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.