The Rule of Parsimony and Theories of the Abduction Experience
The issue of evidence is particularly important in regard to the rule of parsimony (often referred to as Occam’s razor). This maxim states that when interpreting a phenomenon, unnecessary assumptions should not be introduced. It is important to emphasize that parsimony is defined in terms of unnecessary assumptions, not in terms of unpopular assumptions, disturbing assumptions, or unconventional assumptions. As such, it can be assessed only in regard to empirical evidence, as the empirical evidence defines which assumptions are or are not necessary. A theory cannot continue to be defended on the grounds of parsimony if it has been disconfirmed through experiment, and in the absence of proper testing, parsimony by itself is of limited value in assessing a theory’s validity.
An understanding of this is essential because parsimony is routinely used as the criterion against which theories of the abduction experience are compared. As these theories are examined, it should be kept in mind that parsimony is a rule by which evidence is to be evaluated. It should not be confused with the evidence itself.
HOAXES
The hoax explanation suggests that reports of alien abduction are not honest descriptions of experiences, but are stories made up to deliberately deceive. It is generally assumed that the motivation for such deception lies in the opportunity for monetary or psychosocial rewards afforded by such stories. These opportunities certainly exist. Books recounting abduction experiences are widely sold, and there is an active lecture circuit for individuals who report such experiences. Moreover, support groups for abduction experiencers, talk shows, and conferences provide opportunities for social interaction and celebrity that would not otherwise be available to the experiencer.
However, to take advantage of such opportunities, the abduction experiencer must go public with the experience. In the vast majority of cases, there is simply nothing in the reporter’s behavior that would suggest such an intention. Abduction experiencers see mental health professionals for help in coping with the experience, or they see abduction investigators to obtain or share information about the experience. But beyond this limited contact, the experiencer who goes public is a rarity (even if based on the minimal number of known cases, such as Bullard’s [1994] database of 1,700 cases; based on the number of estimated cases, such as Hopkins et al. [1992], the proportion of experiencers who have gone public is even more of a rarity). Much more commonly, the experiencer desires assurance of anonymity.
On the other hand, deliberate misrepresentation can occur in the absence of normal incentives for deception. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994), factitious disorder refers to individuals who feign physical or psychological illness where “the motivation for the behavior is to assume the sick role” (p. 474). That is, the psychological need to be a “patient” is itself symptomatic of a disorder. Where psychological symptoms predominate, the individual “may claim … memory loss … hallucinations … and dissociative symptoms. These individuals may be extremely suggestible and may endorse many of the symptoms brought up during a review of symptoms” (p. 472).
Despite some parallels with abduction accounts, there are a number of characteristics of factitious disorder that make it an unlikely source of abduction hoaxes. Sufferers are likely to have an extensive history of hospitalizations or treatment interventions, be extremely resistant to giving up the role as patient, and are reluctant, vague, and inconsistent when asked to provide information in detail. These and other differential diagnoses are not characteristic of the vast majority of abduction experiencers.
In any case, no one has seriously suggested that hoaxes account for any but a few of the thousands of abduction experience reports. The hoax hypothesis has been advanced (Klass, 1988) to account for the stories of specific abduction claimants, but the sincerity (albeit not the accuracy) of most abduction experiencers is generally acknowledged even by ardent skeptics.
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO SUGGESTION
Suggestions are often proposed as the cause of the abduction experience. This hypothesis has taken a number of different forms. Hypnotizability refers to a talent for accepting suggestions offered during hypnosis. Fantasy proneness refers to a personality trait characterized by a predisposition to engage in compelling imaginative experience. The false memory syndrome refers to the influence of suggestion during the course of therapy. Central to each of these constructs is the notion that imagined events can be experienced as historical events.
(a) Hypnotic Memory and Hypnotizability
Hypnosis involves procedures designed to maximize a subject’s ability to respond to suggestions. Hypnotic suggestions to go back in time and remember or relive past events have been widely used as a method for retrieving or enhancing memory. This notwithstanding, in controlled experiments hypnotically enhanced memory is at best only modestly demonstrated. Instead, an increase in pseudo-memories (an effect that escalates with increased pressure to recall), increased confidence in the validity of one’s pseudo-memories, and increased susceptibility to suggestion or leading questions are more generally the rule. (See Farthing, 1992; Smith, 1983 for typical reviews of this literature.)
In theory, therefore, hypnosis should have a greater potential to create abduction experiences than to retrieve them. This is particularly troublesome given that many more abduction reports have emerged in the course of hypnosis than through spontaneous recall (Bullard, 1987, 1994). As such, it is not surprising that critics of the abduction phenomenon cite the scientific literature on hypnosis as grounds for dismissing hypnotically retrieved accounts of alien abduction (e.g., Baker, 1990, 1992; Klass, 1988). An evaluation of this argument follows.
Applicability of hypnosis research to the abduction experience. If hypnotic memory in general, is suspect, then hypnotically retrieved memory of abductions must be suspect as well. However, this assumption depends on the extent to which the experimental situation is comparable to that associated with the abduction experience (Appelle, 1994a).