constricted affect, paranoia, and no close friends). Finally, disorganised (i.e., odd speech and odd behaviour) reflects thought disorder and bizarre behaviour (Arndt et al., 1991).

The three-factor model was used in preference to the four-factor model (Mason, 2015) because it provides a narrower definition of schizotypy, which more easily maps on to classically defined symptomology (i.e., positive, cognitive disorganisation, and negative, see Kemp et al., 2021). This is advantageous in terms of parsimonious identification of profiles. To enable comparisons with prior investigations (Kennedy and Kanthamani, 1995; Parra and Corbetta, 2014; Betsch et al., 2021), meaning in life, satisfaction with life, and self-esteem were employed as well-being indices.

This study built on previous research in two notable ways. First, it established whether interactions between paranormal belief and schizotypy produced profiles similar to those described in previous LPA studies (e.g., Denovan et al., 2018). This was particularly important because alternative measures of schizotypy exist. As previous studies (e.g., Denovan et al., 2018; Drinkwater et al., 2024) have typically employed the Oxford–Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences (O-LIFE short; Mason et al., 2005), the present study used the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire—Brief (SPQ-B; Raine and Benishay, 1995).

Second, the investigators included a broader range of positive well-being measures, a further development is a separate analysis of meaning in life dimensions (i.e., presence and search). This was important because presence correlates positively with affirming outcomes (e.g., life satisfaction and joy) and negatively with adverse indicators (e.g., depression and sadness; Steger et al., 2006), whereas search is associated with negative emotions (Cohen and Cairns, 2012) and reduced well-being (e.g., depression, sadness, and rumination; Dakin et al., 2021).

Consistent with previous findings, the authors predicted that positive well-being outcomes would correlate positively with paranormal belief and negatively with schizotypy. In line with these hypotheses, the authors anticipated that relationships between emergent profiles and well-being outcomes would vary as a function of levels of belief and schizotypy. To ensure that profiles possessed conceptual coherence, the study included an assessment of paranormal experience and belief in conspiracies. As these factors correlate positively with both supernatural credence and schizotypy, especially the cognitive–perceptual dimension, the authors anticipated that profiles with higher levels of these constructs would report more paranormal experiences and greater conspiratorial endorsement.

Consistent with prior research, paranormal belief correlated positively with schizotypy and was most strongly related to the cognitive–perceptual factor (Darwin et al., 2011). This relationship was attributable to overlapping construct features (i.e., odd/magical beliefs, unusual perpetual experiences, and ideas of reference). Paranormal belief and the cognitive–perceptual factor were associated with higher scores on reporting paranormal experiences and endorsement of generic conspiracist beliefs, respectively. Despite commonality, paranormal belief and schizotypy were differentially related to well-being measures. Paranormal belief correlated positively with meaning in life (presence and search) and satisfaction with life, whereas schizotypy correlated negatively with presence, satisfaction with life, and self-esteem and positively with search.

The observation that paranormal belief was associated with higher presence, whilst schizotypy was associated with lower scores was important in the context of well-being. Presence correlates positively with affirming outcomes (e.g., life satisfaction and joy) and negatively with adverse indicators (e.g., depression and sadness; Steger et al., 2006). Although the relationship between presence and search is complex and academically debated (Newman et al., 2018), search typically associated with negative emotions (Cohen and Cairns, 2012) and reduced well-being (e.g., depression, sadness, and rumination; Dakin et al., 2021). As paranormal belief and schizotypy were both positively related to search, their distinct relationship with presence was potentially important. In the case of believers, high presence could mediate relationships between search and negative well-being outcomes (Newman et al., 2018). Future studies should assess these relationships, employing a broader set of well-being outcomes.

Regarding satisfaction with life and self-esteem, schizotypy was associated with lower scores, and paranormal belief was weakly positively related with satisfaction with life. There was no significant correlation between paranormal belief and self-esteem. Overall paranormal belief was associated with positive well-being, and schizotypy was associated with lower scores on positive well-being measures. This was ascribed to the interpersonal and disorganised factors, which reflect affective and social deficiencies (psychological maladjustment) that are inclined to undermine positive well-being (Mohr and Claridge, 2015).

The present study also observed that the cognitive–perceptual schizotypy factor correlated negatively with satisfaction with life. This finding was commensurate with the supposition that the effects of positive schizotypy are contingent on concurrent levels of interpersonal (negative) and disorganised factors (Abbott and Byrne, 2012). This is because positive schizotypy is more strongly related to negative affect than life satisfaction (Abbott et al., 2012). Indeed, positive schizotypy is a weak predictor of life satisfaction (Abbott and Byrne, 2012). In the context of the present study, it appears that levels of interpersonal (negative) and disorganised factors (especially the former) and allied negative affect/absence of positive affect influenced cognitive appraisal of well-being (i.e., satisfaction with life and self-esteem). This explains why overall schizotypy is associated with diminished life satisfaction (Abbott et al., 2012).

Associations and their implications require cautious interpretation. For example, whilst the relationship between paranormal belief and life satisfaction was significant, the effect size was small. This concurred with prior studies reporting weak to non-significant associations (e.g., Dagnall et al., 2022a,b). Indeed, paranormal belief demonstrates (negative) relationships via the influence of attendant constructs, such as transliminality. The significant paranormal belief–meaning in life relationship has more robust support (cf. FioRito et al., 2021; Dagnall et al., 2022a), indicating a direct (and consistent) link with well-being.

Profile comparisons concurred with the analysis of direct relationships. Low belief and cognitive–perceptual, moderate interpersonal and disorganised (Profile 2) was associated with lower MLPresence (vs. Profiles 1, 2, and 4), and low belief and schizotypy (Profile 1) (vs. high, Profile 4) was related to higher MLPresence. Generally, paranormal belief and schizotypy (Profiles 2, 3, and 4) were associated with greater MLSearch, higher scores on paranormal experiential factors, and endorsement of generic conspiracist beliefs. Finally, low belief and schizotypy (Profile 1) were concomitant with higher satisfaction with life and self-esteem.

Conclusions derived from the profiles require cautious interpretation. Although LPA produces statistically sound subgroups, these were not theoretically informed. Instead, labels reflected characteristics from the observed sample. This was not problematic in the current study as it was exploratory and focused on differences arising from the heterogeneous nature of belief, particularly examining whether interactions with schizotypy affected scores on positive well-being outcomes. To enable comparisons across studies, investigators need to conduct subsequent scholarly work that identifies robust profiles. This is problematic with LPA because subgroups arise from cross-variable heterogeneity within a particular model. Hence, profiles may vary across samples. In this context, replications and cross-validation using techniques, such as progressive elaboration, are necessary (Donovan and Chung, 2015). This iterative approach establishes model fit and class constancy, enabling researchers to produce conceptually valid profiles.

There are also other study limitations that merit consideration. The use of cross-sectional designs (i.e., collecting data at one point in time) is often criticised because single measurements provide only estimates of complex effects, which may change over time. To examine variations and establish measurement stability, longitudinal studies with multiple points are necessary. This would indicate whether paranormal belief has long-term benefits and determine whether cognitive–perceptual and personality factors influence effects. In this context, it is also important to reproduce the results of the study with independent samples. Additionally, to ensure that outcomes were not context-specific, this should extend to assessing generalisability across societies. This will help to determine whether cultural variations influence belief adaptivity.

Furthermore, self-report measures are potentially problematic because they assume that respondents can accurately assess their beliefs and well-being and/or respond honestly. Additionally, this study used a narrow set of well-being outcomes. Acknowledging this, future studies should employ objective measures and a broader range of factors. This will enable researchers to look more generally at the potential benefits of belief. Recognising this, subsequent investigations could include the Quality of Life Scale (Burckhardt and Anderson, 2003), which measures five conceptual domains: material and physical well-being; relationships with other people; social, community, and civic activities; personal development and fulfilment; and recreation. This will provide a broad multidimensional assessment of perceived personal well-being.

Due to the exploratory nature of this study and the need to restrict variable numbers for analysis, profiles are derived from unidimensional measures of paranormal belief. Future investigations should examine whether facets of credence are differentially related to well-being. For instance, the bifactor RPBS structure suggests that New Age Philosophy (NAP) and Traditional Paranormal Belief (TPB) reflect different mechanisms for exerting control over external events. NAP provides a sense of control at the individual level (Irwin, 2004), whilst TPB achieves this at a social level.

Given the complex nature of the reported effects, the practical significance to clinical and real-world settings is hard to determine (Achterhof et al., 2019). From a conceptual standpoint, the study represents an important starting point for understanding relationships between paranormal belief, schizotypy, and positive well-being.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

The studies involving humans were approved by the Health and Education Research Ethics and Governance Committee at Manchester Metropolitan University granted ethical approval (Project ID, 47784). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

ND: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KD: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AD: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AE: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing.